Hit And Run Xtians

[LNC]

What about this argument hasn't been refuted? Dawkins covers it in the God Delusion and many atheist sites deal with it too. Actually, i have seen this argument, or rather it's focal points, going under several names. Furthermore, it does nothing to establish the christain god if it actually worked. It would only mean that a god was responsible. All the religions of the world would then instantly jump in to say their god was responsible. really weak argument.

 

I am not aware of anyone refuting the argument. Dawkins is completely out of his element in attempting to argue against this argument. He begs the question in his argument, which is not directly aimed at the Kalam version, but just the cosmological argument in general. He assumes that God would have characteristics like nature in that if he exists he would have had to have been created, giving no reason beyond his naturalistic presuppositions as to why this has to be the case. He also does a poor job of trying to justify his position using the anthropic principle - I was left shaking my head in disbelief that he would even put forth such a weak attempt (and here he is trying to overcome fine-tuning and not answer the origin question). In essence, he argues that the universe must have been the product of chance otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it. I had to reread it a few times to see if I was missing something from his argument since it seemed like such slight of hand, but I hadn't. Really, if you are appealing to Dawkins as an example of someone who has refuted Kalam it just tells me that you don't know much about the argument or the debates that Craig has participated in.

 

As Neon said, i find you highly arrogant and holier-than-thou to assume that you know the reasons why one has left the faith and taken up atheisim. This is right up there with your claim that the pain that a deconvert goes through is because they know they are leaving the truth. Yet another weak argument. You're on a roll tonight.

 

You know, I told someone earlier that whenever someone accuses me of being arrogant or holier-than-thou, I can't help thinking how arrogant and holier-than-thou that accusation sounds. Really, if you have a problem with my answers, just say so without resorting to name-calling. That is the refuge of one who has run out of arguments. So, how does this pertain to my response that the most reasonable fall-back position is agnosticism rather than atheism. Most educated skeptics whom I have heard speak call themselves agnostic since one cannot prove that God doesn't exist. If you think my argument is weak, surely you can come up with some reason why rather than resorting to ad hominem...

[LNC]

Ah, so it's trusting now, not belief, or doing good acts, or love God, or whatever is the flavor of the month.

 

Has been since Abraham met God, trusted him and his faith/trust was reckoned as righteousness. It has never been based upon works, that was man's distortion.

 

Rebellion is a conscious act against a know opponent. Since I don't believe your God exists, I can't, by definition or any practical terms rebel against him. So it's completely moot.

 

God says that man knows and will be held accountable. Read Romans 1. Simply denying his existence doesn't change the reality. A person can say that they didn't see a speed limit sign, but if they have been speeding and get caught, they are still held accountable. Even if they passed it without noticing, they are still held accountable. All the officer has to do is show that the sign was there.

 

You are judging again. You don't know this, but you are assuming this. It's not true, because I know it. You don't know it to be true in my life, so you are assuming, and by stating these invalid ideas as facts against me, you are judging me.

 

I don't think I said anything about you specifically or personally. I am simply telling you what God's word says about him. If you take it that way, then that says more about you than it does me. I wonder why are you feeling so defensive?

 

It was the lack of evidence that made me lose my faith. Not ignoring them, not denying them, or rebelling against them. You are wrong.

 

I am simply telling you what God's word says, so you are, in essence, saying that he is wrong, not me.

 

Yes, you are judgmental, because you assume and declare false facts about people. That is judging them.

 

I never declared one fact about you, I simply told you what God's word said. Now, you are the one judging me as being judgmental, so who is being judgmental here? I told you in my last post that I don't judge anyone as that is not my place to do so. If you are feeling judged, it is God's word doing that, not me.

 

So how the hell do you know anything about me? Supernatural knowledge, ESP perhaps? Or maybe you are using tarot cards? You use general statements from the Bible against me, without knowing me. So you are judging me.

 

I never claimed any knowledge of you. Again, I am simply telling you what God's word says and if you feel convicted by that, then that is between you and God, not you and me.

 

You're contradicting yourself. You say that you could never be an atheist, which implicitly indicate you never were an atheist, and yet you claim you were lead to belief in God. So what is it? You were an atheist and were led to God, or you were never an atheist to being with but just built up a fantasy construct in your head to give you the excuses you needed to continue?

 

And btw, if your God created the nature, and nature is cruel, then your God created it cruel. Yes? Doesn't the Bible claim nature proves that God exists? So if nature is cruel, then it proves God to be cruel, or nature shouldn't be a proof of God's existence. There's a lot of mismatch in your statements.

 

Wait a minute, I thought that all the New Atheists claimed that we were all born atheists? No, I have never claimed that I was an atheist. Although, I have not always been a follower of Christ either; however, there are other alternatives between the two. God created nature good and man chose to sin and corrupt himself and nature. No mismatch, just a misunderstanding on your part.

[Ouroboros]

Has been since Abraham met God, trusted him and his faith/trust was reckoned as righteousness. It has never been based upon works, that was man's distortion.

I see. And you know this because...?

 

God says that man knows and will be held accountable. Read Romans 1. Simply denying his existence doesn't change the reality. A person can say that they didn't see a speed limit sign, but if they have been speeding and get caught, they are still held accountable. Even if they passed it without noticing, they are still held accountable. All the officer has to do is show that the sign was there.

There's also the scams where false dangers are presented to force people into doing something that isn't necessarily true.

 

I don't think I said anything about you specifically or personally. I am simply telling you what God's word says about him. If you take it that way, then that says more about you than it does me. I wonder why are you feeling so defensive?

Projecting much?

 

I am simply telling you what God's word says, so you are, in essence, saying that he is wrong, not me.

Fair enough. I'm saying your "Holy Book" is wrong. Because it's not from "He."

 

But then again, you use the Bible, and trust what it says, so if the book is judgmental, and you agree with it, then you are in agreement with its judgmental attitude. Very simple.

 

I never declared one fact about you, I simply told you what God's word said. Now, you are the one judging me as being judgmental, so who is being judgmental here? I told you in my last post that I don't judge anyone as that is not my place to do so. If you are feeling judged, it is God's word doing that, not me.

So you're citing the Bible where the Bible is judgmental, and you say you agree with it or ... not? If you agree with it, you agree with its judgmental attitude. No way around that.

 

I never claimed any knowledge of you. Again, I am simply telling you what God's word says and if you feel convicted by that, then that is between you and God, not you and me.

Again, the Bible is wrong in the aspect of what we were talking about, and you agree to what it says... so you are wrong and you are agreeing with its prejudice.

 

Wait a minute, I thought that all the New Atheists claimed that we were all born atheists? No, I have never claimed that I was an atheist. Although, I have not always been a follower of Christ either; however, there are other alternatives between the two. God created nature good and man chose to sin and corrupt himself and nature. No mismatch, just a misunderstanding on your part.

Ok, so you always believe in God, and you were led to believe in God. I get it. Same old confused contradictions and paradoxes hidden in flowery language. It's just bullshit with rose scented perfume.

 

And LNC, don't bother answer to this post, because we're not getting anywhere. Our differences are way too big to have any discussion. You believe your things, and I believe my things, and we'll probably never find any common ground.

[Justin]

That is part of your problem, you are reading the English translation from Hebrew. You need to do some background reading to be able to get past some of the translation issues that have developed over the years. Also, you need to understand context as it can help in doing Biblical hermeneutics. I'm sure that when you do your research you will come to the conclusions that I have stated. Apparently you haven't taken my advice about the virgin passage from Isaiah and looked at how the LXX translators translated the word from Hebrew to Greek many years before Jesus' birth as you still doubt me on this one.

 

Why don't you post the specific verses to which you are referring and we can discuss them. I am not about responding to websites, unless of course you want me to respond in kind (by posting the link to another website.) I don't recognize the Book of Enoch to be canonical, nor do most Christians and Jews, so I am not that concerned over what it says. If Justin Martyr held it in high regard, then that tells you that Justin Martyr held it in high regard, not that the church did. Regarding a sea creature that has armor, we know of many dinosaurs that had skin like armor, and we know of animals that were capable of "breathing fire" due to the way that they processed food in their stomach(s). So, I don't find either of these to be particularly troubling. We aren't exactly sure what the behemoth and leviathan were referring to in the OT, other than very large creatures. Whether some mythology used those names as mythological creatures is not particularly important. We do know of prehistoric creatures that could have fit the descriptions given for these, so again, I don't find that particularly troubling.

 

Actually L4A already thrashed you on the translation issue and i cannot find one bloody thing concerning what you are saying about the word virgin being there before Christ's birth. You have yet to list anything supporting it to.

 

There are plenty of references in the Bible to the book of Enoch. I Peter 3:19,20 and Jude 14-15 that i quickly found on wiki. Do the research. Justin Martyr is routinly used by christians in their defense of the early church. This is why i listed him, that such an upstanding figure in christian circles believed in such rubbish.

 

LNC, nothing in the sea breathes fire or has armor. I can't believe you are actually insisting that a dinosaur lived until a few thousand years ago. But i guess this isn't far fetched for you to believe, you do believe in the flood after all. Show me an animal that breathes fire like a dragon, not some chance belching of methane from processed food, least of all in an animal that lives in the sea.

[Justin]

I have given evidence that has been ignored by you and others. First argument, the origin of the universe. All matter, space, and time began at the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. Matter is not self-caused nor eternal, therefore it had a cause that is spaceless, matterless, and timeless. Second argument, the fine-tuning of the universe and nature. That fine tuning is due to either necessity, chance or design. The physical laws are arbitrary in nature, in other words, they don't have to be the way that we find them, therefore, it is not due to necessity. Chance cannot explain the fine-tuning as the chance of these constants being the way that they are fall outside the realm of them occurring by chance alone (too many constants that are tuned too exactly to accomplish the purpose for which they are tuned). That would leave design as the most reasonable explanation. Third argument, and I will leave it at this, the existence of objective morality. We had this discussion on another thread and no one was able to explain their existence from a purely naturalistic point of view. Also, no one wants to deny their existence as the ramifications of such would have devastating consequences. The most reasonable explanation is that they derive from a transcendent source that is personal (otherwise we would lose the oughtness of morals), eternal (otherwise morals would be created and arbitrary), and immutable (unchanging). These are just a few of the characteristics that we would need to see to have objective morality. God, by definition fits all of these characteristics and gives us the basis of objective moral values, which again most of us would agree exist and must have a source.

 

Those ID scientists have submitted their information for peer review which, as you and I both know, is controlled by those with a worldview that is counter to ID and therefore opposed to giving them the opportunity to be reviewed. The last time an article was allowed to be published, it cost the editor, Richard Sternberg of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, his job. There is as much politics in the field as there is science. The question is what do the evolution advocates have to fear if they are so confident that the IDers are wrong? Why not publish them and then show them where they are wrong?

 

LNC, you have posted tons of things, that is true. But everything you have posted has been answered. You just want to believe they have been ignored and that no one has an answer for them because you have a closed mind and came into here believing you are right and that you posessed the truth. Which is why so many people have stopped debating with you. You won't even give the other views a chance, you just believe you're right right right and everyone else is wrong.

 

NO LNC, you conclude that since nobody can give an explanation as to how the universe came into existence that therefore they are wrong and once again, you are right and a "god did it". Second, objective morality was explained by myself and many others. Once again, you did not like the answer because it did not fit in with your ideaology of "god did it" and so you disregarded it completly. Plus, you fail again and again in trying to base your christian god into the frame of the god who created the universe and objective morality. Even if you could prove these things, what evidence would you have that it is the particular god you worship that is the one responsible?

 

No one is denying that some, a very small amount of ID "scientists" have submitted information to peer review. The reason that it isn't included in scientific material is that it has been evaluated and soundly debunked. It is not because of some conspiracy as you would like to think or some cover up or supression. It isn't included in material dedicated to actual science for it iis unsubstantiated pseudeoscience. Read this. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02...requests_to.php

 

Furthermore, what about all the other scientists in the various fields who see all of nature from top to bottom, inside and out who see no evidence of a god? You didn't answer this before. Why do they not see god in the universe or anywhere?

[Ouroboros]

LNC, you have posted tons of things, that is true. But everything you have posted has been answered. You just want to believe they have been ignored and that no one has an answer for them because you have a closed mind and came into here believing you are right and that you posessed the truth. Which is why so many people have stopped debating with you. You won't even give the other views a chance, you just believe you're right right right and everyone else is wrong.

Exactly. LNC is the one ignoring the answers.

 

In rhetoric class you learn that to have a meaningful debate there has to be some form of basic agreement. There must be some kind of a fundamental platform from where both parties can go. But in the case of LNC and me, the disparity is so great that there's no landing at all from where we can build the discussion, and I suspect everyone feels the same way. And I think everyone here agrees that bullshit, regardless of how many scented versions it comes in, is still bullshit.

[Neon Genesis]

Those ID scientists have submitted their information for peer review which, as you and I both know, is controlled by those with a worldview that is counter to ID and therefore opposed to giving them the opportunity to be reviewed. The last time an article was allowed to be published, it cost the editor, Richard Sternberg of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, his job. There is as much politics in the field as there is science. The question is what do the evolution advocates have to fear if they are so confident that the IDers are wrong? Why not publish them and then show them where they are wrong?

I call bullshit on this. First of all, Richard Sternberg was never an actual paid employee at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. He was an unpaid Research Associate, so how the hell could he have been fired from a job he never had? Here's a link about it http://www.newsweek.com/id/132855

In your April 14 Periscope interview with Ben Stein ("You Say You Want an Evolution?"), one of Stein's responses contained a serious error: He said, "There are a number of scientists and academics who've been fired, denied tenure, lost tenure or lost grants because they even suggested the possibility of intelligent design. The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job." The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job." Sternberg has never been employed by the Smithsonian Institution. Since January 2004, he has been an unpaid research associate in the departments of invertebrate and vertebrate zoology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Sternberg continues to enjoy full access to research facilities at the museum. Moreover, Stein's assertion that Sternberg was removed from a Smithsonian publication is not true. The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is an independent journal and is not affiliated with the Smithsonian.

So, not only was he not an actual paid employee there, he was never removed from his position, so stop trying to bear false witness. As for your so-called peer reviewed information for ID, here's what the Council of the Biological Society of Washington has to say about it.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

Stop getting your arguments from Ben Stein and argue real facts here, please.

 

I was left shaking my head in disbelief that he would even put forth such a weak attempt (and here he is trying to overcome fine-tuning and not answer the origin question). In essence, he argues that the universe must have been the product of chance otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it.

I call bullshit on this. I am fairly certain that nowhere does Dawkins ever say that the universe came about my chance. That's just a lie that creationist nutjobs spread about atheists because they're too ignorant to understand reality. Tell me where in his book does Dawkins ever attribute the origins of the universe to chance? If you can't tell us, then you're guilty of bearing false witness again and you're proving you're a lying hypocrite that's only out to harass people and spread malicious lies about them.

 

I have given evidence that has been ignored by you and others. First argument, the origin of the universe. All matter, space, and time began at the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. Matter is not self-caused nor eternal, therefore it had a cause that is spaceless, matterless, and timeless. Second argument, the fine-tuning of the universe and nature. That fine tuning is due to either necessity, chance or design. The physical laws are arbitrary in nature, in other words, they don't have to be the way that we find them, therefore, it is not due to necessity. Chance cannot explain the fine-tuning as the chance of these constants being the way that they are fall outside the realm of them occurring by chance alone (too many constants that are tuned too exactly to accomplish the purpose for which they are tuned). That would leave design as the most reasonable explanation. Third argument, and I will leave it at this, the existence of objective morality.

And as I keep telling you, if you're using God as a pathetic excuse, you have to explain to us where did God come from. And using childish answers like God is invisible, therefore he exists does not count as an answer. You also have to explain where does God get his morals from if we have to get our morals from somewhere else in order to have one. You're the one making the extraordinary claims here, so you're the one going to have to provide the extraordinary evidence and so far you haven't done that.

 

Really, if you have a problem with my answers, just say so without resorting to name-calling.

And you can start answering our questions without spreading false lies about people and claiming that we deserve to be tortured unless we believe in God and that we shouldn't feel pissed about that.

 

A person can say that they didn't see a speed limit sign, but if they have been speeding and get caught, they are still held accountable. Even if they passed it without noticing, they are still held accountable. All the officer has to do is show that the sign was there.

This is a stupid analogy. That's like saying you missed the sign that the invisible pink unicorn exists, so therefore you deserve to go to pony hell. Where's your evidence?

[Abiyoyo]

First, I meet with an interfaith group on a weekly basis and this group includes Muslims, Baha'is, Catholics, Agnostics, and others. Second, a Muslim would never say that as it would be heretical to his/her beliefs. They do not believe that Muhammad is God. It doesn't matter how many people adhere to a belief, that is not a sign of its veracity. Your final argument is an appeal to what is called the genetic fallacy, that has nothing to do with the truthfulness or untruthfulness of a worldview.

 

That's kinda the point LNC. You are right. A Muslim would never say that because it is against their belief. In much doctrine of Christianity, Jesus is the only way, if you don't believe, then you go to hell, right? So, then your answer is all Islamic will go to hell

 

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Romans 3:10-11

 

Hey, Paul, I'm sorry your having a rough time right now buddy, ...but, I seek God everyday. I'm not perfect Paul, but I try to seek. Get some rest buddy.

 

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

 

So, you think the Jews will go to hell then to? Question. Jesus said in this verse, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. But, Jesus is apart of the Trinity, which makes Him equal to the Father. So, if someone prays to the Father (Muslim), why would they have to go to Jesus? That is the whole point of the Trinity, right?

 

Your final argument is an appeal to what is called the genetic fallacy, that has nothing to do with the truthfulness or untruthfulness of a worldview.

 

Worldview? LNC, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all derived from the same melting pot of religion. How is my analogy genetic fallacy?

[Ouroboros]

Worldview? LNC, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all derived from the same melting pot of religion. How is my analogy genetic fallacy?

LNC has a tendency to throw out claims of fallacies, because he thinks it makes him sound intelligent. And half of the time he use them wrong. I don't trust people who accuse of fallacies every third sentence. It's a method of accusing the opponent of dishonesty and a way of gaining points in a debate, but here it won't have the same effect, because the audience is different. The person debating has to modify his approach depending on the potential audience, and LNC use methods that might work in some settings, but here it just alienates him. But what's worse is that he doesn't understand this.

[Neon Genesis]

So, you think the Jews will go to hell then to? Question. Jesus said in this verse, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. But, Jesus is apart of the Trinity, which makes Him equal to the Father. So, if someone prays to the Father (Muslim), why would they have to go to Jesus? That is the whole point of the Trinity, right?

Ah, but they aren't "true" followers of Christ and are living in sin, so God won't hear the prayers of sinners. At least that's the standard fundie response. I can argue for xtianity better than LNC can and I don't even believe in it. We might as well just ignore LNC and have our own mock debate ourselves.

[Abiyoyo]

We might as well just ignore LNC and have our own mock debate ourselves.

 

 

[Pandora Moon]

so if you have specific passages that you have difficulty with, then please give those references and I will be happy to address them.

 

LNC I hope you don't mind if I ask this again but I haven't seen a reply. So I'll save you the trouble of searching for it, since it must be a good few pages back now.

 

You said that the bible has no errors or contrdictions right? well I may have spotted one.

 

In Exodus 20:13 it says clearly that "you must not murder" and yet in Ecclesiates 3:4 it says there is "a time to kill"

 

Now to me that looks like a pretty big contrdiction however I'm no bible scholar so I could be mis-understanding it. So maybe you could help me understand it?

 

If you have already replied to this before then I apologie.

 

Thanks

[Justin]

I am not aware of anyone refuting the argument. Dawkins is completely out of his element in attempting to argue against this argument. He begs the question in his argument, which is not directly aimed at the Kalam version, but just the cosmological argument in general. He assumes that God would have characteristics like nature in that if he exists he would have had to have been created, giving no reason beyond his naturalistic presuppositions as to why this has to be the case. He also does a poor job of trying to justify his position using the anthropic principle - I was left shaking my head in disbelief that he would even put forth such a weak attempt (and here he is trying to overcome fine-tuning and not answer the origin question). In essence, he argues that the universe must have been the product of chance otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it. I had to reread it a few times to see if I was missing something from his argument since it seemed like such slight of hand, but I hadn't. Really, if you are appealing to Dawkins as an example of someone who has refuted Kalam it just tells me that you don't know much about the argument or the debates that Craig has participated in.

 

You know, I told someone earlier that whenever someone accuses me of being arrogant or holier-than-thou, I can't help thinking how arrogant and holier-than-thou that accusation sounds. Really, if you have a problem with my answers, just say so without resorting to name-calling. That is the refuge of one who has run out of arguments. So, how does this pertain to my response that the most reasonable fall-back position is agnosticism rather than atheism. Most educated skeptics whom I have heard speak call themselves agnostic since one cannot prove that God doesn't exist. If you think my argument is weak, surely you can come up with some reason why rather than resorting to ad hominem...

 

I want to deal with your second paragraph first.

 

I do have a problem with your answers as i have stated again and again. Evidence has been put up in front of you, not name calling. If evidence wasn't put up then i doubt we all have been insulting you through all these countless pages. You have been called names, but only those that fit. You are arrogant and you are holier-than-thou as given by your self-righteous attitude on here. You are not open to any view aside from your own and you can't even admit when you have been had, you just say that we are ignoring you and no one can answer what you put up. Though every single thing you have put up has been answered. You are like talking to a tree, or a robot that just spews out the same statements again and again and is oblivious to what is being said to it.

 

You can fall on the old "run out of arguments" trick all you want, i could care less. The truth of the matter is that you are arrogant in thinking the general fallback position is agnosticism. You are calling this when you yourself are neither an agnostic or an atheist, but rather one who is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Therefore you have absolutely no ground to even comment on it. You state it as fact, like you do everything, with screw all to back it up. The answer to why you are obviously wrong is that nearly all the people on this site are athesit. You will find many agnostics too. Who's to say why one individual goes agnostic and another goes atheist, certainly not you. You were being an idiot and i called you on it while at the same time answering your question.

 

The Kalam arguement is just a newer version of the cosmological arguement. Craig did nothing new. Dawkins has addressed the cosmological arguement several times in lectures and in his books. Wiki has several objections to this arguement on its article about it. As i said earlier to you, which you once again fail to address, is that even if proven true, which god? Who's god? Why hasn't Craig's arguement gained any scientific following? You boast that this arguement is valid because it cannot be shot down conclusivly. Speaking of Dawkins, in the 'God Delusion', he quotes someone, can't remember who, who said said that there is a gigantic galaxy sized tea pot floating about in some far flung corner of the universe. It may seem silly but we cannot disprove it. So, using your logic, it must exist out there somewhere.

 

Perhaps you would like this argument against the Kalam Argument. I seriously doubt it for you will just blah blah blah "i'm right and you're wrong/they're wrong" like you usually do. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jam...till/kalam.html

 

I forgot to mention this in my earlier reply to you in regards to science. But science has an error correcting mechanisim built into it. If there is any facts or figures that come about that go against what is already regarded as factual science, then it would get changed to quick to talk about. You gave me the impression that you think science won't give creationism the time of day because they are are the mindset that is against creationisim. This is not the case. As i said earlier, they hardly give it the time of day because it is all bogus nonsense. So they don't waste their time on unsubstantiated claims without any evidence or anything whatsoever to support it.

[Justin]

I don't remember you bringing up specific passages that trouble you, and if you did and I missed them, then my apologies. I don't have time to do your research and answer your questions as well, so if you have specific passages that you have difficulty with, then please give those references and I will be happy to address them.

 

Surely you are not going to tell me that you just stumbled upon that verse on your own. I know Christians who have read the Bible many times and would have read past those verses without even noticing them. BTW, regarding TalkOrigins, I would agree that it is predominantly a science oriented website; however, one learns a lot about a site by visiting the bibliography, which I did at this site. Listed were book recommendations in the areas of atheism, logic, Old Testament (including a book on the names of God), beliefs (including religious beliefs), and UFOs. None of these topics has to do directly with science, so I would say that TalkOrigins has a philosophical bent to it that is anti-supernatural and anti-religious. It is one thing to be neutral and another to advocate against a position.

 

I admitted that I used one source for research and since the information was in table form, it was hard to do much else than to recreate it almost as it was. However, he showed one example of that and asserted another which I had never seen before and for which he produced no evidence of my having taken anything from that site - the information didn't even really pertain to what we were discussing, other than the fact that they abbreviated the term Law of Non-Contradiction to LNC, that seemed to be the only link between me and that site - and that is a stretch.

 

So, yes, I will admit that I sourced my information regarding Gilgamesh from that Tektonics site; however, no one here has told me from where they are sourcing their information, and I know that it isn't coming off the top of their heads. These arguments are floating around by too many atheists to convince me of that.

 

LNC, you are the one making remarkable claims. So it is you who needs to do your research and post it on here, not your opinion. Countless links have been put up for you and yet you just fly back with your old opinionated rubbish and few links or anything to back it up. So you do your research for your bogus claims ok?

 

Yes, i stumbled upon that verse on my own. Why is that hard for you to believe? It screams out at you as being wrong, like so many in the Bible. But i suppose one has to be inclined to thinking in order to do as such. Now you don't have to wonder why so many christians don't see it.

 

Shantonu showed that you copied from two sites, and at least another was similar to what you posted. Go back and read it and take it up with him.

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps you would like this argument against the Kalam Argument. I seriously doubt it for you will just blah blah blah "i'm right and you're wrong/they're wrong" like you usually do. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jam...till/kalam.html

I argued with him about this a while back, and he refuse to see and deny all counter arguments, because of the fact that God made LNC much smarter than everyone else, and any argument against his favorite Kalam is a fallacy of LNC's choosing.

 

You also have the arguments against Craig's Kalam in SEP (Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy): link.

 

But nothing sticks on LNC, because he knows better than everyone else. So you can forget to even argue this with him.

[Neon Genesis]

The Kalam arguement is just a newer version of the cosmological arguement. Craig did nothing new. Dawkins has addressed the cosmological arguement several times in lectures and in his books. Wiki has several objections to this arguement on its article about it. As i said earlier to you, which you once again fail to address, is that even if proven true, which god? Who's god? Why hasn't Craig's arguement gained any scientific following? You boast that this arguement is valid because it cannot be shot down conclusivly. Speaking of Dawkins, in the 'God Delusion', he quotes someone, can't remember who, who said said that there is a gigantic galaxy sized tea pot floating about in some far flung corner of the universe. It may seem silly but we cannot disprove it. So, using your logic, it must exist out there somewhere.

That was Betrand Russell and here's the whole quote known as Russell's teapot.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Funny how this sounds exactly like LNC's bogus arguments.

[LNC]

Ironically, he's exactly the type of xtian I've mentioned in my opening post in this thread, but he likely didn't even bother to read it.

 

Why is it that whenever xtians come here for the purpose of reconverting us and saving our souls, they always end up leaving with their tails behind their legs two or three pages later? I frankly find this to be rather cowardly of them to just leave and never come back without having the guts to apologize or admit they were wrong. Even most of the xtians that come here regularly do this in the threads they post in. They'll try to convert us in these threads but then when they get backed into a corner, they just pack up their bags and move to another thread. They don't even admit they were wrong about their claims. They just drop the thread for another one and I don't understand why they bother staying around when they should know by now they aren't going to convince anyone here. I don't care if they post here or not. I just don't get why when even Jesus said if somebody doesn't convert, to dust off the sandals on your feet. I also feel insulted when the xtians come here to convert us but then turn around and complain that they don't have enough time to answer all our questions because they apparently have something more important to do than saving souls. It's like they think our salvation is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. If you don't think our salvation was all that important to begin with or you had such important things to do more than saving us, why bother posting in the first place? And didn't Jesus say you were supposed to put saving souls as your top priority above everything else?

 

You claimed that Christians cut and run, drop one thread for another, etc., etc. So far, it is not I who has ended a thread or dropped a thread. I have also said that I cannot convert anyone, so that is a moot point. I don't think that I have converted one person on this thread (if I am wrong, please speak up) and don't expect to or plan to. I am simply on here to provide an alternative point of view to an otherwise one-sided discussion. I mean, how interesting can your conversations be if all you ever do is agree with one another and pat one another on the back for doing so. If that is what you want, just let me know and I will move on (not because I am cutting and running as you claim, but because you have no interest in an alternative viewpoint.) I will await the answers of the participants on this thread.

 

However, I will let you know that rs martin has been a prolific poster on a predominantly Christian site, which is from where she directed me to this site, and she doesn't get nearly the type of ill treatment and name calling that you folks dish out here, although she often claims that she does. Anyway, you let me know if you are tired of my presence and I will go with what the majority of you decide.

[LNC]

The choice narrowed down to its essentials is "turn or burn." What if I don't want to either? What if I choose to go bowling instead? It seems like a person with free will could think of many alternative choices.

 

I do choose to go bowling as opposed to either turn or burn. I Choose bowling because I cant believe the other 2 choicies exist. There is nothing to turn to and no where to burn. LNC said above that God knows the real reason I don't believe. Well you'd think that God would want to make me aware of the errors in my thinking. So that I could think properly. But so far nothing. At leas Thor clucks a lighting bolt at me once in awhile.

 

A person who jumps out of an airplane without a parachute can choose not to hit the ground, but at that point, it seems that his options have been limited such that that choice is irrelevant. The same may be the case at the end of your life. If the Bible is true, it seems that bowling will not be an option on the table. However, for some people bowling for eternity could be equivalent to hell, at least it would be for me based upon the last experience I had with bowling.

 

If God is omniscient, it would seem reasonable that he would know the real reason that you believe what you do, wouldn't it? Again, God is not interested in correct thinking, but in clean hearts. We could think all the right things about God but still have rebellion in our hearts, so the correct thinking would do no good. Until and unless we are willing to look at ourselves and understand who we really are, the rest is meaningless. And for those of you who think I am condemning you, I said "we" and I meant that literally, not in the royal sense.

[LNC]

You're absolutely right Chef. And not to forget that God could be Allah, and since LNC is an infidel he will go to Hell with us for not properly following the commands from Allah. I'm certain LNC is not praying five times a day facing Mecca.

 

If Allah is god then I am going to hell no matter what I do. There is no one who can live up to the standards set down by Islam and it is completely by Allah's whim who gets to paradise. So, it really doesn't ultimately matter what a person does other than to say the chant of Islam about there being no god but Allah and Muhammad being his prophet. But that itself is no guarantee. So, if Allah is god, we are pretty much all doomed anyway.

[LNC]

You're absolutely right Chef. And not to forget that God could be Allah, and since LNC is an infidel he will go to Hell with us for not properly following the commands from Allah. I'm certain LNC is not praying five times a day facing Mecca.

I read that moderate Muslims believe both Jews and Christians will be saved because they believe in the same god and are counted as "People Of The Book", but Christians who believe in the trinity will go to hell because they believe the trinity is polytheism, and polytheism is a sin in Islam. Unfortunately, that means 90% of all mainstream modern xtians will go to hell anyway, and if LNC believes in the trinity, he'll go to Muslim hell when he dies. What annoys me though is that LNC will use the "it's a mistranslation" argument when it comes to bats being birds, but he doesn't apply it to hell since in the OT, the Hebrew word for hell is Sheol, which means the grave, and hell is a purely Christian invention that they stole from Greek mythology. You have to wonder though, if the bible is the divinely inspired word of God, why didn't God inspire the translators, too? Was God too busy on vacation with Baal or something?

 

I think that you need to go back and study your Muslim theology. They only say to listen to Jews and Christians as people of the book, it says nothing about them going to paradise. I do believe in the Trinity but am not a polytheist, that is a mistaken claim by Muslims. Trinitarians believe in one God in three persons, so we are monotheists (mono-one, theos-God).

 

You are right in the use of the word sheol in the OT which is often translated either hell or the grave in English Bibles. However, Jesus himself spoke more of hell than of heaven during his ministry on earth. If Jesus is God in human flesh, as he claimed, then you would expect that he didn't make up the concept of hell, but simply revealed it in more detail. I say it that way as in the OT there are other passages in Isaiah and elsewhere where the concept of hell is described apart from the use of the word sheol. It describes a place of burning where the fire is not quenched in more than one passage (Is. 1, 33, 66, Jer. 7). I hope that helps clear things up for you.

[Ouroboros]

If Allah is god then I am going to hell no matter what I do. There is no one who can live up to the standards set down by Islam and it is completely by Allah's whim who gets to paradise. So, it really doesn't ultimately matter what a person does other than to say the chant of Islam about there being no god but Allah and Muhammad being his prophet. But that itself is no guarantee. So, if Allah is god, we are pretty much all doomed anyway.

Exactly. And if the measure for probability of God's existence would be made by how hard or easy it is to please God, then a non-theistic belief is definitely much easier than Christianity. So which is it? Do you have to follow God regardless of how difficult it is? Or is it just by your preference of easiness? Think about it. If you make a reason that Allah is less likely to be God because he's so hard to please, then I can make the claim that your God is likely the true God since he makes outrageous demands that we must believe in him to be saved. If God is God, then your preference isn't what decides what God wants, is it? Or maybe you do believe that God must fit into what you feel must be right, and you're a hypocrite?

[Neon Genesis]

You claimed that Christians cut and run, drop one thread for another, etc., etc. So far, it is not I who has ended a thread or dropped a thread. I have also said that I cannot convert anyone, so that is a moot point. I don't think that I have converted one person on this thread (if I am wrong, please speak up) and don't expect to or plan to.

You may not be dropping threads, but you are cutting and running our posts. L4A and Justin have repeatedly already answered your false claims throughout this thread but you just ignore their responses and put your head in the sand, then you claim we never answered your questions and keep using the same cliche arguments over and over when we had already answered them. I'm still waiting for you to prove that you're a true Christian by drinking poison and surviving. I have already asked you to do this way back on post #163 in page nine and several times after but you flat out ignored it. And don't give us that shit about how you can't convert anyone. If you can't convert anyone, then aren't you disobeying Jesus in Mark 16:15-16? That's another question I asked you earlier in this thread which you flat out ignored, you liar.

 

However, I will let you know that rs martin has been a prolific poster on a predominantly Christian site, which is from where she directed me to this site, and she doesn't get nearly the type of ill treatment and name calling that you folks dish out here, although she often claims that she does. Anyway, you let me know if you are tired of my presence and I will go with what the majority of you decide.

Bullshit. Stop acting like you're some innocent saint. You've done nothing but spread anti-atheist bigotry and malicious lies about people since you've been here. First you claim that atheists secretly believe in Jesus if they have difficulty leaving the faith as if you somehow know what they're going through. Then you lie about atheism being a belief as if you somehow know what atheism is better than atheists do. Then you tell atheists that we should just shut up and let Christians torture us because we have no right to complain if we don't believe in your imaginary friend. Then you try to blame innocent biologists for persecuting your stupid creationist scientists when no such persecution ever happened. Then you even lied about other Christians like JK Rowling of all people. You are nothing but a liar and a hypocrite and you should go and pluck the shards out of your own eye before you pluck the shards out of ours, you lying bigot.

 

You are right in the use of the word sheol in the OT which is often translated either hell or the grave in English Bibles. However, Jesus himself spoke more of hell than of heaven during his ministry on earth. If Jesus is God in human flesh, as he claimed, then you would expect that he didn't make up the concept of hell, but simply revealed it in more detail. I say it that way as in the OT there are other passages in Isaiah and elsewhere where the concept of hell is described apart from the use of the word sheol. It describes a place of burning where the fire is not quenched in more than one passage (Is. 1, 33, 66, Jer. 7). I hope that helps clear things up for you.

But the Greek word used in the NT for hell is Gehanna, which was referring metaphorically to a grave outside of Jerusalem. If Jesus was referring to a literal hell, why is it that the OT has a completely different view of the afterlife but the NT suddenly has a different view? If there is a literal hell, why did Yahweh wait so many hundreds of years before thinking to tell the Isrealites about it? What, was he sitting on his fat ass in heaven when he suddenly thought "Oh, yeah, maybe I should tell them about that hell thing where the rest of humanity will burn in for eternity while I'm at it." Are you for real here or are you just an atheist pretending to be a xtian for kicks? Because I can't believe anyone can seriously believe in your nonsense. Besides, if hell is real, how can you feel pain if you're already dead?

[LNC]

Absolutely, I am a sinner who deserves hell, just like everyone else on this earth. I rebel every day. I have broken all the 10 commandments at one time or other. I am as guilty of the death of Jesus as is everyone else on earth, we are all complicit. My rebellion merits God's wrath every day; however, I have put my trust in Jesus who promised that his death has covered my sin, and the sins of all who will trust in him.

 

If His death covered our sins, then why did he tell the woman that almost got stoned, ..go and sin no more. For that matter, if Jesus covered sin, and we will be with Him regardless, then why even have church?

 

What should he have told her, go out and keep doing what you are doing? Jesus can tell us to live a moral life withouth making that a requirement for eternal life. We won't be with Jesus regardless, only those who have been appointed to eternal life and made alive together with him. We have church because that is what he set out to build (not the building, but the people). The church is to be the witness of Jesus and his glory on earth until he comes again.

[LNC]

People here have gone to lengths to correct you on these things. However, you ignore them, refuse to respond to them and you do not apologize for your errors. Now you demand that HanSolo respond to you? Well .... shit ... now we know who god really is ... its you. What a pile a smelly dung you are.

 

I was thinking the same thing......you took the words right out of my mouth L4A

 

It would be nice if LNC would actually answer a question.

 

Such as...

[LNC]

I was thinking the same thing......you took the words right out of my mouth L4A

 

I normally don't resort to such things (calling people names and the like), but I am just sick of LNC and how he treats people here.

 

In any case, I am glad to see I am not the only one feeling this way about him .

 

I've been reading lots of Buddhism recently. The Dhammapada teaches that the foolish person "acquires theoretical knowledge only to his own disadvantage. It destroys his better natures while splitting his head." Dhammapada Ch. 5, verse 72.

 

LNC is a good example of the "fool." I've caught him copying things directly (and sometimes indirectly) from aplogetics websites. He calls this "research." Just google "LNC" and "apologetics" and see what you come up with. He really doesn't understand the words he uses. He's like a parrot merely mouthing words without understanding.

 

This is why LNC enjoys complex argument but refuses to answer simple questions. Fools are like that. They think they can astound everyone with their speechifying. They do not answer in simple, clear terms. Rather they answer questions with questions, muddying the waters hoping that we will mistake cloudy waters for deep waters. It only works if you let it.

 

Listen, I admitted to pulling information from one website to answer a specific question on which they had specific answers. Answers which, by the way, to which no one on this site has responded thus far. I am not the only one on this site who pulls info from other resources. None of us has all the answers or even all of the questions. So, yes from time to time I will research other sites; however, you have only documented one occassion where that has happened and a second site that you reference for which you were wrong.

 

I find that the biggest defense that the people on this site happen to have is the use of the ad hominem argument. "Fool," "butthead," and the like. Well, I have news for you; those aren't arguments, they are logical fallacies and weak dodges. You also claim that I am avoiding arguments. I say bring out the proof rather than making the empty claims.

 

If you have specific questions, all I ask is that you make them just that. If you have claims on the Bible, you need to quote chapter and verse; I will not do your homework for you. When that has been done, I have answered the questions, and when it has not, I have not.

 

Now, some threads were closed before I could get to answer all of the posts, and if you call that a dodge or a refusal to answer the questions, then blame that on the person who closed the thread. Again, there is one of me and many of you, so don't expect me to be able to answer all of your questions at the pace that you ask them.