Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Did you know humans and dogs share 84 percent of their DNA? My dog is an Atheist (well, he probably is an agnostic) and he is pretty happy.
Hi FLRW,
thanks for your comments. I typically enjoy your thoughtful replies.
It is good to know that dogs and humans share 84% of their DNA. Are you suggesting that they both have the same designer?
Your dog is an atheist? Well - how do you know? An agnostic? Hmmm???
Jesus once said that if people stopped worshiping God, the rocks would ring out. I wonder if Jesus is suggesting that rocks are theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant.Well let me tell you lawyer, that the only complaint I have with YOU and Christians , is that you can never prove you case.We don't have to prove God exists. LOL! it is not us with the eye problem or with the unbelief.Well you do if you insist that god exists. And you really need to fire your script writer. He / they are doing you absolutely no favours and are making you look amateurish and appear to be very retarded when compared to all of the quantification that you claim to have. And of late your posts certainly don't become a wo/man or letters.
Christians don't generally come into places like this to debate the existence of God. Atheists are the ones who do that. Atheists are the ones with the problem. Or with the lack of faith. Or with the background issues that make them hate God. You hate God - so clearly and you don't even believe in him. That is sad and pathetic. To spend many hours a day spitefully trying to destroy God or the thought of him or to make him look bad.
It is the Atheist who is the predominant assertionist on these pages. He is the one constantly demanding answers. I provide answers when I have one. And I don't when I don't. I live and I learn. I make mistakes and when confronted I try to educate myself so as not to do it again. I am not perfect - I don't find it necessary to have all answers. But nor will I change my entire worldview because one person comes up with something I had not thought of before. And that is the intent of your posts. When you start to actually want real answers and to learn - it will be the first time.
They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert.Well I don't. I only ask you to adress what it is that YOU claim .I only ask that you support and prove your claims. [A]But you don't have to. No one is forcing you. You make the choice either to try to defend your "god breathed" scriptures or simply ignore. There is one or two other options that are open to you but you Christians let your pride stop you. And YOU in particular, let not just your pride, but your absolute arrogance and ignorance . But I suggest that you should never come to the table empty handed as you do. You have shown me that you know very little about these scriptures above what you have been taught to " pass on" by others. As you freely admit here >>>>.Do you even read what you write? I talk about God.Actually you - write words about god - and I have to wonder why if "words are just words" according to you? I mean, whats the point of writing anything at all? << can you answer that question?But did you read what I have wrote above at [A] in that quote of mine? " But you don't have to. No one is forcing you".And makes no difference to me. HOW MANY TIMES!!!?? I ask a question you don't have to answer it. In fact I prefer it when you don't or can't, I usually suspect the latter when it comes to my questions?. I am quite content to just keep highlighting the ambiguous biblical half stories and posing my questions, especially to people such as yourself, Reverend ; a qualified person that claims to have "I studied and was tutored by academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".#91 and all those I honestly find it all a great experience , but I would have also preferred it to also be a challenge too.
You really are tiresome. You think if you nail me about one comment I made six months ago - that gives you a right to bring it up everytime you talk to me. And you think this is a knock out punch for you. Well goody for you. My comments to our resident local OC priest was for him. I answered him. It is none of your business. And I am not going to give private information on this post no matter how much you troll me and try to manipulate me. What part of I am not going to give you any more private information about my life, do you not understand? I think you are a Creep with a capital C.
You continually assert that "you have not seen any evidence for God's existence". That is your assertion. That is your positive assertion. Except you are too afraid to own it.See this is where you are making GIANT, GIANT assumptions and "assertions" about what I believe. So show me just one single place on the whole of this forum where I have said I do not believe in the existence of god/gods or have even said that I - " have not seen any evidence for God's existence". <<<<<<<<< these are your assumptions and "assertions". You just love you double standards when they suite you don't you.
Are you an atheist? Yes. What is an atheist? An atheist is one who denies the existence of God. No it is someone who says that they have found no evidence for the existence of God. Earlier on I was not sure whether you believed in God or not. Yet you have on countless occasions confirmed that are an atheist.
would I have an agenda? You would be better of using Matthew as opposed to Mark. Nevertheless, that is a commission for the apostles. Is it able to be extended to others in the church?PossiblyThen what exactly is your function as a Pastor and a Chaplin. What is the point of you and your ILK at all if not to spread to the world "the word of god" ? <<<< do you see how silly your sounding Reverend? Do you see how contradictory you coming across. Do you not see how in your desperation to be contrary you are denying that you have no religious function !?
My function as a pastor is in relation to my local church. It is not in relation to you or to anyone else who is not a member of my church. On this site - my pastoral functions are irrelevant except when it relates to my own person experience.
But is it a command to others apart from the apostles?I don't care. And you should know. I have simply quoted your own scriptures where Jesus tells his followers to go out and "preach the gospel" whatever it it was. Did these followers simply preach and not teach others to be teachers and preachers, so that they in turn would also carry on the teaching of Jesus? Do you not see how fkn stupid you are sounding.
You have quoted one verse out of many - of which you simply rip it out of context - yes that old hairy chestnut. Given you don't even understand what context is - as your reference to some dodgy cartoon recently demonstrates - that does not surprise me. But you don't have any authority over me old boy - just like I don't have any over you. You don't know how to interpret the bible - if you did - then everyone would agree with you - or at least some would. But you are a novel interpreter. You are our very own website's David Koresh. You make it up as you go along and BERATE anyone who does not agree with you.
The church would not make such an assertion? Since it is your assertion, I wonder if you will attempt to prove it?I think my "assertion" is proven by the BIBLICAL fact that Jesus tells his followers to go out and preach to the world, Mark 16:15 or are you going to deny that too?Now if this is not your "agenda" <<< your word, then what is your purpose? And why did you spend all of those years of training into becoming a minister of the church doctrine? You tell us that you "studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".#91.You tell us that you also qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation to lecture student at universities" where you charge for the privallage.#20. You further tell us " I study the original languages, translate them to English" #25.And to round it all off, and this is the relevant part of your academic history where the particular point here is YOU not having an "agenda" is YOU TELL US >. "I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i havereceived".#20 <<<<<<<< So what is it that you are "passing on" to all of those university students with all those years of religious academia under your belt, if its not the "word of god"Reverend? Do you see what a nonsense you are creating for yourself (or someone else is).
Mark 16:15 is disputed by most scholars. But I am sure you know that. Jesus tells his disciples - in that particular case - Apostles to go out. You will need to do more than just refer to this verse. It simply is not good enough to try and make a doctrine up out of one verse. You do it a lot - which is why your views on the bible are so warped.
My personal reasons are my own personal reasons. They are none of your business. I am not going to give you more fuel to try and burn me. Passing on what I have learned is what teachers do. Scientists for example - pass on the information they have learned. It is the basis of learning and education. You do realize how scary you sound when you reject the learning of the past. I said "in most parts" by the way. Not in every part. And not in ALL Parts. This means not only do I respect what has come before - but that I do my own work. The only nonsense is your words - words which suggest that any learning but Stephen's is acceptable. As I said - David Koresh.
It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist.Well in my particular case I simply read, scrutinize and question the scriptures. I don't care if or not there is a god. I don't care that Jesus believed he was dying for me (if he died at all). . I didn't ask him to sacrifice himself and from what I have read, he didn't want to either. And I like to take responsibility for my own sins and mistakes, and the thought of someone taking the blame or responsibility for something that I did , frankly appalls me, Reverend, doesn't it you?I treat these ancient texts as a history, a very bad and flawed history.You lie again. You do care.You really are desperate to be right about something and anything, aren't you.
LLO@ you.
You like most atheists put the lie or misconception that you don't care - but you do.Prove it?
I don't need to. You do by returning to repost. If you did not care - you would never respond to me. Proof - absolutey. But I can't wait for your denial - again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
didn't stop you introducing criminal law and legal advice into a thread when I asked you a simple yes or no biblical question, now did it Reverend? Would you like reminding;ThisLOL@ your continued sleight of hands. In the first place - I never introduced legal advice.But you did. When I asked you to answer a simple yes no question you told us that in your capacity as a lawyer that you advise your clients "never to answer a Yes or No question" #15 thereby introducing legal advice and lawful practice into a thread. I am not interested your pathetic semantics. You just love your double standards when they suite you, don't you Pastor?
You wanted me to answer with a simple yes or no. I told you to grow up and realize that the world and God are more complex than that. You insisted because you don't like people proving you that you are a simpleton. And that got right up your nose. So you continued to insist. You insulted me. So I merely threw back at - that such expectations by you were attempting to lead me into a trap. Something that lawyers do when they cross-examine opposition witnesses. I indicated that lawyers advise their clients to make no comment statements and I also indicated that I would always counsel my clients to answer as broadly as possible and not to give a yes or no answer. I spoke from my experience. And from that point on - despite the fact that I was attempting to demonstrate WHY I DID NOT NEED TO answer with a yes or no, not give legal advise or precedents - you decided - you would hook into me - and try and make yourself a hero. And perhaps now you are in the eyes of those who already agree with you. Despite the fact that you have not actually proved your case on B of P.
I simply drew on legal principles in relation to b of pNot in that thread I pointed out.#15. It was all legal and lawful then to do so then wasn't it? You used legal practice to avoid answering a simple yes or no question. My point was that suited you then but here you are wanting to over turn the universally accepted code of law accepted by all legal practices that the B Of P rests with YOU, the one that brings the claim.and the legal principles are : Burden of Proof: How it WorksIn civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact.It's a fundamental principle.: which you are trying to deny
I used my experience in that point in relation to answering a Yes or a NO. I explained to you why I would not do it because I was not going to fall into your semantics traps. You fall into your own trap all of the time. This is why people laugh at your so called logic and reasoning.
I am not denying the B. of P. You don't want to see my point. And let me prove that to you. If you understand what I am saying - put it back to me in your own words with a positive spin. And if you cannot do that - without sarcasm or negatively- then you prove conclusively you do not understand.
I did not EVEN introduce legal principles.That is because it clearly suites you not to. To do so would blow your B of P argument clean out of the water.But look at what you AGAIN state yourself here on this thread BECAUSE IT SUITES YOU>>
I love how you cut of half of the paragraphs. You cut and delete and post. You are sneaky.
I love how people talk about things like facts when they don't have any way to ACTUALLY prove it. None of this would pass a court room test. #11So again, you are refusing evidence presented on this thread because according to you "None of this would pass a court room test. #11" <<<,,this is you introducing legal and lawful practice and "principles" into a thread when it SUITES YOU!!!!. You should fire whoever is writing your script for you because whoever it is they making you look even more ridiculous for someone that claims to be a wo/man of letters AND a lawyer!!!!! Or at lest get them to read all of your comments on this thread before answering on your behalf.
Let me repeat myself - I agree with the burden of proof - on the person who makes the positive assertion. What part of that don't you understand? Are you a lemon?
Your problem is - you don't understand the appropriate and normal exceptions to the rule. And yes, there are exceptions to the rule. One of those exceptions is when the default position is an axiom. Or in some jurisdictions, a tradition.
Learn the principle, dear Stephen, learn what it applies to. Then see if there are exceptions to the rules. And see why those exceptions apply. If you want to use a legal example - look up the rule on Hearsay. Find out what it means. Then see how it applies. Then go and see if there are legitimate exceptions to the rule. And see how they apply.
You treat yourself like a fool over and over again. The B. of P. is a rule. It has exceptions. You should at least give the semblance that you have done your homework before pretending that you understand it.
Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong.Even if that is true, it still doesn't alter the fact, Reverend, that YOU make the claim that god is real, that he created everything on the planet and in the universe and that every word in the holy scriptures were as you say " breathed by god himself". PROVE IT!I am sorry - this post is not about theists making a claim about God being true. It is about an atheist wanting to know about evidence.That's correct. Is about asking for evidence concerning the existence of god because the Burden of Proof in on the theist. And you have been arguing - against the universally accepted law that the B of P is on s/he brings the claim. And it has turned out then that you can't even prove your claim.
Ding dong. Is there anyone at home? If this post is about atheists asserting positively that they have found no evidence for the existence of God, then the b . of p is on them to demonstrate their positive assertion. Personally, I don't think ANY Atheist recently has looked for so called evidence. They recently are trying to rely on a flawed understanding of the B .of P and figure that if theists don't prove it - they don't have to do any work themselves. After all, since the atheist has not got a clue what sort of evidence they are looking for - when they are confronted with it - they would not know what they are looking at. For them - it is easy. Reject. Reject. Reject. They have fooled themselves into believing a lie.
IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong.I know it is your job to defend and prove your belief and your position and your claim that god exists .God does a pretty good job himself.Does he? Then lets some some solid and satisfactory evidence for that claim - YOUR claim.
Yes, go and read the Bible. One thing I notice when I read the bible - is that NOWHERE in any page in that book - is there even one attempt by anyone to reason or prove that GOD exists. This is pretty significant given they are all so ignorant - according to you. If they were that ignorant - then perhaps there would even be a semblance of such an attempt. But lo and behold -no where. Now that leads to a great question. Why don't you attempt to answer that one? Why does not one person in the bible attempt to prove God's existence? The answer is straightforward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed if we are serious in investigating the world.
I understand the perplexment in someone saying "God is an explanation". Did I say that? I might have. Please show me where I said that. I certainly do not use it in the "GOD of the gaps hypothesis" and strawman that many atheists accuse theists of.
Yes, I would be interested to see where you suggest I said that.
The Big Bang theory as an explanation of everything is a similar ploy. I find it incredibly baffling that atheists tend to do this. If they cannot explain it - they just say - "one day we will find out" knowing full well that this is a copout as there are no particular reason for thinking that they will find out.
Removing God from any serious investigation is a flawed move. To do so - requires assumptions that will always be found in a conclusion. Logically if you start with the end - your premises must contain those elements. If you start with an investigation without God in your premises, you will and can only come to conclusions with God not in the picture. This is how the atheist reasons. IT is however not how the scientist reasons. Thank God for intellectually honest scientists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why would God create flawed beingsGod did not make flawed beings. A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being.They just make flawed choices. Probably because they are made in the image of god himself.
But the problem - and one which you never seriously engage with is - what about the all the non-flawed choices that are made? What about the good in the world? What about all the good God does?
Rather than seriously engage with this topic, you ignore it, ridicule it, and pretend it does not exist.
God made humans. He gave them free will. A person cannot love without free will. Yes, God could have made robots. People without free will. God does not want robots. He desires people to love him freely. Yet unlike you, God understands that this requires humans who have the capacity to fall. You see God is not utilitarian. He does not believe the ends justifies the means. He believes that the journey is just as important as the destination.
God is perfect. Humanity is and was made in God's image. A person with the ability to make flawed choices is more perfect than one that cannot. That is probably too profound for you to get your brain around. But go on - spend a few micro seconds at least trying to understand it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Will all people worship Jesus? and if so, why would this make them true Christians?Is there a difference between knowledge now in this temporary time and knowledge in the eternals?You are asking to many of the questions because if you no the true god and you are praying to the true god then you will have the true answers.
Utanity, God commands his people to ask questions. Even the hard ones. We might not always or indeed ever find the right answers. But that is fine. We keep trusting and praying and asking questions.
The Christian Faith is not blind faith. Not like the Atheist. Atheists know only blind faith.
After all, if the atheist is always seeking the believer to prove that God exists, then they (the Atheist) prove the lie that they have NOT genuinely sought to find any evidence for the existence of God. It is impossible to seek evidence if you don't know what sort of evidence you are looking for. How would they know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Totally amazing the self-delusion of people like some of the posters on here. They come on here - and offer completely novel and unproven commentary on their own personal doctrines - and then wonder why other people look at their words - scratch their heads and look back to their own understandings. We have our own David Koresh on this forum - let's hope that the readers have good enough sense to discern properly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Good question.
There have always been Jews who worshiped the Trinity and there have always been Jews who did not.
The Jewish religion split in two at the coming of Jesus. Many became Christians. The rest started a new sect which has evolved into modern Jewry.
The split involved - the person and purpose of the Messiah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Stated by TS a few posts back in this forum.My logic is not that a lot of people have agreed therefore it must be right. It is that the default position is in place for a reason, and just because someone comes along who disagrees with it - does not mean that suddenly the tradition has to prove itself. Why should the newcomer get the right to question the tradition without first putting up their reasons for why the tradition should be challenged?
Absolutely and I hold this position because it is a good and right position. A default position - or axiom - if that helps you understand more clearly, does not need to demonstrate over and over again its purpose, strengths or weaknesses. A default position does not get to be a default position unless it has sufficient support in the first place. My point about the newcomer was not suggesting - or opposed to the notion that the person asserting does not need to prove their position. It is however noting that a newcomer is the one making the assertion and that the assumption ought to hold weight until the newcomer provides a significant reason for their new assertion before placing a new burden on the default position.
For instance imagine if I came to you and said - prove that reason and logic is reasonable. Reason and Logic is of course an axiom but it is also a positive assertion. Do you need to prove everytime that reason and logic is reasonable? The answer is no. And what is more - it is an axiom - in other words its own proof is its own circular reasoning. It is unprovable in other words. Hence, if I came to you and said - checkmate, I have seen no evidence that supports your proposition about reason and logic, therefore we should chuck it out and use my axiom, revelation. You would say - sorry old chap.
God exists is not just a positive assertion it is an axiom. Axioms use circular reasoning to prove themselves. If an axiom is proved by anything else except for itself - it is by definition not an axiom. Hence to place - the burden of proof on such an axiom is nonsense. It is an absurdity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Most of modern biology is based on the fact of observation and scientific methodology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Burden of Proof: How it WorksIn civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact.It's a fundamental principle.Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first,before the defendant.It'snot for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant.The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.To satisfy the burden of proof:
- the party with the burden of proof
- must prove the alleged fact
- to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof. https://hallellis.co.uk/burden-proof-balance-probabilities/#:~:text=Burden%20of%20Proof%3A%20How%20it,%2D%20first%2C%20before%20the%20defendant.
- Are you sure that your a lawyer! Reverend?
Tradesecrete wrote: Now if we can show which court room we are in - let us begin. Are we in the criminal or the civil court room? but we are in not in such court rooms, are we? We are in a courtroom of public opinion. What are the rules here?This didn't stop you introducing criminal law and legal advice into a thread when I asked you a simple yes or no biblical question, now did it Reverend? Would you like reminding;
LOL@ your continued sleight of hands. In the first place - I never introduced legal advice. I simply drew on legal principles in relation to b of p and that was when you were accusing me and I indicated that it was on you because you were making assertions. I chose not to answer you save and except to say I don't have to answer. Hence why I referred to "no comment" and as to my counsel to my clients.
Here in this thread, I did not EVEN introduce legal principles. As far as I can recall, that was you. Checkmate indicated about the burden of proof and my response was not on a legal basis or a courtroom basis but on this forum and in circumstances relating to "tradition" or the default position of a philosophy or doctrine. As far as I concerned - the differences between a court room discussion and a discussion about a default positions are not at all comparable. Yes, I do agree that those making assertions ought to prove them. Yet this can be distinguished when we are talking about traditional and default positions. There are assumptions that are made that do not need to be proved. For instance - the axiom of reason or logic DOES NOT need to be proved despite it being asserted. It is assumed to be correct and it is up to the person wanting to do something different that needs to be provide their reasoning for why logic or reasoning ought not be the default position. Even in a court room there are assumptions that are assumed, and where the burden of proof is reversed. And it does happen frequently.
Tradesecrete wrote: #15Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers.Suited you then didn't it, Reverend. And yes , if you prefer, we are in a court opinion so to say to anyone " “ who are you to question this old belief” is simply YOU attempting to gain the high ground and wield your imagined authority on the subject matter.
I think that when there is a default position - that it is person who wants to propose something other than the default position who needs to establish that such default position is no longer required. Axioms do matter. I am allowed to take the high ground here. Just as you want to take the high ground. And don't try and pretend it is otherwise. You know whoever has the high ground succeeds. Why do you think you are so condescending at the moment? For all intents and purposes you cannot afford to be wrong.
What are the rules here?Deary me. Don't you know Reverend lawyer? Facts & Proof are the rules. Like the FACTS & Proof of law written and universally accepted law that I have shown you in my quote that states actual FACTS about where the Burden of Proof actually lays and not what ones “ attitude to is" towards where the Burden of Proof lays. You can't simply dismiss facts because they don't agree with you, Reverend. Like me, facts don't care about your feelings, Reverend.
Of course I know. I don't ask questions of others I don't know the answer too. B. of P. changes even in the court room. And when there are assumptions - these can be questioned - but not unless there is a significant reason to do so. Imagine if every assumption based on science and statistics were questioned? They are frequently - and often demonstrated to be false - yet, continued to be used. Why? Because the alternative is too frightening.
Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong.Even if that is true, it still doesn't alter the fact, Reverend, that YOU make the claim that god is real, that he created everything on the planet and in the universe and that every word in the holy scriptures were as you say " breathed by god himself". PROVE IT!
I am sorry - this post is not about theists making a claim about God being true. It is about an atheist wanting to know about evidence. Quite a different thing.
IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong.I know it is your job to defend and prove your belief and your position and your claim that god exists .
My job is not to defend and prove God exists. That is your opinion based upon your assumptions. I don't have any need to prove God exists- just like I don't have any need to prove oxygen to breathe. I see no reason to prove God exists - God does a pretty good job himself. And everything - established the existence of God.
I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant.Well let me tell you lawyer, that the only complaint I have with YOU and Christians , is that you can never prove you case.
We don't have to prove God exists. LOL! it is not us with the eye problem or with the unbelief.
They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert.Well I don't. I only ask you to adress what it is that YOU claim .I only ask that you support and prove your claims. But you don't have to. No one is forcing you. You make the choice either to try to defend your "god breathed" scriptures or simply ignore. There is one or two other options that are open to you but you Christians let your pride stop you. And YOU in particular, let not just your pride, but your absolute arrogance and ignorance . But I suggest that you should never come to the table empty handed as you do. You have shown me that you know very little about these scriptures above what you have been taught to " pass on" by others. As you freely admit here >>>>.
Do you even read what you write? I talk about God. You continually assert that "you have not seen any evidence for God's existence". That is your assertion. That is your positive assertion. Except you are too afraid to own it. Like every atheist - you are all wind. But the fact is - you have never actually looked for evidence because - of your unbelief. I have never looked for fairies. I don't believe in fairies. But I don't call myself an afairist. I don't go to fairy sites and make it my life's ambition to prove to people who believe in fairies that fairies are not true. Nor do I ask for people who believe in fairies to prove that they exist. I don't need too.
Tradesecrete wrote: I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i havereceived. I do not have an agenda. I really don't. #20Indeed, which as to be one of your most contradictory statements that you have ever made on the forum. Why ? Because you do have an agenda, or have you forgot what your god commanded you to do? Here's a reminder for you Pastor, Mark 16:15 You are a minister aren't you and a Pastor? you claim you are here>>
Why would I have an agenda? You would be better of using Matthew as opposed to Mark. Nevertheless, that is a commission for the apostles. Is it able to be extended to others in the church? Possibly. But is it a command to others apart from the apostles? The church would not make such an assertion? SInce it is your assertion, I wonder if you will attempt to prove it?
It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist.Well in my particular case I simply read, scrutinize and question the scriptures. I don't care if or not there is a god. I don't care that Jesus believed he was dying for me (if he died at all). . I didn't ask him to sacrifice himself and from what I have read, he didn't want to either. And I like to take responsibility for my own sins and mistakes, and the thought of someone taking the blame or responsibility for something that I did , frankly appalls me, Reverend, doesn't it you?I treat these ancient texts as a history, a very bad and flawed history.
You lie again. You do care. You like most atheists put the lie or misconception that you don't care - but you do. Otherwise you would be of doing something different. But no - instead - you are here trying to prove your case. Because you do care.
It is the atheist who is always making a complaint. IT is the atheist who is always trying to prosecute the case.You are not a lawyer at all are you
More ad hominin attacks. If we removed these from your responses, perhaps you might have room to add something positive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Hmmm - the Christians worship Jesus as God. When did the other Abrahamic religions start worshiping Jesus?But they will worship jesus one day then they will be true christians beacuse they just denile about jesus now.
Will all people worship Jesus? and if so, why would this make them true Christians?
Is there a difference between knowledge now in this temporary time and knowledge in the eternals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Jesus is a demigod... A GOD proxy.And my point was that these various GOD proxies are all derived of the same original GOD hypothesis.Worship the SUN and refer to it as the SUN of GOD if you like, it's just another GOD proxy..... And no more or less meaningful.Though it could argued that realistically, the SUN of GOD is actually far more meaningful to us than the old SON of GOD myth.
Jesus is not a demigod. He is God. That is the biblical teaching. It is the Church teaching. Whatever outside of the Bible and outside of the Church might attribute - is irrelevant in respect of his deity.
It goes without saying, that copy cats require an original. People don't copy things unless they see the value in the original.
Why would anyone want to worship the sun, a creation of the Son? That is like speaking to a bit of wood and hoping that it might talk back. Some people like it. But not for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As far as I am aware, all Abrahamic religions worship the same GOD.It's the DEMIGODS that are the problem.Hmmm - the Christians worship Jesus as God. When did the other Abrahamic religions start worshiping Jesus?So then are you saying that the Christian god Jesus - the first and the last - is not also the ancient Hebrew god Yahweh?
I take the view that the OT God is the Trinity. Muslims and Modern Jews do not worship the Trinity. Christians do. The Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Why would God create flawed beings
God did not make flawed beings. A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is correct Stephen, in relation to your opening poser. No one who is a sinner would ask Jesus to die for them. And the question is why? Human nature. Total depravity. Dead in sin. Slave to sin.
C. S Lewis once gave an interesting example of human nature. A man walks out of a bank after robbing it. He has a bag of money in one hand and a gun in the other. He looks across the street and sees a police officer. What ought he do? What would we be the right thing to do? Put his gun down and the bag of money - get down on his knees and give himself up. That is what he should do - that would be the right thing to do. But what will he do? He will do what his human nature will tell him to do. Either shoot the police officer or run for his life.
A sinner confronted with the reality of a holy God does the same thing. What ought he do? Fall on his knees and ask for forgiveness. What does he do? "All day I have held out my hand to you, and not one - came to me." They join forum sites and try and prove God does not exist.
Sinners - would never ask Jesus to die for them. God however does not seek for people's permission to do anything. He is God. And to suggest that he needs your permission is demonstration only that the god you choose not to believe in is not the God of the Bible.
Oh by the way - I never read anything past the opening poser.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Very true.
The bible talks about the time or years from Adam and Eve forward - but not specifically about the days prior. After all God in the first verse created the heavens and the earth. And it is not until verse 3 that day is mentioned.
How long between 1 and 3?
I dnk. If it is millions of years- then the answer is based on assumptions. If it is much less - then again based on certain assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
You cant see god because it is like the true god he is everywhere and if something is everywhere then how can you see something what is everywhere. But here is being rubbing because you cannot see the false gods too because the false gods they are nowhere.
Hey Mikey,
To see God, you need to collect a pair of special glasses. These special glasses are divine (divining) glasses. They have special wooden arms made of willow. The same stuff cricket bats are made of. But because of their special elements that enable true divining, such as gold and water etc, they are also purposely engineered to assist with the divining of the Divine.
Pretty cool eh.? Divining glasses - from the sea of Glass, mentioned in Revelation, with special arms made of Willow.
I have a few left. You can pm me if you would like to purchase some.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As far as I am aware, all Abrahamic religions worship the same GOD.It's the DEMIGODS that are the problem.
Hmmm - the Christians worship Jesus as God. When did the other Abrahamic religions start worshiping Jesus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
curious thought - that it might be Willows. I thought he was on a permanent ban.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
AAHAHA. You know it's lost when you have to call the post petty to ignore the points made. I was actually very excited for your response towards Stephen, but to be fair, I didn't expect much from you.You quite literally got your little belief that atheists bear the BoP ripped to shreds.The least you could do is admit defeat and say "yes I do bear the BoP," instead of weasling away.
Hi Checkmate,
And please tell me how Stephen's post ripped my belief to shreds. I obviously did not get the memo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
I do not think it is right to enforce this ideology, especially since it’s so morbid, on a small child simply because you believe in it and want to pass it on.So then is it what is wrong to teach to the childrens about sexing no but you dont tell them that they have to wak their doolie into womens. So you dont tell childrens that they will go to hell if they play the mortil kombat all the time you just say wow it is getting to be warm in here when you die.
Utanity - Are you for real? Are you another charade in this place? There are enough charades around here without adding to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No one is forcing you.
But isn't that the entire point of your little petty post.
To make me prove what I believe.
Perhaps if you repeat your words enough - they might CAUSE me to answer. LLOLL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ethang,
I think his obsession is clear. I don't know why. The Brother's comes pretty close too.
I reckon they both sleep and dream about me each night. I should feel flattered but honestly, it is a little bit creepy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Does this make them smarter, just because they read it? No it does not,That is because when they read the Bible it gos into the ear on one side of the head then it all comes out on the other side so it doesnt stay in the head or else they will be a christian. So it is proved that they are not as smart.
Hi Utanity,
I am not sure what the point of your post and even topic is.
If a non-theist wants to think they are smarter than religious people that is a matter for them. They find it difficult to believe that religious people can be intelligent and even have academic qualifications. In fact I think the entire idea insults them because they think they are smart and obviously religious people must be dunces.
But that is their problem not ours. We don't have anything to prove to them. In my view - we ought to be humble and not full of pride. This means following Jesus, who being God, became man and humbled himself. Think about that for a moment. The God of all creation, the wisest and most intelligent of all, put that aside in order to demonstrate what true leadership is and what really matters.
Secular leaders think it is all about control and authority. God says true leadership is about humility and service. We used to call our leaders, public servants. That is because they led by serving. Now they lead by telling us how to live. Quite different philosophies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And to keep with the question in the OP It all seems very contradictory that we have our sins washed away if we repent and are baptised and the bible doubles down on this by telling us Jesus, gods only son and also god at the same time himself was sacrificed and died and that too saved us from our sins. So why is anyone going to hell?
If you took the time to read the passages about baptism, you would have noticed that John the Baptist makes a very interesting point which you just omit to talk about.
He says "I wash you with water - but he who comes after me - will wash you with the Holy Spirit".
Now Stephen, This is John indicating to us that his own baptism, the one he performs is deficient. Last time i raised this - you intentionally took us on a wild goose chase - exploring John's own personal baptism and authority. But you glossed over this.
John is telling us that the Messiah's baptism - with the Holy Spirit is what they are waiting for.
John was preparing the Jews for Jesus. Now if John is saying his was deficient and that the Messiah's was necessary - then your question about sin being washed away without Jesus' baptism is answered. John washed the outside - Jesus washes the heart. Unless the heart is cleansed, then reconciliation with God is not possible. The implication of remaining unreconciled is separation and whatever that means - which I take to mean a non-believer living in darkness and sin here in this life, and then Hell in the next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
God does not discriminate on the basis of intelligence. God is interested in loyalty to him, not who has the most degrees etc.But you dont get the sents because Christians are smarter because they must learn more than the atheists because there is lots of knowledge in the Bible and there is no knowledge in mortil kombat and texting and sexting. And Christians learn more on Sunday when they go to the church but atheists learn about zippo when they go to the mall and buy the dope.
I don't think Christians are on average smarter than non-believers. There is no reason to be. Yes, the Bible has lots of wonderful information within its pages. All of it is in fact the Word of God. Nevertheless, you would have observed even here on this forum site that many non-believers read the bible as well. Does this make them smarter, just because they read it? No it does not, and it does not make Christians smarter either. If you are talking about the difference between intelligence and wisdom, then you might have a point.
Wisdom is quite different to Intelligence. Yet, I also know lots of non-believers who are wise. Not necessarily with the wisdom that I prefer, but nonetheless, with wisdom that comes from experience and from a broad perspective on the world. I also met a lot of non-wise Christians. Yet this should not matter. After all, God does not choose his people because they are intelligent or wise. He does want them to become more intelligent and wise. In fact it would be expected that Christians would want to learn more about the world in which they live because God made it and because God has commanded humanity to look after it and care for it.
The wisdom of humanity in the 20th and 21st centuries has exploited the world in the pursuit of materials and wealth and happiness. It has created more wars and killed more people that the rest of history combined. It has created famines and hunger and disease - the like of which we have never seen. It has built war machines and weapons of the capability of such destruction which could literally wipe us out. This is the wisdom of humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Hi Utanity, although I would love to agree with you, I actually take the view that smarts or intelligence is not part of the general distinction between theists and non-theists.
There are intelligent people on both sides of the discussion and there are very non-intelligent people on both sides of the equation.
God does not discriminate on the basis of intelligence. God is interested in loyalty to him, not who has the most degrees etc.
Faith is one of the words we use in the Christian religion. Faith must not be blind however. It must be an intelligent faith of adults or parents or guardians.
We cannot persuade someone into the kingdom of God. We cannot manipulate someone in. We cannot buy our way in. We cannot be born into the family of God.
Our color, our sex, our sexual orientation, our gender identity, our creed, our political persuasions, our academic credential, our nationality, our economic position, none of these are relevant to our salvation.
In fact it is interesting that God chose Israel - the smallest of nations, the poorest of nations, the shame of the world, to be his people. In God's kingdom, humility and not pride is more valuable. Hence - to say I am smarter than you or you are smarter than me is the fruit of pride not of humility. If an atheist wants to lift up intelligence as something valuable - then that is their prerogative. But Christians ought to take the line of humility. Turn the other cheek. Looking at others as better than ourselves.
This is not to suggest being walked over - but it is to emphasis that who we are is because of God and not us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is a non-sequitur, in the case that you KNOW for an absolute fact that a person would commit genocide, then yes it is absolutely right to never have that child. God apparently KNEW for an absolute fact, EVERYTHING. Beyond that, he was the one who made us unable to comprehend his reasoning, we are literally classically below him in intelligence, that means us being tempted or tricked is also his fault.
I am glad you are not my father. Why would you judge me before I had actually committed any offence - indeed even while I am still completely innocent? You cruel and evil person.
Just because you knew absolutely I would commit genocide - does not give you a legal or even a moral right to stop me from being born. And certainly not before I commenced doing such an evil act. You ought to instruct me to love others and to treat them well. Caution me not to do it. Instruct me that if I do anything like that, that I would be punished and receive the appropriate punishment. But you are not a loving father. You are cruel and twisted and even perverted because you think that I should be unjustly punished for offences I had not yet committed and which if you carried out your punishment - then I would never commit. In other words, your cruelty would be aggravated because I never got around to committing these offences. I am so pleased you are not my father.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
t doesn't matter. Free Will that is, because according to your own god we don't really "choose" anything. There is a set plan by god and everything will go according to that plan. The bible was the first source of determinism. Lmao
The Bible is not deterministic in the sense of Plato and Aristotle. Unlike the greek notion, the bible distinguishes between first and second causes. It also is an example of covenantal determinism. The greek understanding is of absolutes. Some describe it in terms of rock logic. The biblical notion is not black and white or hard rock absolutes.
Determinism in the greek understanding is also a determinism that is fatalistic - one without any feeling or personality. The biblical model is one where personality is entirely part and parcel with it.
The bible clearly talks of God completing what he begun. And that his will be completed entirely.
Yet it also clearly talks of humans being responsible for their own sin and needing to be saved from it.
Hence, your paragraph above is clearly flawed. It does not deal with free will - as the Bible does. You simply dismiss it - because you have a flawed and greek understanding of determinism.
Yet that does not surprise me. You need to read wider than you are currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am not going to just assume that something is proved or fact - base don statistics, probability, assumptions or best guess. #15Except when it fits your narrative to do so. And I am not going to ever forget you said that^^^^^^^^^!.My attitude to B[urden] of P[roof] is not actually the person who asserts must do soYou tell us here that you are a criminal Lawyer #20. Are you sure?And what YOUR “ attitude to is" to where the B of P lays, don't mean jack !!!! It is what the accepted law says it is and not what your "attitude to it is".And attempting to manipulate the word “assert” = claim hasn't gone UN-noticed by me. . You make the claim or “assert” the existence of an all creator god .The lawful universally accepted (“attitude”) is that the Burden of Proof is on s/he that makes the claim.I have never seen or heard of a civil case or criminal trial where the defendant has to prove her or his innocence. EVER! The burden of proof lays with his accusers or the complainant.Do you let your clients enter a court room and tell them that they have to prove their own innocence!!!? Have you forgot that your "clients" that you "always advised never to answer a yes or no question" don't even have to testify in their own fk trials!!!!"Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers." #15Burden of Proof: How it WorksIn civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact.It's a fundamental principle.Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first,before the defendant.It'snot for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant.The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.To satisfy the burden of proof:
- the party with the burden of proof
- must prove the alleged fact
- to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof.
Are you sure that your a lawyer! Reverend?
Thanks for providing such excellent words for us to proceed with.
Now if we can show which court room we are in - let us begin. Are we in the criminal or the civil court room?
But we are in not in such court rooms, are we? We are in a courtroom of public opinion. What are the rules here?
Surely it is not going to be one where atheists are considered the defendant? Because that is what you are suggesting.
The prosecution on behalf of the state - declares that the defendant has broken the rules. The State says - ok - what are the rules that have been broken? He then goes on to demonstrate that the laws have been broken. And then the defendant if she thinks has something to add will do so. But note - the entire point of criminal case is to prosecute the defendant. Not simply make an assertion.
Theists don't go round saying - atheists are wrong. We don't - because we simply are saying that God is. IT is not our job to prove the atheist is wrong.
In a civil case - again there is a complainant and a respondent. A complainant's case is that the respondent has done something wrong. The respondent gets to defend themselves. If they wish they can make cross claim. But notice again and similar to the above situation - it is the complainant who brings the actions and the complainant who must prove their case.
In our theistic / atheistic situation, who is the complainant and who is the respondent? Who is the prosecutor and who is the defendant?
I would take the view that it is the atheist who is the complainant. And that they are also the prosecutor.
They are the ones who are always insisting that the theist needs to address what they assert. It is theist who is constantly under attack from the atheist. It is the atheist who is always making a complaint. IT is the atheist who is always trying to prosecute the case.
There are similarities in court room legal jargon and debating - but there are many differences as well.
The Atheist is the one who asserts that they "have found no evidence to support the existence of God". This is their positive assertion. It implies at least if they intellectually honest that they have attempted to find evidence. (My view is that most atheists never look for evidence - but simply have been told there is no evidence at school)
My discussion in relation to tradition and the default position is not changed by what you have cut and pasted above. It entirely is consistent with it.
But thanks for the post Stephen. At least it looks like you are trying to do some reading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Unless you accept that provocative clothing - a much more visible act than passive words in a book can cause men to rape girls - then your argument for the bible is invalid.I don't accept that. And I suggest you stop letting others feed you replies, they are making you look stupid and illiterate, Reverend. Which I know you are not, well, not entirely.And I am afraid this shows you to be lacking especially for a wo/man that uses words for a living in discovering the truth in a court of Law . You are a lawyer aren't you ? You tell us you are here.#20And if you cannot tell the difference between physical and literal causes, I am going to give you a hint. How is it that you cry scream `foul ' when you take my words - according to you - to have somehow "humiliated" you and take them to be " mocking you " and take them as a direct "attack" on your character? Tell me HOW?There is a clue there for you Reverend. And here's another, you are looking for one word that makes all the difference my lawyer friend . I would hate to have to " humiliate" you by pointing out the obvious for you..You must be absolutely shite in that court room, Reverend.
I know you don't accept it. But it is the greater of two things in the argument. Passive words verses active provocation. If the active and visible provocation does not CAUSE - then it goes without saying that the passive words do not cause. I said your argument proves too much. The fact is the Bible and its words DO NOT CAUSE homophobia. Yet if you are going to maintain such a weak and pathetic position, then it does not matter what you say you accept or do not accept - you are clearing suggesting that active and visible provocation causes. And in this particular example you are saying it causes men to rape females who wear provocative clothing.
The better solution is that provocative clothing does not cause men to rape because individuals are responsible themselves for how they act and respond to such provocation. And similarly the words in the bible as passive words - are words. How people respond and react to those words are an individual responsibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am sure you had no fear of that in the first place. Good to keep him on his toes though!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Do you think that gravity is not observable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have children. Did I think before I had children, that they might turn out to be a mass murderer? The position is possible. Did this stop me from having children? No.
Now if I knew that my child WOULD be a mass murderer - would it be right or wrong to have the child?
I think that if I decided not to have a child before they became a mass murderer because I knew this was going to be the case - that I have determined their fate before they actually commit any offences.
I don't think it is just to judge someone before they commit an offence. For them to be judged prior to committing the offence - even if I know that they are going to commit the offence - then this is unjust.
If I knew that Jo down the street was going to kill someone, is it my moral duty to stop that from happening? If I can. Yes. Why though? Is the knowledge I possess - does it make me culpable if I don't do something about it? What if I know that homosexuality is a sin against God? Should I stop that person down the road doing it or not? At what point is my knowledge make me culpable or not?
Or are the laws of the land - more important than the laws of God?
How can God be culpable for anything that his creation does - if he gives them free will? Surely they are culpable and not God? That is what the Bible says. But why should it be different?
just because we can stop something from doing something - why should that make us culpable or not? Surely the person doing the wrong - is the one who is responsible?
If I saw someone about to touch my daughter - I would do everything to stop that from happening. But would that be a moral position or a legal responsibility?
If I knew it was going to destroy her life - would it have been better if I had never had a daughter in the first place. If I knew it was going to happen - would it be wrong to let my daughter be born? After all, that would be my decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you think God gave humanity free will or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
How many black holes have you seen?
I understand the theory. But it still requires particular assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KeLu777
We can't forget that there is no "observable insurance" that isn't actually a vast collection of data points. We must perceive through the passage of time; this is relativity. You're day-to-day is many days. Though it seems instantaneous, you actually have to release the apple, and then wait for the moments when it is falling to observe gravity.In the scope of time without relativity (and presumably the divine), there is little difference between 2 seconds, 2 weeks, or 2 billion years. There is only meaning in your observations if there is a scope, a point a and point b. Science is well aware of this relationship, which is why we can lean on seemingly instantaneous observations as confidently as millennial observations... Not the young millennials, the time... Like eons... You get it...It's always easiest to work your evidence from current and go back, just like researching for a paper. You come up with questions like "why are birds kinda like reptiles, and reptiles a lot like amphibians...? And amphibians kinda breath like fish...? But why are mammals and bugs different from all of them?" Or "but if the bible can't be proven, why do so many rational people believe in it, and have for thousands of years? Why are so many of it's accounts that are considered less fantastic consistently backed by history? And why do so many people that don't believe in it still okay with the idea of God, heaven, and/or hell?" The answers remain unclear, but all the evidence is in old books or in the sand... So to speak.
Yes. time is an element of the world we live in. I recall at uni - making predictions based on previous data. We used all of the appropriate information we could get our hands on - but our estimates were right some times and they were wrong sometimes. We used the best modeling - but at the end of the day - we were right sometimes and wrong sometimes. We also tried going backwards in the data - using the same modeling techniques.
And to test our theories and hypothesis - we jumped an entire dataset we had - to dates further back. And this is within a couple of years. We were well off.
And this is within a couple of years. This is where it takes FAITH to believe - that anything we say about millions of years ago is necessary. It really is impossible to verify. It is like me looking at my data set for the past two years - getting it pretty close or even right for the first 6 months. Then jumping 5 years. Getting it close again - and then saying that the correct point was such a such thing - 20 years down in the past.
To be able to validate the past - you need to know the past. And when the validations are based on ASSUMPTIONS that change - from time to time with more information - then basing anything on the dodgy ones in the past ought to be omitted. Yet they are not.
It is a crock. Science can only provide real information about observable things. Once they delve into the future or the past - it loses FACTUAL status and becomes best guestimates. And sometimes they are going to get it right and sometimes they are going to get it wrong. But what is true - is that these things are not facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Essentially the entire "saved" thing is bullshit, god was the one who supposedly put us in this position, therefore would be no need to be saved if god wasn't an apparent asshole.
God did not put in this situation. He place humanity in a good situation. They are the ones who stuffed up.
God put them on notice - before they stuffed up. And God tells the truth. Surely you would not think God would lie?
But perhaps you would be more comfortable if God did lie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
please tell me, how does one get salvation?No many people can get salvation but they must be true to the true god and they get picked on by the true God then you cant go back so thats when you have salvation and you are a true christian .
Can you explain that a little better. I am pretty dumb and don't understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
I am not cherry picking anything. I have simply used the terms and words you have provided.Your not cherry picking? Are you serious? Do you even know the definition of cherry picking. The definitions is as follows.the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available.What you have done is ignored words such as "verifiable" and "can be tested."
Seriously!!! If this is the case, which I reject, then surely your own words prove your lie. After all, rather than actually trying to refute my point, you get all upset that I don't engage with other words. I think the word verifiable must be used in the context. I highlighted words because they clearly reveal the subjective nature of what this kind of science is doing as opposed to the objective kinds we see. Verifiable in this context is clearly - "best guess". Not verifiable as "seen with real time observation". And as for "can be tested"? Says who? I did engage with that as well. It is you who seem to be cherry picking. I said that the best tests are still only done to within a percentile based on assumptions. Clearly that is not cherry picking. I happen to like science. I think it is one of the best fields of research we have in this time. Yet, I am not going to just assume that something is proved or fact - based on statistics, probability, assumptions or best guess. If I could or if we should - then socialism ought to be wiped off as a psuedo science. The assumptions underlying capitalism are far more reliable than the Marx or Hegel . The entire environment movement is based on the same statistics and assumptions as capitalism. The underlying assumptions relating to estimates, and modeling and best guesses. Yet the two fields of life are fundamentally opposed to each other - based on their own science.
Macroevolutionary study is itself a myth. It involves "inference" rather direct observation.With this logic, I can side sweep the whole bible, as no one alive has been involved with any event in the bible. I can say that you religious folks are simply inferring what is said in the bible and that you cannot actually travel back in time to when Jesus roamed the world.
Absolutely, if the bible was saying that direct observation was the determiner of truth.
I actually take the view that the B. o P. is on the person who asserts something contrary to the default position. This makes more sense and is how legalists and historians understand it. When there is a general consensus about an idea or fact, then it is assumed to be correct until the new reviser of history or the idea can demonstrate otherwise. In this case, it would be the atheist who has the B. o P. Atheists however know that this is something that they can never do.This is what I call jargon. How can you possibly believe the BoP is on atheists? Your logic is quite literally, "A lot of people have agreed for a long time so it must be right". The reason you have taken the BoP away from me is either a) you are insane and actually believe this to be true or b) you cannot provide any evidence for God. I'll give you an example. Imagine if there was an age old cult which believed in intangible, invisible and inaudible fairies (they cannot be detected in any way). According to your logic, it would have to be I who debunks these undetectable fairies, which is an impossible task. In this scenario, who do you think bears the BoP.
IT is not jargon. It is simply what history reveals. You might not like it. For the record I think the B. of P is on the atheist. Most of the world just happens to be right about God because for them god is right there. I don't have to prove that air is real for me to be able to breathe it. People who are just born - don't need to learn what air is. They just do it. Blind faith you would call it. It is not wrong to learn something from your parents. Atheists tend to suggest that anyone who is religious learnt it from their parents and that somehow this is blind faith. It is just nonsense argument.
The difference between your example and real life is substantial. Apart from the obvious disconnect from reality since I did not suggest that extreme examples ought not be challenged. My logic is not that a lot of people have agreed therefore it must be right. It is that the default position is in place for a reason, and just because someone comes along who disagrees with it - does not mean that suddenly the tradition has to prove itself. Why should the newcomer get the right to question the tradition without first putting up their reasons for why the tradition should be challenged?
I think traditions are important in our world. They might be crazy traditions and perhaps they need to be changed - BUT I certainly do not think it is right that a new comer can come along and say - to the tradition, without first putting their own views first, you must prove your tradition. That is backwards logic. It is insulting to the past and to our parents. It is not the way to win arguments and it is not the way to help change the world.
Nevertheless, I ask, what would be sufficient evidence provided by an atheists which will make you question religion. Since you believe the BoP is on me, what sort of evidence would you like to hear.
I thank you for the curtesy of asking me? But before I do, let me ask you why you are asking this question? The reason I asked is that I asked a similar question on the reverse side of the argument recently and pretty much was told "it ain't going to happen". The God Topic (debateart.com)
And for the record, I think that you ask the question is because you are insightful and not closed minded yet. And this I think is a good thing.
I will address your question - but before I do - how about we explore the question of evidence further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Salvation begins in the past - and never ends. It is everlasting. Hence when people trust Jesus - they are saved from that moment on - everlasting.You cant get salvation in the past because the scientists prove that you cant go back and if you have to get salavtion in the past then you will not get salvation so you are being dum. Then you cant get salvation that is everlasting because what if you get salvation then you change your mind then start to call god a scum then you will go to hell so that is even dumer.
Hey Utanity,
please tell me, how does one get salvation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Salvation for the Christian is simple and complex.
God is eternal. Humans are time creatures. Hence when we look at something - we consider in the past, the present and the future. For God - there is no particular distinction between the three. And in the Scriptures - He works in both time and eternity.
Christians talk about being saved. We talk about being saved. And we talk about the fact that we will be saved.
Jesus died on the cross to secure salvation. This is past history. Yet in our lives - we continue to sin. And when we die or Jesus returns, and when we are in heaven there will be no more sin.
Christians also talk about salvation, sanctification, and glorification to describe these three aspects of time. They are at times used interchangeably. For instance when Paul says - work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. The word salvation is not getting saved - so far as the process of sanctification.
Salvation begins in the past - and never ends. It is everlasting. Hence when people trust Jesus - they are saved from that moment on - everlasting.
I think it is inaccurate to use the term eternal life for Christians. Not a heresy. But unhelpful - since it mixes eternity with time, the divine with the human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wow!
Hi TheUnderdog.
I believe in the Christian God. Yet I think that the pope got into power initially because he set out to do it and it happened. Like most people, it did not happen immediately but took a significant amount of time. Nevertheless, it is also true that the pope does not have the same power he once did. Not even in his own church.
Personally, I don't think there was any evidence in the NT that Peter even went to Rome. And certainly, when Paul wrote his epistles, and particularly his letter to the Romans, he does not address Peter. And this would be very awkward indeed if Peter really had been appointed to a particular place. It would be insulting.
The Orthodox Church and the Protestant Church does not recognize the papacy. The OC (well some parts anyway) does not recognize the RC as a church. The Protestant Churches are mixed in their views of the pope. They range from the pope is the anti-Christ to he is the head of the Roman Church.
As far as I am concerned the papacy could die out and it would not have any impact upon the reality of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
You seem to have no issues dismissing religion which has a far longer history and following.The truth is not a democracy.
Well that is a matter of opinion. And it really depends on the situation. Truth is whatever people decide it is if there is no absolute truth.
Firstly, I am not dismissing evolution per se.Wise. However, you go on to essentially dismiss all of my arguments, which is extremely disappointing. However, you have provided me with a great amount of joy with the following section.
No, I am simply trying to narrow down in on your argument to demonstrate you are incorrect.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.I have underlined some key words for you. Inference. Hypothesis. Predictions. Creationists make predictions based on their understanding as well. The problem is - it is not observable. the best is still a guess and a hope. It is faith. Hence it is a myth. and just because you really really want to believe it is fact - does not make it so. It is at best a myth and at worst a fabrication or fairy tale.Hilarious! Absolutely comedic! You are a true cherry picker. Watch, just watch the following.
I am not cherry picking anything. I have simply used the terms and words you have provided. Words that demonstrate you do not rely on facts but faith.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.The underline was your hilarious attempt to debunk science, followed by something called context underlines by me.
Macroevolutionary study is itself a myth. It involves "inference" rather direct observation. Like I said - there is NO direct observation. Any testing done in any of the historical sciences can never be validated except with observation. True, they test and if a prediction falls within a particular percentile aisle they claim it is validated. Yet, it is a test of a hypothesis. But prediction as a measure of truth is not valid. Prediction relies upon premises - many which will be debunked. So it is a useless attempt to prove truth. Only direct observation will do so. Tests, hypothesis, predictions only confirm particular theories - so long as the assumptions are correct. When the assumptions are wrong, then then the test can still predict a confirmation, only to be debunked later because the assumptions have been reset because anomolies have occurred. In other words - it is not a valid way to establish the truth. And as we both know - democracy nor testing based on assumptions is a determiner of truth.
Reality check, Creationism is not science, it is ad hoc and embarrassing. If you wish me to debunk creationism as a whole, I'll do so in my next comment. As to your attempt to put the BoP on me regarding the Big Bang, that would be true. Since I am proposing the idea of the Big Bang I must prove it (I wish this was your attitude when we talked about religion). But no matters, this article should keep you occupied.
I never claimed creationism is a science. I suggested that creationism can make predictions which demonstrate the validity of its assumptions. It is not a valid determiner of the truth either.
My attitude to B of P is not actually the person who asserts must do so. I think that is the way some people understand it. I also think that this is a modern way of trying to do it - and most likely was done in order to take theists out of the picture. In other words, atheists are unable to prove God does not exist. We all know that. Similarly, theists cannot prove God exists. We all know that as well. It is a political point of view.
I actually take the view that the B. o P. is on the person who asserts something contrary to the default position. This makes more sense and is how legalists and historians understand it. When there is a general consensus about an idea or fact, then it is assumed to be correct until the new reviser of history or the idea can demonstrate otherwise. In this case, it would be the atheist who has the B. o P. Atheists however know that this is something that they can never do. Hence, they have tried to change the rules. But really it only ever becomes an issue when theists and atheists discuss God. It does not occur in any other field of life. Not really and not with any real sense. Yes, today as atheists or progressives tend to have a much larger sway on things, the point is becoming more of an issue.
Thanks for those sites. I love how people talk about things like facts when they don't have any way to ACTUALLY prove it. None of this would pass a court room test.
And I am not talking about BRD, I am talking on the balance of probabilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Every thing you have said about evolution is an estimation, nothing is verifiable. No one can go back millions of years ago. Estimations are not facts. Just probabilities based on jargon.To call the biggest and most recognised biological study ever “jargon” is a bit of a stretch. Just because you do not believe it, does not mean it is not true. However, since I have some knowledge about Evolution, I will debunk your main claim which is as follows.
I don't see why it is a stretch. You seem to have no issues dismissing religion which has a far longer history and following.
Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
Firstly, I am not dismissing evolution per se. I am dismissing evolutionary theory which alleges to have occurred over millions of years as "myth". The distinction is significant. I disagree with the two terms of micro and macro evolution. Such terms are often used by creationists and are unhelpful terms. They also enable evolutionists to gain an upper hand without lifting a finger.
Changes or adaptions between the species and within species is entirely consistent with creationist doctrine. To call this micro evolution is again unhelpful. It however - whatever term you call it - I prefer adaption, growth, is not the same as what you seem to be referring to as macro evolution. The former is and can be observed. The latter not.
The former is consistent with creation and does not require millions of years - it is observable - hence scientific. The latter - requires millions of years - is not observable - requires faith. Hence, myth.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.
Blah blah blah. Read what I said above. Just because some people call it evolution - does not make it evolution. Nor does it demonstrate a link between so called micro and macro. Saying it - does not make it so. Observational evidence would be required - which can't be done. Hence myth.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
I have underlined some key words for you. Inference. Hypothesis. Predictions. Creationists make predictions based on their understanding as well. The problem is - it is not observable. the best is still a guess and a hope. It is faith. Hence it is a myth. and just because you really really want to believe it is fact - does not make it so. It is at best a myth and at worst a fabrication or fairy tale.
Where science is reliable is where it is observable. What happened millions of years ago is clearly not observable. Hence any story about the origin of the world is myth. Including the Big Bang. And is any notion of evolution - that suggests evolution of kinds.The first bit I have already debunked. The second bit however, is a bit more comedic. You say the Big Bang is a myth? Unless you can debunk the points from the website I have linked, I will not take this emotive claim seriously. And what exactly do you support? The Bible, I would assume, a book of which no evidence supports.
Well, sorry that is not a debunking. Not even close. I don't have to debunk the Big Bang. You have to prove it is true first. I have seen no credible evidence for its existence or reality. In fact - it is highly improbably and very unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I am looking for the study but I think this one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes the science so far is no.
Or don't you agree with the science?
Created: