Total posts: 1,732
Posted in:
PGA2.0: Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there?
Faith can be used to prop up any belief..even those which are demonstrably false. This makes "Faith" a completely worthless basis for belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The subject of this thread is about Christians not reading their Bible, and I've provided reasons why that statement may be true. You've not argued against my point, but have focused on me and how I have strayed from a path to your god. I'm not opposed to having that conversation (again), but this thread is not the place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
These difference between us, is that I turned away from my indoctrination (ie. the unsubstantiated claims put upon me in my upbringing) and you did not. You viewed your life experiences as validation of those claims and went to the source of the claims (the Bible), but that method can be used by a person of any faith in any culture (it would simply be a different Holy book). If the 'path to god' can be used by those who would oppose your particular god, then the reasoning is flawed. One person can validate their indoctrination with life experience and find Jesus, another can find Allah, another finds Vishnu, etc.
Not to mention, this speaks to my point, that the Christian belief (most often) comes before the investigation, and, because of this, not knowing the Bible and being a Christian isn't all that surprising.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes, I explained radiometric dating covers many types of dating and that they (along with dendrochronology and ice cores) corroborate an old earth. He seems receptive.
Just in case, I am dusting off my radiometric defense. I expect to hear the typical arguments related to zircons, contamination of the sample, misuse of the methods, and possibly radio-active decay occurring at a faster rate in the past. (He attempted the last one in our discussion).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
He did start with carbon dating, but I steered him to the other methods. So, I think we're good there. We'll see.
Created:
Posted in:
I recently found out one of my close friends is a young Earth creationist. He is an engineer working in the aerospace field. Obviously, he is a smart guy, but he has a blind spot here. I pointed him to evidence which argued for an Earth older than 6000 years (his number) such as radiometric dating, dendrochronology, and ice cores. He has taken to studying radiometric dating. It has been awhile since I've had this debate, so I'd appreciate any arguments against radiometric dating from our resident young earthers or those familiar with their arguments. I'd like to be prepared for our next conversation. Thanks in advance!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There's too much unrelated to my post for me to engage your entire reply. It would drag us down too many rabbit trails. Ill just point out the mistaken reduction - I did not suggest owning a Bible was purely due to being born into a culture. I didn't even suggest revering a Bible was solely a cultural phenomenon. I suggested the Bible was sought by Peter because of influences related to "culture, authority figures, etc."...and you agree:
I don't think the Bible was picked at random by Peter. I do think he was lead to it by earthly guidance.Yes [...]
I don't see any reason for us to disagree on my views presented here. We would certainly disagree on most of the rest of your post, but that would derail the thread. I think there is potential for an interesting discussion so I'll refrain for once in my life. :-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar.Don't you think that is a cop out response?
No, not at all. I asked a valid question of Peter, and made an educated guess at his answer. He is welcome to correct me if I am wrong.
Also, for the record, your reply did not address my question as you neglected the implied indoctrination and focused on a limiting (and absurd) reduction of culture (and picking up random books).
I don't think the Bible was picked at random by Peter. I do think he was lead to it by earthly guidance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That's the point, I was taught to believe in the Christian god (without question) long before I ever read the Bible...and the Bible spoke of a very different being. Anyone comparing my belief to the Bible would rightly come to the conclusion I hadn't read my Bible...at least not all of it.For me, I was in a place of desperation when I turned to the Bible, and I read it the first time as though God were speaking to me.
What possessed you to pick up a Bible and not a Quran? Clearly, you were being influenced by culture, authority figures, etc., to believe the answers were in that particular holy book rather than another. You had beliefs about the Christian god before you had read the Bible. Our stories are not that dissimilar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is not for me to judge, but IMO, you were not steadfast, you turned back before receiving the prize.
You're right- its not for you to judge. Also, there was no "turning back". I had only known a world in which I believed God was a part at each of these milestones.
That's the point, I was taught to believe in the Christian god (without question) long before I ever read the Bible...and the Bible spoke of a very different being. Anyone comparing my belief to the Bible would rightly come to the conclusion I hadn't read my Bible...at least not all of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.One of the problems is that a number of the Christians you are talking about (who followed a church doctrine as a child) are the ones who end up converting to Christ.How can that be if they are supposedly already Christian?
There is no conversion when a Christian make a public profession of faith. It is their priorities that change not their beliefs.
Speaking from personal experience, I didn't start believing in the God of the Bible when I made a profession of faith in the Baptist church, and it was not 'finding God' or Biblical study that led me to get confirmed in an Episcopalian church. This seems to be the norm and goes to my point: Christian conceptions of god aren't necessarily related to the god described in the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.A huge generalisation.
An accurate generalization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.There are some people who were indoctrinated to believe God is an angry deity who they have to measure up to. Many of these believers left that view when they decided to find out about God by themselves. And just the further study of scripture reveals that God is not the tyrant that even some believers make him out to be.
The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you think religion itself is dangerous?
No, not necessarily. I personally think it is dogmatism that is dangerous, especially when coupled with fundamentalism. Even this requires qualification- dogmatic adherence to fundamentalist Janism isn't generally going to be dangerous to society...
I think we're on the same page here. But...there are people that label another innocent non-personality of being guilty of possessing human inadequacies......intelligent design.There's a woman who went on a diatribe about what intelligent design is around the Dover trial, attaching labels one would only do with a personality, or human organization.Would you agree that that is wrong as well?
No. Intelligent design is a product of humanity built from bias and science/scientism.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why do you say that?
You understand atheists to be pro-atheism or anti-religion (the same thing in your eyes), but I think that is overly simplistic. An atheist who is anti-religion is an anti-theist. Not all atheists are anti-religion (or "Pro-atheism"). Furthermore, someone can be a believer *and* be anti-religion. The way that you have represented atheists is without crucial nuance.
I'll check it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
This statement might be meant to reflect the disconnect between the typical conceptualization of the Christian god and the god found in the pages of the Bible. No doubt, you'll want to argue there is no disconnect. However, I'll point out god-concepts are most-often formed by upbringing and reinforcing passages long before an objective reading of the text can occur. (Ie. Indoctrination)
In short, the conceptualization is given priority and textual dissonance is wrongly dismissed as tone-deafness in the reader or critic. This is ironic since the text (not the personal conception) is alleged to be the literal word of god.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
By your understanding of atheism, there can be no option other than totalitarianism and communism.
If I'm not forced to operate under such an ignorant understanding, a US based society with a majority atheist (it wouldn't be an "atheist America"), I see religious pandering in politics going down and issues where religion was a primary basis for rejection or endorsement finding a new equilibrium.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Science doesnt support racism. The scientific view is that there is one race - the human race.
Can science be twisted? Sure, but that's not an issue with the conclusions or the methodology - that's a quirk of human nature from which no ideology (including religion) is immune.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...an argument against the virtue of innocence if ever I heard one! 😝
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So do I, but then again, I reject laying blame on an innocent person too.
<br>
I agree. More to the point, so does God. An innocent has no need of repentance. However, the only true innocents are children who do not understand, yet, the distinction of good and evil. once that knowledge is had, innocence may be claimed, but no one after that knowledge is had can legitimately claim it. They've done something wrong, and must be able to admit and correct.
Jesus is said to be an innocent, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sometimes I wonder if some atheists ever think. If an alien were to listen to an atheist, he would be dumbfounded when he found out the actual performance of the book they so denegrate!It's like listening to some idiot claim that a flavor of ice cream is terrible, yucky, hated by reasonable people, and bitter, and then find out that the flavor is vanilla and is the most popular flavor by far!
The Bible being the infallible word of a god is like preference for a particular ice cream flavor? Interesting. I agree. It's not a matter of objectivity, but personal preference - at least for those who consider it to be perfect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So, spiritual corruption equates to bad deeds, and good deeds are individual based? In other words, bad actions are due to a spiritual chasm, but anyone can do good deeds regardless of the spiritual distance from god?
That might be plausible if "there is no one that does good" wasn't written regarding non-believers. After all, you've agreed atheists do good things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Deeds = actions
The original verse you cited from the Bible explicitly contradicts your understanding. Switching to a different (and weaker) translation to avoid this is disingenuous:
When the bible says, "they are corrupt, and do not receive the love of the truth", it isn't talking about actions, it's talking about a state.They are corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists?
Hello Skep!
I would like to see it pointed out.
Hello, Roderick!
Keep in mind the context of this statement. I was not suggesting the actions of atheists are necessarily better or worse than believers.
As Ethang conceded, the Bible gives examples of each. King David sent Uriah to die so that he may have Delila. The good Samaritan was a non-believer.
In modern times, Priests rape altar boys (and the church covers it up). If for some reason you reject Catholics are Christian, then Southern Baptists have ~700 victims of sexual abuse they've tried to cover up.
On the other side, there are individuals like Bill Gates who through his foundation seeks "enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty globally, and, in the U.S., expand educational opportunities and access to information technology" [1] Then there are groups of atheists working to make the world a better place in various ways through organizations such as Foundation Beyond Belief, Atheists Helping the Homeless, Non-Belief Relief, etc.
This is not to say believers do no good or non-believers do no wrong - it is a given this is not the case. I simply challenge the connotation that believer should be seen as good and atheist should be seen as bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus.
I reject that notion. In fact, I reject a relatively common model of some Christians using the confessional like a revolving door
So do I, but then again, I reject laying blame on an innocent person too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No. The Christian model is one can be as sinful as they like BEFORE they accept Jesus.
That is the wonder of Jesus, there is always forgiveness and redemption as long as there is life in you.
Unless it is your contention that those who accept Jesus are perfect or that they cannot be forgiven for sins done in this acceptance (which I dont think you believe), rejecting Jesus so that one might 'live in sin' is unnecessary. Believers are no more righteous (or no less depraved - however you want to look at it) than non-believers. Accepting Jesus does little to prevent awful people from being awful.
Also, the verse you cited in the OP was in reference to non-believers, not all humanity. However, I accept the Bible holds humanity to be depraved, so I'll not quibble over this. As pointed out above (and conceded by you) believers and non-believers are capable of good and bad actions. This conflicts with the Biblical characterization of atheists: "They are corrupt; their deeds are vile;” So which is it? Atheist can be righteous or is there "no one who does good"? You can't sit on the fence on this one. Either the Bible is wrong or atheists do no good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It is a lack of righteousness that leads a person to reject belief in God.
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus. He died so that their sins - no matter how heinous or frequent - could be forgiven. Not believing in god for a "lack of righteousness' is nonsensical.
Secondly, the Bible says non-believers are "corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good." Where is the demonstration of this? Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists? The fact of the matter is that people, religious or not, commit crimes and do the right things too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Did you know that concepts made popular in science fiction were first in the bible?
The Bible has some of the best fiction. 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
To me, it seems dubious to label things which are not (well) explained by science as "miracles". That is a god of the gaps argument...or is it 'miracle of the gaps'? Also, assuming atheists have "faith" in these things...so what? I mean what's the point? Is it 'atheist are just as irrational as believers"? I don't think that strengthens the pro-belief view like you might imagine. 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
"You are arguing that perception of design equates to design. This is fatally flawed in 2 ways."no i am not
I encourage you to re-evaluate your argument. You are not providing objective evidence of design (ie. Something that can be verified and validated by a disinterested third party), but rather an opinion of design that is very much dependent on bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Simple, and ineffective. It completely discounts human nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You are arguing that perception of design equates to design. This is fatally flawed in 2 ways.
1. If we we are to take beneficial aspects of biology as signs of design (and a designer) then shouldn't we also take negative aspects of biology as evidence of non-design? Any possible perceptions of design can be canceled out by perceptions of non-design.
2. The appearance of X is not X. For instance, the appearance of magic (say, by an illusionist) is not magic. It is the same with design.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It is telling that instead of providing evidence, the strategy has been all about explaining what evidence is. I'm interested in more than definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You're posting links rather than supporting your position. If you have reasonably reached your position, then you should understand the evidence well enough to explain it yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
The more dynamics involved the more likely there is a Creator than not, even in the case of aliens and a simulation.
This means nothing to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Evidence would be something that strongly points to a single conclusion. Nothing you have mentioned rises to this level.
In other words, the appearance (or perception) of design is not design.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Have they increased the time limits on debate on this site? I thought it was 72 hours per round.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'd love to have a formal debate on abortion again. My schedule is very busy, but I would make time for you should you be interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
What is the evidence for intelligent design? I don't personally subscribe the the notion that we were created by aliens or that we live in a simulation, but even still, these would not necessarily demand a deity - only a pre-existing and/or a more advanced civilization of natural beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Yes, of course, a Christian can be pro-choice. I'm sure you can find supporting verse in the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
I would be interested in debating abortion (or some derivative) should anyone be interested. I'm pro-choice. Send me a message if interested.
Created:
Posted in:
What could better illustrate contradictions in the Bible than a thread full of believers arguing over dissonant passages in the Bible?
That being said, I think this topic gets much too much attention from the newly de-converted atheists and the entrenched believers. There are contradictions - so what? Most have very little significance to Christian theology. It is hardly worth a discussion, imo.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's why you need to establish clear Standards-of-Evidence (common-ground).
True, and an unqualified claim of no evidence is not the way to do that.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
FWIW, I think your opponent was right to object to your blanket statement that there is "no evidence". There is crappy evidence for theistic gods ...just like there is crappy evidence for alien abductions. Crappy evidence is still evidence.
You're giving your opponent (or the audience) an easy way to dismiss your argument (or you) as irrational.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Real life picture of Thor. He exists...QED.
Seriously though, you are using a very narrow understanding of 'evidence' (theistic arguments). A believer might point to anecdotal or physical evidence. Your thread title (as-is) could be shown false by weak evidence like "revelation" or an empty tomb.
Created:
Posted in:
That's much better than declaring identity on behalf of others, but, ..whatever - you've answered my question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But since there are so many people who tell me to lesve, I just don't see it.
I've not seen anyone asking you to leave, but assuming this has happened often...are these "people" all atheists?
Created: