Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
It's a process that only uses what's there. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
'evolution experiments'um, that would be intelligent design would it not?
Not unless you're talking about targeted breeding and the like. But if you believe in targeted breeding being successful, be it for species of dogs or species of peppers, why don't you believe that unguided evolution over 3.5 billion years would result in what we have today? You can do evolutionary experiments on stuff with very short lifespans (fruit flies, bacteria, etc).
I guess it doesn't really matter if you call it evolution or adaptation, you're talking about the same thing, which results in the diversity of species on earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
God did not force him to eat from it.
Did god's plan include Adam eating it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Adam did not act outside of God's plan. God knew what Adam would do. That is why from before the foundation of the world God had that plan. God gave Adam free will to choose.
So Adam's only choice, according to this quote, is to act according to god's plan. Maybe I'm missing it: what was Adam's other option?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok, so you don't disagree with survival of the fittest (which is language I don't think really works, it's really survival of the MINIMUM).
in your example, this arbitrary beneficial difference, what evidence is there that something like that has actually happened?
My example is generic. You'd have to look at the history of species going extinct and then try to figure out why. You seem to recognize that survival of the fittest makes sense, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. We have a fossil record replete with species who didn't survive, and DNA similarity ratios (like you share XX% DNA with this creature, YY% DNA with this plant, etc). I'm not really sure what sort of evidence you'd be looking for, can you say what might convince you?
How can you prove evolution using the scientific method?The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
- Make an observation.
- Ask a question.
- Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
- Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
- Test the prediction.
- Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
THere's a lot of ways, actually! Have you tried searching for 'observable speciation' or 'evolution experiments'? How about this, where scientists observe within a very short amount of generations the adaptations of a species of fish into two different species of fish?
ETA: If you're asking why you can't observe a monkey turning human using the scientific method, it's because of the immense amount of time that evolution of this nature normally takes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I also contend that we have the power to discern what is and is not true by an exercise of faith, a sincere desire to know, without doubt, and without cynicism, by study and reflection, then ask God.
Is it fair to say that if something "true", in the biblical sense, that it's true for all people of that particular faith? I guess my question would be why, if a sincere desire to know and a question to god is all that's required to know if it's true in the bible, are there so many disagreements among christians? You, for example, are you not LDS? Beg your pardon if I have the wrong guy, but most Christians look at LDS and think you're an apostate, an aberration. They won't tell you that because they're normally civil people in general, but push comes to shove, they think you're wrong and you're going to be punished for it. Can you know if you're right and they're wrong? I do have some good news for you: as long as there's atheists like me, you'll always be viewed as the lesser of two evils :).
Then I might point out what a terrible idea it is to write a book and never update it if it's meant to apply to all times, but that's another topic!
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That's pretty magnanimous of you, I will give you that. But what about the idea of your mayor saying "You can do whatever you want, just do it silently," to your suggestion about prayer? Did he really say shove it up your ass? What a jerk!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Who said there weren't? Stop boxing that strawman and address the topic of the thread.
Well, you did. I asked if those were ALSO things that Christians believe. You said "no." See:
Aren't these also things that Christians of some stripe either currently believe (1 - 4)No. These are things atheists mistakenly think Christianity teaches
The topic of the thread is urban myths (which these aren't) that atheists believe (which they don't). It'd be a boring thread if we stuck with that.
But atheists keep asking why don't we stone homosexuals. They think even the societal laws in Leviticus are divine command.
Where are the atheists asking why Christians don't stone homosexuals? And no atheists think anything in the bible is a divine command. Otherwise they wouldn't be atheists.
So you, an atheist, believe that Christians believe this. OK. Lol!
Are you saying there are literally zero Christians that believe you can earn salvation? Atheists don't believe in salvation, so we don't believe it can be earned or bestowed, it's a children's tale.
The bible was used in equal parts to both support and condemn the practice of owning slaves,So was your constitution.
Right, and when society figured out this was wrong, they changed the laws so no one could think you can own slaves anymore. When was the bible last amended, exactly?
How do you know this? Every theist on this site reading this almost chokes. It's so obviously wrong I need say nothing.
Your topic says these are things atheists believe. Atheists, none of them, believe anything in the bible is divine because it's just a book of old myths, not real. If there's no divinity, there's no divine command. We don't believe in salvation, so we don't believe you can earn it or have it bestowed on you. There are literally zero atheists who believe these things, and they aren't urban myths. Once again...another own goal for Ethan. Awww. It would be sad if you weren't such an ass to everyone all the time, but...alas. Here we are.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Would you be comfortable being made to pray an Islamic prayer? A jewish incantation? If someone started your town hall meeting with a Hindu meditation?
I'd say the house and senate should open with moments of silence for reflection, then anyone can silently pray whatever they want to whoever they want, if they want to at all. Would that be acceptable? What if your mayor said "No problem, just keep it to yourself," would that have been acceptable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
from what I have read, evolution is a new/different organism or characteristic than the parent species, to become better, more complex, go up, de-evolve would be the opposite.
I'm not sure this is exactly right: species don't evolve for the reasons bolded. There are no 'better' species. There are species that are better adapted to their environment, sure, but they aren't trying to 'go up' anything. Evolution gives a reproductive advantage to certain arrangements of DNA well before speciation occurs. Take an example of squirrels and foxes, very simply. Squirrels and foxes reproduce, and only the ones that are alive do so, right? Say you have 10 squirrels. 5 are faster than the other 5. And two foxes much faster than the other eight. The faster foxes pick off the slower squirrels first, because they're faster than the slow foxes AND the slow squirrels. This means the slow foxes don't have the same level of energy as the faster ones, which means the next time they're competing for the same squirrel, they can't keep up, and the fast foxes eat their lunch again. The problem continues until such time as the 8 slow foxes die of starvation. Some random mutation led to a slightly faster fox, and now the slower foxes have been squeezed out via natural selection. The two faster foxes reproduce with each other, and the genes that made them faster are passed on (presuming they are not mutated in reproduction). But what of the squirrels? The first squirrels to die are the slower ones, right? QUickly too, since both the faster fox and the slower fox can catch them. But once the faster foxes proliferate, they eat the slower squirrels, leaving only the squirrels that are more difficult to catch. If the squirrels are TOO fast for the foxes, the foxes will either go extinct, or some mutation in their DNA will either speed them up or improve their camouflage or let them eat something else. It's important to remember that you're talking about unobservable changes generation to generation, for the most part. In order to truly observe this in nature, you'd need THOUSANDS of years and tens of thousands of generations. So how do we know it happens, how does science prove it? Google "observable speciation" and you'll get a bunch of examples.
If evolution were true, wouldn't scientists be able to recreate the sequence of change that transformed monkeys into humans?
Scientists can know where in the gene sequence we differ from anything with DNA. Are you asking why is there no scientific experiment wherein a scientist takes a monkey, manipulates its genetic code, and it wakes up a man / gives birth to a human? That transformation happened over tens of thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands. We observe genetic mutation every single day, it's how new diseases come to be, for example. Maybe I misunderstand what you're looking for.
And in a broader sense, it does not seem the universe could have created itself arbitrarily and still be completely, totally, and in every regard, systematic.
This is arguing from incredulity, but it also mischaracterizes the universe. While the universe is predictable in its behavior for the most part, it's a chaotic mess if you take a look at the larger picture. Black holes defying the laws of physics, stars exploding and crunching up spacetime, stuff running into each other all over the place, unimaginable distances for no discernible 'systemic' reason...the universe is far from orderly, which is what I think you mean by systemic in that case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Okay, let's look one at a time:
1. Everything in the Bible is a Divine command.
I don't believe anything in the bible is a divine command. So far, we're not off to a great start. Did you happen to mean this is what atheists think theists believe? I don't think that either. I think many theists believe the commandments are divine commands, but stories like Exodus or Revelation, for example, aren't divine commands at all. If that's what you meant, then this would seem to be you taking issue with a position that you're not able to demonstrate anyone holding, which is otherwise called a strawman and thereby dismissed. In your view, does anything in the bible qualify as a divine command? Any one thing, I mean, like is there a single example of divine command. There are sections of Christianity that do view the bible as literal and inerrant, which they take to mean directly from god, so as it hasn't changed, you have to live according to those words or risk hell. The generic term for these people is "Fundamentalists." So yes, there are Christians who believe all commands in the bible are divine commands. THere aren't any atheists who think the bible is full of divine commands.
2. The Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old.
I don't think this either. I know the bible doesn't mention the age of the earth. There are many sects of Christianity that believe in young earth creationism, again largely fundamentalists, and they use a literal interpretation of the KJV plus some additional extrabiblical interpretations to support this belief. So again, there are definitely Christians that believe the earth is 6000 years old, and they base their belief on the bible and interpretations thereof.
3. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus is God.
I've never heard this one. You refuse to expound on it, so I'm just going to consider it one of your bald assertions, we'll move past it. Maybe you're talking about the origin of the triune doctrine or something, but as it is, it's a straw man of a straw man. Terrible job.
4. Salvation, (and thus Heaven) is earned.
Atheists don't believe this at all. Certain sects of Christianity do, though. You need faith + WORKS, the works part = earning it. On the contrary, other sects believe you're either in or out the second you're born, regardless, because god in the book knows everything you're going to do an there's no point in trying to change it. Calvinists are an example of this version of Christianity.
5. The Bible condones Slavery.
It explains the rules for owning slaves, it says how to buy them and from whom, under what circumstances. I get that this makes you really sad and uncomfortable inside, so you react by putting your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet, I understand. The bible was used in equal parts to both support and condemn the practice of owning slaves, and the disagreement at the very very least indicates the book is unclear on the matter. But it definitely lays out the expectations of slaves that weren't Israelites. Worth pointing out, as well, that many, many, many CHristians owned slaves. It would seem strange for them to own slaves if the bible, their inerrant moral code source, actually prohibited slave ownership, right? Do you always try to do things directly against what god says to do? I doubt it.
So, 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all at one point demonstrably believed by Christians. No atheist believes 1 or 4, so you are either completely wrong or woefully unclear with what you mean (given that you seem to completely misunderstand the usage of the term 'urban myth,' I think it's most likely the latter). And #3 is an assertion unless you'd like to expound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Yes, evolution 'create' new species this usage of the word 'create.' It cannot create new LIFE. No one claims it can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
can you give me an example of evolution which is not just adaptation?
Please define what you see as the difference between the two terms. Evolution is exactly adaptation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
o one claims evolution "creates" in the way you briefly describe. It works with what's present. Think of it like a stream with a stone in it. The stream shapes the stone over a long period of time, but the stream didn't put the stone there. Your question seems more like where did the stone come from, which is a completely different proposition from "what makes the stone this shape." It can be difficult to disassociate the two, but they're definitely two different questions. Evolution deals with the diversity of life, not the origin of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Aren't these also things that Christians of some stripe either currently believe (1 - 4) or at one time believed (5)? I've never heard anyone refer to #3, but you seem pretty sure, maybe you can tell me why atheists would think that. Did someone wake up cranky today?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The action Adam chose showcases God's planWHY IS GOD MAD AT ADAM FOR EXECUTING HIS PLAN???How can a righteous and good Judge like evil?
THat's got nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is god mad at Adam for executing the plan god laid out in the first place? Did Adam act outside of god's original plan? If so, then god wasn't entirely omniscient.
Created:
Posted in:
Whatever your views are, we can agree the word is not oxymoronic in amy way shape or form
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Okay then phobia must mean heterosexual, is that correct? It would have to be for those two words (one of which is slang) to be oxymoronic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So the bible does NOT have a verse that says "thou shalt not own slaves," but it DOES have a verse that instructs slaves to obey their masters. What you quoted is your bias making you interpret the bible in a way in which you like, not you looking at what the bible actually SAYS. That was my point. You accused someone of doing this, when in fact all that person was looking at was what the bible actually says. You can simply say "I"m sorry, got that one wrong, stepped in it a little, what I meant to say is there are many places in the bible that can be interpreted as anti-slavery, though the language could be clearer." Or, you can have another tantrum about it.
You're like Messi if half of his goals were own goals and the other half flew into the stands rather than the net.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If you think MLK defeated slavery, you have much different definition than everyone else.
And please give me the verse where the bible actually SAYS ""Thou shalt not own slaves." Because here's what you said:
your view on slavery in the bible is formed by your bias, not what the bible actually says.
And when we're looking at what the verse actually SAYS, as you insist, Ephesians does not in fact say "The verse is not condoning slavery but telling Christians that obedience to God is superior value to freedom." It says "Slaves, obey your masters." That's what it says. Your bias is making you want to interpret it in some other way, but that's not what the words actually are. Right? Those aren't the words used in that verse. The verse simply says obey your masters, slaves. I bolded it because Christians have a real problem picking up on irony, so I'm trying to help.
Does the bible actually say "Thou shalt not own slaves" in the text somewhere? Where?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Then it's condoning the evil (going according to his plan) rather than merely allowing it (shrugging your shoulders and saying 'didn't see that coming, but I'll let it continue) for some perverse playacting purpose. If he wanted to make good triumph over evil, there's plenty of other ways for an all powerful whatever to accomplish that, right? Hollywood does it all the time.Please explain how the entity who, according to you,laid out an entire plan for every molecule, allows something without condoning it.Because He allows it for a purpose and a season so that good would come from that one evil choice and good would be seen to triumph over evil.
God already knows your choice, yet He allows you to make it. He compels you via His word,
If you are compelled into doing something, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. You're compelled.
You are under the misconception that just because the whole of history - past, present, and future - is presently before God that we are unable to choose
Can I choose to do something that's not in god's plan? Yes or no.
God already knows your choice, yet He allows you to make it
So he allows me to fool myself into thinking I've made it.
The action Adam chose showcases God's plan
WHY IS GOD MAD AT ADAM FOR EXECUTING HIS PLAN???
Created:
Posted in:
OKay, so you think "homo" means "homosexual". I'll try again.
Homo = gay person
Phobia = Fear
Still not oxymoronic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Irony alert! Let's play a quick game. Which one of these actually appears IN THE BIBLE?your view on slavery in the bible is formed by your bias, not what the bible actually says.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
OR
"Thou shalt not own slaves."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Homo = same
Phobia = fear
How is that remotely oxymoronic? They're not opposites of each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You keep ignoring that god knew that all of that, exactly, would happen, according to a blueprint you think he laid out. There isn't any choice as a result. You're not approaching this in an honest way at all, you want to have your cake (omniscient god who knows all things and planned all things) and eat it too (wherein people are somehow held accountable with eternal torture for doing exactly what god laid out for them to do). God knowing doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, it's the opposite, and that you don't see it is a testament to how thoroughly your indoctrination has blinded you, dude. I get it, you're a true believer, it's really unlikely we're ever going to have any real discussion, you just end up quoting bible verses and preaching meaningless garbage at me. I asked it as clear as I can:
CAN GOD BE SURPRISED?
If the answer is no, then you don't have free will, you have the illusion of free will, and you're being held accountable for stuff he traps you into doing over and over again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
REgardless of theism or atheism, you sure seem to have packed enough stupid into that post.
-The bible contradicts it's self.
ITSELF is one word.
so if they are preying to do God's will
PRAYING is appealing to a deity. PREYING is what a cheetah does to a gazelle.
Agnostics and atheists get prosecuted worse in religious countries than devout Christians do in secular countries.
PROSECUTED is normally a legal term, do you mean atheists and agnostics commit more crime and therefore are defendants in court cases more? Or do you mean PERSECUTED?
I love when people get on others about how stupid they are in posts rife with spelling errors and misused language. It happens every single time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Which scientist has said there is evidence of a "global flood" on Mars? No evidence of water, or of liquid water, but "a global flood."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no dispute with your post, and would gladly discuss it, but we're already far enough off of this topic :).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure, I get what you're saying, but strictly speaking, laws exist that allow us to end the lives of full grown human beings, and laws exist that allow people to choose to not give birth to another human being, which some people think is killing a person. If killing a person intentionally is immoral, the timing of that killing wouldn't matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Actually most legal systems make a distinction between murder (prescriptively the unlawful killing of another human being) and justified homicide (the lawful killing of another human being) the real question in this case (and the issue most often disagreed upon) is what exactly constitutes a justified homicide.
Agree, but the comparison is to abortions, which are not legally classified as murder either in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The death penalty is federally legal in the US, where I live. This is a law that's been passed specifically to murder people, legally, and it has a very large contingent of self professing Christians supporting it. Apparently, we do make laws to murder others.You don't pass laws to murder others.
Created:
Posted in:
Again, your thinking is it must be a myth because you believe it is a myth.
I'm thinking it's a myth because it doesn't comport with reality as we can observe it, and it sounds like a bunch of other myths from that time period about the creation of the universe. And every culture has one, I'm not sure why this one would be right, can you tell me? Wait, let me guess, if I start with the belief that all others are wrong and this one is right, I'll see that it's right?
So what? So He knew what they would do and He let them do it.
So, he knew what would happen, he put the fruit there, created the entire scenario wherein the guy eats the fruit, and created the guy with curiosity enough to eat the fruit. He didn't let him do it, he MADE him to do it. How can you not see this?
Yes, God knew and knows yet He was willing to create a creature with the ability to use his/her mind to choose whether or not he/she would know God.
At BEST, you have only the illusion of free will here. Does god know where I'll end up after I die? Did he know before he made me? If so, I don't have a choice as I can't depart from the plan. I can APPEAR to choose but if it's all part of the plan, I'm just following the steps.
And I feel bad for people like you too who think they have the answers yet on questioning you find that you can't make sense of life other than manufacturing meaning in what would be a meaningless universe from an atheistic perspective.
Yeah, that's how it makes sense, actually. The universe doesn't care at all about us, and I get to pick if I want to make life better or worse for those around me. It's really very simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Just because I know something you do is wrong does not stop you from doing it if you want to. Thus, you are still accountable for your wrong choice.
If you set up, specifically, a scenario in which you know I can only make one choice, and I make that choice, how am I responsible for NOT choosing it? It's akin to a maze: I can't choose which way I get out of the maze, there's only one path to the exit. I don't choose the path, I simply follow it until I'm dead (exit). This is where you're missing my point. If Adam could NOT go against god's plan, and as you pointed out, god's supposed omniscience would dictate that this is the case (otherwise he'd be surprised), then he didn't really have a choice and god should have just created him in hell in the first place, just as he might as well eliminate earth altogether and put you in heaven or hell from the start, since he knows what you're going to choose, he knows you're going to die in either grace or sin. There is no free will in your scenario, because that would mean god isn't omniscient, or at least, had no plan, he's just watching.
It gets paid one way or the other.
Let's stay with your legalistic view of this then: let's say I go out and commit a double murder, I'm arrested, tried and convicted in a court of law, and sentenced to death. My brother, who is single and has no children, says "Wait! Don't kill my brother, he has children, and a wife, and I don't have these obligations. Please, allow me to accept the sentence in his place." The court says "Okay." Is killing my brother MORAL? Is that justice? Don't confuse NOBLE with these terms.
In God permitting something does not mean He condones it. It means He allows it for a season or time but eventually you will be answerable for sin. His sovereign will say that one day you will answer for anything wrong you have done.
Please explain how the entity who, according to you,laid out an entire plan for every molecule, allows something without condoning it. Whatever it is he's allowing IS IN HIS PLAN. Again, according to you, we cannot deviate from the plan, otherwise god's surprised, but then yes, we'd be solely responsible and he could get mad about it. But as we cannot, god has to share some of the responsibility. If I stand before god, let's say, and he asks "Why did you not leave a note on that car you dinged in the parking lot at A&P in Eatontown in 1998?", why isn't my answer "That was your plan, right? And why are you asking me, you should know this stuff."
I believe the only one who had complete freedom of will, other than Jesus Christ was Adam. Adam did not have the influences we have pulling us one direction or the other.
Did god know when he put the tree there that Adam would eat the fruit, and thereby ruin his entire plan for the universe which I don't even know what it was but apparently pissed god off so much he tossed countless descendents into eternal damnation for something they didn't do themselves (again, how's that moral?).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
This is because snakes evolved not to talk anymore, duh. Just like donkeys.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Let's start simply. Evolution happens at the cellular level. Is there anywhere in the bible that refers to cells? A "no" answer doesn't necessarily mean they're incompatible, it just means we'd have to figure out how they might be. And you keep saying "the scholarship' as if there aren't entire branches of science devoted to evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Why do you think god would need to use evolution to modify anything? And what's the biblical support for the process, like where in the bible do you find something that leads you to this conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
SO basically you're agreeing that evolution is a fact, but you think a god did it. Is that correct? Why would a god do that? Or need to do that?
Created:
Posted in:
GOod to see you back Rod.
What's the difference between a lonely woman using a sex robot for pleasure, and a woman using a vibrator for pleasure?
The ethics of the thing depend on if the robot is sentient in my view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
OK, so no, you can't point it out, got it. At least that much is clear. You can object to it, but it's certainly scientific in nature. I'm granting you the hard part, too, that something exists outside of this dimension that listens to prayers, I think that might be what you're actually objecting to, which is weird, but you're all worked up about it and puffing out your chest as if you can actually understand the experiment.WHERE IS IT SLOPPY? Use the abbreviated version from my recent post if you have a hard time with so many other words. You seem to be somewhere near the principle that something that's being measured knowing it's being measured affects the outcome,which can certainly be true...except in every other case we can absolutely confirm the presence of this sort of entity. It's in every one of your idiotic and non-analogous examples. No one has to guess if the girl in your pickup line experiment exists, for example, she's independently verifiable. Since you seem so frustrated with trying to prove your god exists, I even skip THIS part, because you get all sweaty about it. I simply start with "something hears prayers." That's all the experiment's hypothesis requires.
I'd like to test it.To what end? You don't believe it works. Irrational bias much?
Huh? I'd like to test it to see if your hypothesis is correct or likely or even remotely likely. Forgive me if I don't think you know what irrational means. You see, following my experiment is totally rational. Thinking about words and hoping some magic being and thinking that somehow it'll help you find your keys or cure your child of cancer, that's irrational.
One of the prayers appears to have been answered.An apparently "answered" prayer doesn't mean a prayer was answered, it means you don't know what happened. Your experiment is bogus.
Right, I don't know what happened, but what the people were praying for DID HAPPEN, so I'm going to include "maybe something heard one of their prayers and answered it" as a possibility in my subsequent experiments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Did he receive the same that he gave in terms of harm and hurt and evil?Not remotely, but he's dead. That's the end of that story. Well, unless he said really sorry, Jesus, and now he's on Jesus's yacht full of 14 year old girls in heaven, right?How is this not saying Jesus is a pimp of 14 year old girls Cletus?
Unless he said really sorry, Jesus, and now he's on Jesus's yacht full of 14 year old girls...
So in this sentence, you read every "he" as Jesus? Unless Jesus said really sorry, Jesus, and now Jesus is on Jesus's yacht full of 14 year old girls, that was how you understood the sentence? If not, who then do you think the "he" is? Normally when a pronoun and a proper noun are used in the same sentence, they're not the same person, but I forget you have a crippling lack of context detection.
Why would I say Jesus' yacht full of 14 year old girls? You said I forgot to say it. It's Epstein's yacht, because it's his version of heaven, dum dum.
Sorry, but I call em as I see em.
Right, but that also includes you seeing them wrong and subsequently calling them wrong. Let me make myself clear again:
Jeffrey Epstien, if he sincerely repented for his sins and hadn't killed himself, would be on a yacht in heaven full of 14 year old girls. Jesus, on the other hand, is an impotent and powerless character who probably never existed and cannot in any way stop me from calling him whatever I want. Can you prove Jesus in heaven is NOT a pimp of 14 year old children? Maybe he is!
Created:
Posted in:
<br>You confuse and embellish Christianity with Islamic teaching or rewarding the believer with virgins. Where is the promise of 14-year-old girls on a yacht found in Christianity?
Sigh, Epstein was into 14 year old girls.If he went to heaven, and heaven is where everyone is super happy and all dreams come true, then chances are he's on a yacht full of 14 year olds.
The rest of your objections we can address through this question: did god know what Adam would do before he made Adam? Did God realize that adam would do what he did, and that god would subsequently get so mad that all of adam's descendents would be condemned? If god did, and then still made adam exactly the same, adam did not have any choice, only the illusion of choice. Adam could not have departed from god's will, right? Otherwise, god would have been SURPRISED. If he's surprised, then I get the part about him being mad.
Again, God has a purpose for allowing evil. It is a witness to what happens when people live lives apart from God's good counsel. Evil is a reminder to us of what happens when relative, subjective human beings live life without the guidance of God. But to some who witness it, they cry out to God for relief from such evil, realizing they themselves are also to blame and that they have also done evil. God provides a way of escape for those who truly seek Him.
Why then would god get so mad at the instruments he's using to fulfill his purpose that he'd burn them forever? THey're only doing what he apparently cannot do himself.
And that is a problem of inconsistency with your worldview if you took the time to understand it. There are constants. You naturally assume that the sun will continue to shine, that the earth will continue to revolve, the tides continue with ebb and neap, the gravitational pull remains constant, the seasons continue to change, that these things will "act" or function every year of your life, but by what means? By blind indifferent chance happenstance, you believe that all these constants will remain as you have witnessed them or have knowledge of them. The sun will continue to shine, the earth continue to rotate, the tides continue to roll, the seasons continue to change from one to the other.
Yeah, exactly. Well, not really happenstance, more the laws of physics, but I know you think of those like laws someone wrote into place, rather than laws we've described (rather than proscribed). If you can show me there's a god necessary to do that, and then that it's your version, I'm glad to reconsider. Show me, though, don't say "well, start by saying you believe there's a god and then my work is half done."
How did God make [Hitler]? He chose to do it of his own accord. He ignored the true interpretation of God's word. He did his own thing is disobedience to what God said was good.
Did god know what Hitler would do before creating Hitler? Did he create Hitler to fulfill his purpose in allowing evil? if so, then Hitler's absolutely the servant of god (the one you share with him, by the way). How is it another way? Either god didn't know what Hitler would do (free will cancels out his omniscience there) or he DID know and made him exactly as he did in order to fulfill the purpose of making people so miserable they cry out for god (which means Hitler's just doing whatever god wanted in the first place and shouldn't be punished).
In this way, grace is the opposite of justice according to you.How can that be? Jesus willingly paid the penalty that those who believe in Him deserve(d). Thus, justice was met in Him.
Justice = getting what you deserve. What YOU deserve. It's not justice if I go steal a car or murder someone and you go to jail or get the death penalty over it, is it? It's justice if I do that and I get punished. Grace is getting what you DON'T deserve. They're your words, you tell me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Actually, HERE's what I said, you misquoting ignoramus:
Did he receive the same that he gave in terms of harm and hurt and evil?Not remotely, but he's dead. That's the end of that story. Well, unless he said really sorry, Jesus, and now he's on Jesus's yacht full of 14 year old girls in heaven, right?
Maybe if you kept your nose out of other people's conversations you'd have gotten that the subject of this discussion is Jeffrey EPstein as it comes from the discussion I'm having with a completely different poster, post #112. This is what PGA said.
Finally, do you believe that Epstein got justice? Do you believe that what he dished out was equal to his punishment if there is no God? Did he receive the same that he gave in terms of harm and hurt and evil?
Mind your business or read the whole discussion, asshole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And if prayers don't work, why would you want to test it? Hmmm? Irrational bias much?
People like you claim they work. If that's true, I'd like to test it. It's not that hard.
Whether prayers work or not, a sloppy experiment not following scientific methodology will tell you nothing.
Which is why the one I designed is not sloppy and follows scientific methodology. You've yet to point out a valid departure from the methodology, which isn't shocking given your repeated displays in this topic of complete and total ignorance of the matter.
Experiments work because scientists strictly follow scientific methodology
Please point out specifically why this test could not work. Five people pray to five different gods for a puppy to survive literally miraculously. The puppy is thrown in the pool, escapes the sealed bag somehow and is unharmed. One of the prayers appears to have been answered. Please explain, exactly and specifically, how you somehow would COMPLETELY exclude answered prayer as a potential cause for this effect. You won't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do you not know who Jeffrey Epstein was?
Not only completely missing the point of the post (that Epstein's version of heaven is a yacht full of 14 year olds, let me spell it out for you), but accusing someone of being a pedophile, cool move, bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your answer doesn't contradict his characterization: you are more comfortable starting with a belief that appears unjustified, because it makes you feel better about an otherwise chaotic universe and the things that happen in it. You're saying "start with this" when the "this" has no justification for being included as a starting point, and it cannot be demonstrated. You can end these sorts of disagreement by simply saying "I would rather live in a universe where something has a plan, it makes me feel better." No one can argue with that. When you say this is definitely how it is, though you have to abandon the presupposition and demonstrate it, otherwise you're just stamping your feet and saying "I'm right!"
Once again, telling him he's wrong is also not in any way supporting that you're right, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Strictly speaking, they're making excuses for why it can't be tested and shown to be effective, and are unable to show why the experiment to which they're objecting is in fact not a scientific experiment. Even when you pre-suppose a universe building all powerful entity that purportedly answers prayers. No one is disputing that meditation (which is another word for prayers of gratitude) is effective in some way, but it doesn't effect any outcomes directly.
THe one I found most confusing was "Intercessory prayer works when what you're praying for is in the plan already, so it's totally effective!" That misunderstands what intercessory means. If it's already in the plans, you're not interceding in anything. And if intercessory prayer counts as testing the christian god who apparently doesn't like to be tested and will ignore your requests out of spite if he feels that way, why bother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
In the long term, nothing matters and what Hitler did is not answered for by justice.
If Hitler repented rather than killed himself, then died by a tank shell, would he be in heaven right now? The answer is yes. There are no sins, no amount of sins can pile up, that your faith says cannot be instantly forgiven. That's justice and perfect morality at work for you. To me, he's dead and I'm glad about it.
For instance, Nation A believes abortion is wrong, except when not having one will result in the death of both the woman and unborn. Nation B believes abortion is right and permits abortion for any reason. Clearly both these positions cannot both be true since they are the antithesis of the other.
Nations don't believe anything. The people in them do, strictly, speaking. Also, these positions are not the opposite of each other as abortion is legal in both places, under different conditions. And finally, you're confusing moral with legal. Ideally, people decide what's moral and then make laws accordingly. Not Jesus.
without a necessary being who has revealed the right,
This perfect moral system is the one where I do a crime, the court knows it was me, and sentences YOU to death for it. Not by mistake, they knew the whole time.
God did not make them do exactly what they did. They chose to do what they did. Their sinful preference was to do exactly the opposite of what God said to do. You are inventing, twisting, and convoluting the context.
If god knew what they'd do when he designed them, and made them anyway, and he cannot be surprised by their actions, that means they cannot take any action god hasn't foreseen, right? How exactly is that free will then?
God may allow things that are wrong for a season or time (permits it for a time). He allows it for His purposes.
Then how exactly would I be the one accountable for his will, if I'm only doing what he wanted me to do? THIS IS NOT FREE WILL.
You keep smuggling in this element of God being surprised. You also bring in this element that if God knows all things then we are not free to do our own thing, make our own choices. But God's permissive and God's sovereign will are different.
I'm not smuggling it in. I'm pointing out that unless there's a way for god to be surprised, then god is ultimately responsible for the whole problem to begin with. You try to hand wave it with a total non sequitur (bolded). THis in no way addresses the problem you refuse to see. Take it back to the myth in the garden. If god wanted people to be around basically to tell him how awesome he was all the time, and he really didn't want anyone to get punished for making him mad, there's a very easy solution: don't put the trees with the forbidden fruit in the garden, right? Once you put those there, and create Adam, it follows that god would know man would definitely eat the fruit he tells him not to eat. If this was such a henoius crime, god could have, in his wisdom said "Maybe I'll put that tree someplace else, or not include it at all. I can, after all, make this magic garden any way I want to, I can't believe I almost put a tree full of fruit that would mean, for some reason I haven't really figured out yet, that I'd have to burn this dude and his wife forever and ever and ever. Wow, I'm in a mood today!" God knew every little bit of what would happen (Not MIGHT happen, definitely would happen) and made them anyway. He's responsible for his own problem, and I feel bad for people like you who have been taught that they're garbage by default, when you should be thinking you're garbage BY DESIGN and you're not the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
How is it inconsistent that He warns you of the consequences and you understand them yet you choose to ignore them?
If god makes someone like Adam or you knowing you'd do evil, you do not have free will at all. It's as simple as that. If you choose to repent or not doesn't surprise god. He can't be mad if he can't be surprised, and he can't be surprised because he knew what you'd do the second he made you, and he knows if you'll be sorry about it or not.
Grace is not getting what you deserve but what you do not deserve.
In this way, grace is the opposite of justice according to you.
Did he receive the same that he gave in terms of harm and hurt and evil?
Not remotely, but he's dead. That's the end of that story. Well, unless he said really sorry, Jesus, and now he's on Jesus's yacht full of 14 year old girls in heaven, right?
if things just happen why do you believe tomorrow will be like today and why should things hold together as they have in the past? Can you answer that instead of talking around it?
That's what they've always done. I don't spend literally any time, not one second, wondering if tomorrow will be like today. It won't, it's a totally different day. I don't get this question. Let me guess, is the answer "Jesus, ha, I made sense of a big question"?
Change your "fittest" to "bare minimum" and you will start to understand evolution a little more. Hitler, again, good grief you guys love that one. Strange that someone we all agree was entirely evil, who perpetrated such heinous crimes against God's chosen people, that god made him do that in the first place. And also that god didn't step in and help on his own, but needed five years worth of war and millions of lives lost to get rid of him. Why not just miracle his ass out of there? Or, better idea, don't make him to do that in the first place. Like look at the plans for your Hitler and say "Whoops, wait a minute, if I make this guy exactly this way, he's going to kill six million jews, plus a ton of other non jews, like CHristians! Maybe I should take another look at this design, yeesh, that was a close one!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Just substituting a human father in place of God in your experiment will immediately show your experiments failings.
Pray to a human father? Why? Do you mean ask the human dad to rescue the puppy? How's that even remotely the same proposition? Everyone can verify the presence of a specific dad immediately and you can be sure the prayer is heard and responded to either negatively or positively.
But you are unable to define anything as "success" unless you simply slap the word "success" on some ad-hoc thing.
"Success" in my experiment is "dog lives." I can't define it for your experiment, you didn'r do so either.
There is only one God.
I think we found the problem with your understanding of the experiment. You're only looking for one god. That's not very scientific.
Cite the post #.
IT's like four pages ago. Here's the link I posted.
Created: