anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[Ouroboros]

3. There is no other rational explination for the origin of laguages. It does not make sense for billions of people to suddenly decide to speak an entirly new language unless something supernatural had a hand in it.

 

Have you studied linguistics even remotely? Languages evolve over time (yeah, there's that "evil" word, evolve). Look at Shakespearan English and modern day English. There's nothing supernatural or magical about languages changing over time. You are deluded if you think otherwise.

The guest has not studied language at all, considering all the spelling errors!

 

That's funny to see someone that can't spell making arguments about the root of language. It's like a person giving advice to the mechanics and doesn't even know where the engine is.

[Mr. Neil]

1. The alternitives for the origin of life do not make sense. The alternitive states that our organized universe came from nowhere. To go into detal I will use what I call the theory of Zero Space AKA Absolute Zero. If you draw a number line in your head, start at 2 and by halves work your way to 0. half of 2 is one half of one is 1, half of 1 is 1/2, half of 1/2 is 1/4. As you will soon realize, you will never reach 0.

As CT stated, that's a strawman. You can't critique the opposing view by making a caricature of it.

 

With this in mind lets look at something in a room lets say a wooden table. The table is made of wood, wood is made from trees, trees form plants, plants from grass, grass from roots, roots from atoms, atmos form electrons, protons, and neurtons. Logically something must make up electrons, protons, and neurtons, and what ever makes them up has to be made of something else. If we are to accecpt that there is no divine intervention then me must accept that these pieces of matter are spontanelsy appearing with no orginized fassion. The only rational explination is that something outside the limits of matter that does not need to be made of anything else is holding the first piece.

The only rational explanation when no data is available is to say "I don't know". You can't insert God into the margins.

 

2. If there is no God then there are no laws. Why? Because if there is no God then we came from nothing and the product of nothing is still nothing, therefore if a person murders someone else then using transitive reasoning we must conclude that nothing killed nothing and if nothing was killed then there is no crime.

If you only had a brain, Mr. Strawman. If you don't know what atheists believe, that doesn't mean you're entitled to make them up. No atheist says "nothing came from nothing". Atheists don't have dogmatic conclusions about origins. We simply accept that origins are beyond the scope of human understanding at the time being (or possibly forever), so we don't presume to know. We theorize, of course, but no athiest says "nothing came from nothing".

 

Second, you seem to misunderstand "laws". Scientific laws are not authoritative in the way traffic laws are. Scientific laws are descriptive of the universe we live in. As humans are not clarvoyant, sometimes we get our observations wrong and we have to go back and change the scientific laws to conform with the observed reality. Such is the case with when Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Neutonian physics.

 

Furthermore, your strawman carries over into a non sequitur. I'd like to know where you got this idea that if there was no God that there'd be no morality. Just by being mortal, we are able to gauge morality through the reduction of pain and harm. To put the definition of morality outside the human experience is to make good and bad meaningless. Harmlessness could be deemed evil, and harmfulness can be deemed good. A good example of this is to be found in Numbers 15:35, where the man is sentenced to death for picking up sticks. According to the Bible, the bad act was the man picking up sticks, but the good act was his fellow Israelites stoning him to death.

 

If this is your idea of morality, then your morality lacks coherency. To a Christian, good and bad are defined by God's will. That which is good is God's will, while that which is evil is not God's will. The problem with this should be obvious. If goodness is God's will by definition, then it's meaningless to say that God is a good, because all you're saying is that God is Godly. It's like saying, "Neil, you're so Neil."

 

Another problem is God's will as it relates to evil. If goodness is God's will, then when does evil happen? Doesn't God have a plan? Can anything happen that is against God's will? If something happens that's against God's will, then that means that God's will has been thwarted, and thus God cannot be God if evil exists. Unless, of course, evil is just part of God's plan as well. But if evil is part of God's plan, then is evil good?

 

As anyone can plainly see, your Christian morality is bankrupt, because it divorces itself from the human experience and renders itself incoherent upon evaluation.

 

3. There is no other rational explination for the origin of laguages. It does not make sense for billions of people to suddenly decide to speak an entirly new language unless something supernatural had a hand in it.

You've never taken a course on language etymology, have you? Languages evolve. Nobody just decides to speak a new language. That's another strawman.

 

These are just a few reasons I can offer you at the moment. I hope I have been of assistance. I hope and pray for the best.

Are you joking? You suck. That was terrible.

[Ouroboros]

Regarding the evidence against Christianity as the "True" religion I would propose that Christians breaks the first commandment.

 

If the Jewish God was the same God as the Christian, and the OT clearly say that you shouldn't have any other gods besides him, and that God can't have a son, it's very clear that Christians believe in a false religion. Either the Jewish God was the real God, and the Christian faith is false, or the Christian faith is true and the Jewish God was false.

 

The Trinity dogma is not consistent with a monotheistic faith. We could apply the trinity idea to Roman religion or Greek and pick 50 gods, and call it a fiftinity (or whatever), and suddenly all polytheistic religions are monotheistic too. So the trinity teachings are inconsistent with the OT and the first commandment.

 

You Christian can scream "trinity" as much as you want, but you do pray to different characters of the god-hood, and have separated God into three units that you pray to in different ways, just the way any polytheistic religion does.

 

So make your pick, was the Jewish faith the true faith with one God, or is the Christian religion true with three gods? Either way you'll have a huge problem connecting the two into one.

 

And also OT describes a complete different character than the NT does. OT tells you a story about the revengeful and angry God that punishes in this life, without an afterlife, while the NT describes a God that supposedly give you anything you need in this life, or a so called "loving God", and only punishes in an afterlife that is not explained in OT.

 

So if Christianity is the true religion, than the Jewish God in OT is false, and you have lost, or the Jewish God in OT is true, and Christianity is false and you lose again.

[Ssel]

KH> Actually, I think you are the one who is stuck (with all due respect).

Kevin (if your still around),

 

Has anyone here thus far even slightly caused any doubt to form in you concerning your faith?

 

I didn’t really want to do this but, for the sake of any real God, I challenge you to prove to me that your supernatural God exists. I first ask that you provide your definition of the word “supernatural” and “God”. Please be very specific unlike the popular “God is the creator of the world.” If we can agree to those definitions then I will accept any evidence you wish to present as long as I can verify its source.

 

Unlike most on this forum, I will acknowledge your reasoning for as long as you acknowledge mine. I am not interested nor prone to distractive or harassing methods of argument as I can see that you are not as well. I will honestly give you every reasonable opportunity to prove your points and I will expect for you to do the same for me.

 

This is not merely a public display. I expect your heart to be in it as mine will be. I expect for you to accept my points with genuine acceptance just as I will with yours. The challenge is that either you will raise my faith in your supernatural God, or I will cause your faith to alter.

 

I’m not concerned with which area on this site this challenge is met. I don’t expect other comments to be either helpful nor harmful to either of us.

 

But I warn you, if you accept this challenge and terms, your faith will, in fact be in danger.

[Taphophilia]

 

Ssel waiting for Kevin to respond to his challenge.

[Cerise]

I think Kevin scadaddled out of here already. I'd be really surprised if he came back to refute any of this. Once the "I pray for you's" come out that's pretty much a signal for "I can't think of any argument that isn't crap so I'll just run away now".

[willybilly30]

He's no big loss

[Taphophilia]

He's no big loss

 

There will be more where he came from.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

Ssel waiting for Kevin to respond to his challenge.

 

Hey I was here first.

 

I guess he ran away just like our friend Iprayican

[Vigile]

I have taken some required journeys too. And I peer into you and see that you are full of self-aggrandizing bullshit.

I had little doubt that such would be the response. So be it.

 

Yes prophets aren't accepted in their home towns and claims of spirtual enlightenment bordering on a messianic complex aren't accepted on a free thinker's website. Go figure.

[Ssel]

.. claims of spirtual enlightenment bordering on a messianic complex aren't accepted on a free thinker's website.

As long as they don't cross the border.

 

 

 

Try to remember that "free thinker" also means free from the realities of thinking.

[Vigile]

Try to remember that "free thinker" also means free from the realities of thinking.

 

Oh, I'll never be free from the realities of thinking again. Guess I will just have to find my pleasures and meaning in the realities of the senses. So far, so good.

[Ssel]

Oh, I'll never be free from the realities of thinking again. Guess I will just have to find my pleasures and meaning in the realities of the senses. So far, so good.

You have to do something the first time to do it again.

 

So far, I have seen no evidence that your "thinking" is free from passion. Passion overrules reasoning. Until you're free from passion, you can't be free to get to the realities of thinking the first time.

 

-- But of course, you can passionatly insist that you are.

 

 

[Vigile]

Oh, I'll never be free from the realities of thinking again. Guess I will just have to find my pleasures and meaning in the realities of the senses. So far, so good.

You have to do something the first time to do it again.

 

So far, I have seen no evidence that your "thinking" is free from passion. Passion overrules reasoning. Until you're free from passion, you can't be free to get to the realities of thinking the first time.

 

-- But of course, you can passionatly insist that you are.

 

 

 

...or you could just drop the pretentious, self-righteous bullshit and go look for easier soil to till in your search for followers.

[Ssel]

...or you could just drop the pretentious, self-righteous bullshit and go look for easier soil to till in your search for followers.

OR you could actually do the "thinking" you claim and realize how many times I have faced any potential "followers" with "gain your own understanding". I have stated that I am no messiah nor leader of men nor in pursuit of followers. I make every attempt to show the reasoning and explanations for anything I propose to be accepted. But then your passionate free thinking wouldn't be able to handle that, now would it.

 

Because of course, we ALL know that if anyone has a new thought, then of course he absolutely MUST be wanting to gain a religous following and run the world, why else would anyone actually try to think of anything that wasn't on the 6 o'clock news?

 

After all, that's what you would do, right?

 

Either hate with me or go away?

[Vigile]

...or you could just drop the pretentious, self-righteous bullshit and go look for easier soil to till in your search for followers.

OR you could actually do the "thinking" you claim and realize how many times I have faced any potential "followers" with "gain your own understanding". I have stated that I am no messiah nor leader of men nor in pursuit of followers. I make every attempt to show the reasoning and explanations for anything I propose to be accepted. But then your passionate free thinking wouldn't be able to handle that, now would it.

 

Because of course, we ALL know that if anyone has a new thought, then of course he absolutely MUST be wanting to gain a religous following and run the world, why else would anyone actually try to think of anything that wasn't on the 6 o'clock news?

 

After all, that's what you would do, right?

 

You know when I come around here and try and sell you some "new" form of spirituality or the like then you can feel free to apply your own skepticism and critical thought to it, but until then I'll just say that you are pretty damn presumptuous to be making any kind of claims about who I am or what I think.

 

6 o'clock news, pfft! Don't make me laugh. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and force me in with the hoi polloi as you make your assumptions about who I am or what I think.

 

Tell you what though, you say you don't claim to be looking for followers, well, I'm not looking for a leader so let's just part our ways both happy that neither of us was denied our wishes.

[Ssel]

You know when I come around here and try and sell you some "new" form of spirituality or the like ..

Yeah, I guess to you logic would in fact be a new type of spirituality.

[Vigile]

You know when I come around here and try and sell you some "new" form of spirituality or the like ..

Yeah, I guess to you logic would in fact be a new type of spirituality.

 

Dude, I'm going to say this one last time and then I'm off. You are giving me a headache.

 

Fuck off with your attempts to paint me into some kind of corner. I'm not the one making any claims here.

[Ssel]

Dude, I'm going to say this one last time and then I'm off.

My perspective exactly.

Fuck off with your attempts to paint me into some kind of corner. I'm not the one making any claims here.

Ditto

 

Except that I do claim that I have found something new and if it were as simple minded as the bullshit coming out of your face, then I would have simply stated it long ago. But it happens to require the ability to think and reason, thus it isn't easy to present where their is such a lack as yours.

[Vigile]

Dude, I'm going to say this one last time and then I'm off.

My perspective exactly.

Fuck off with your attempts to paint me into some kind of corner. I'm not the one making any claims here.

Ditto

 

Except that I do claim that I have found something new and if it were as simple minded as the bullshit coming out of your face, then I would have simply stated it long ago. But it happens to require the ability to think and reason, thus it isn't easy to present where their is such a lack as yours.

 

Spoken like a true cultist. You can't/won't believe what I claim therefore you are stupid, unchosen, or unenlightened.

[Ssel]

Spoken like a true cultist. You can't/won't believe what I claim therefore you are stupid, unchosen, or unenlightened.

Yeah, every new thought is merely the heretic ramblings of a "cultist"

 

Aristotle, Einstein, Maxwell, Galileo.. all just dirty filthy cultists not going along with the proper hate and love. I should be ashamed to be in such company as to claim anything out of the norm. Especially when I push the idea of actually using thought, reasoning, and logic as its foundation. How can I live with myself.

 

 

[Vigile]

Aristotle, Einstein, Maxwell, Galileo.. all just dirty filthy cultists not going along with the proper hate and love. I should be ashamed to be in such company as to claim anything out of the norm. Especially when I push the idea of actually using thought, reasoning, and logic as its foundation. How can I live with myself.

 

 

 

You push your thought, reasoning, and logic the same way Ayn Rand did and like her you become highly offended at those who choose to apply skepticism or critical thought to your "truthes." Walks like a duck...

[Ssel]

You push your thought, reasoning, and logic the same way Ayn Rand did and like her you become highly offended at those who choose to apply skepticism or critical thought to your "truthes." Walks like a duck...

And you, typically, see only what your hatred allows and presumes. When exactly did I get offended at "those who choose to apply skepticism"? I have insisted that one should accept NOTHING until they can not doubt it within themselves regardless of where it came from (including me).

 

Of course your idea of "skepticism" is most likely the mere antagonistic ramblings of a typical non-thinking worshipper of some hate scheme.

 

When I see skepticism, I answer it with more explanation as much as I can muster up. But it is always with explanation, not your childish accusations of cultism and whatever other words you can think up to make it sound like something bad, typically attempting to control the emotions of others rather than stick to the simple facts and let people think without your version of what they should hate and stand against.

 

 

Your funny.

 

 

 

..in a sad sort of way.

[Vigile]

 

You're replies are getting loopier and loopier. What is it exactly that I hate? All I have essentially been saying is that what ever you are selling, I ain't buying. You think you have found the key to the universe, the meaning of life, zen, nirvana, whatever, and I don't care. I'm not trying to sell you anything and I'd appreciate it if you would step off my porch and quit trying to sell me something. Why is this hard to understand? Instead I've had my intelligence insulted and have been exposed to your huffy little diatribes telling me that I don't understand logic and skepticism. I have not personally evaluated all the claims you have made since you have been on this site and I don't intend to. Claims are cheap and I don't have the time or desire to personally investigate all of them. You got something new to say that measures up with Einstein and the other thinkers you lumped yourself in with, then issue a paper and let the scientific community parse your claims. You want to come to this website and claim that you are old and enlightened implying some metaphysical experience that you and few others have been lucky enough to endure then I call bullshit until proven otherwise. I'm sooooo sorry I'm not a gullible lamb.

 

As for your assumptions about me, you don't know my grades in the university, you don't know the books I've read, the thoughts I've thought, the people I've met, the discussions I've had, the stature in life I've attained, the places I've been, the things I've seen so step off and let it go proselyte.

[Guest Guest]

I have insisted that one should accept NOTHING until they can not doubt it within themselves regardless of where it came from (including me).

 

But SSel, if we have found our own truth as many here have, you basically come back and say (not in exact words) "no you haven't". So indeed you are telling us that unless we accept "your" enlightment that we have doubt even though we say that we do not.