Total Posts:130|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Failure of Scripture

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Bible doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what someone claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind, is simply a display of your robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S mind. But it does waste a lot of space.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:37:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

Nnnnnno I'm pretty sure the phrase applies to all claims. If I claim to be king of England then chances are you're not going to believe me 'til I post a selfie with the Queen, are you?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:37:20 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

Nnnnnno I'm pretty sure the phrase applies to all claims. If I claim to be king of England then chances are you're not going to believe me 'til I post a selfie with the Queen, are you?

Nnnnnno, the belief in God is not a scientific claim, but a spiritual one, nice try though.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:43:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scripture simply holds no authority. That's all I'm really saying. If someone quotes two or three hundred verses from the Qur'an, are you going to deconvert and become a Muslim? If you can't grasp that, then you're too lacking in reason to hope to be effective in debate.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:43:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

EXACTLY!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:44:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

A claim made without supporting evidence, isn't scientific in the first place. You keep thinking you understand science, yet you keep demonstrating devout ignorance regarding science.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:45:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:43:17 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scripture simply holds no authority. That's all I'm really saying. If someone quotes two or three hundred verses from the Qur'an, are you going to deconvert and become a Muslim? If you can't grasp that, then you're too lacking in reason to hope to be effective in debate.

Why? I'm not a Muslim I represent Christianity. If I'm to be "effective in debate" then I better have a stand on what I believe right? Otherwise it's to no use for you.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:47:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:44:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

A claim made without supporting evidence, isn't scientific in the first place. You keep thinking you understand science, yet you keep demonstrating devout ignorance regarding science.

How?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:41:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:37:20 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

Nnnnnno I'm pretty sure the phrase applies to all claims. If I claim to be king of England then chances are you're not going to believe me 'til I post a selfie with the Queen, are you?

Nnnnnno, the belief in God is not a scientific claim, but a spiritual one, nice try though.

The claim that God created the universe is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that God exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Heaven exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that there is a spiritual ream is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Earth existed before the sun and stars is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus was resurrected is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that the Earth was completely flooded is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that a man built a wooden ship over 500-feet in length and used it to salvage the species of Earth is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus lived in Nazareth around the first third of the first century is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus is subject to scientific scrutiny.

That's only a very small start. The Bible makes hundreds of claims which are subject to scientific scrutiny. And in most cases, they fail that scrutiny.

So trying to hide the Bible from the lens of science is simple dishonesty.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:53:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:47:10 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:44:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

A claim made without supporting evidence, isn't scientific in the first place. You keep thinking you understand science, yet you keep demonstrating devout ignorance regarding science.

How?

Let's start with this claim of yours. . . that a claim without supporting evidence can be "scientific". Science demands that all conclusions be supported with evidence. So there is no such thing as a "Scientific claim made without evidence".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:53:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:47:10 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:44:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

A claim made without supporting evidence, isn't scientific in the first place. You keep thinking you understand science, yet you keep demonstrating devout ignorance regarding science.

How?

Let's start with this claim of yours. . . that a claim without supporting evidence can be "scientific". Science demands that all conclusions be supported with evidence. So there is no such thing as a "Scientific claim made without evidence".

What science "demands" is irrelevant when dealing with spiritual matters since God is not a physical Being, therefore science is not able to distinguish that which is of a spiritual nature, likewise limiting what science actually knows about God and His Being.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:14:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:41:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:37:20 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

Nnnnnno I'm pretty sure the phrase applies to all claims. If I claim to be king of England then chances are you're not going to believe me 'til I post a selfie with the Queen, are you?

Nnnnnno, the belief in God is not a scientific claim, but a spiritual one, nice try though.

The claim that God created the universe is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that God exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Heaven exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that there is a spiritual ream is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Earth existed before the sun and stars is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus was resurrected is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that the Earth was completely flooded is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that a man built a wooden ship over 500-feet in length and used it to salvage the species of Earth is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus lived in Nazareth around the first third of the first century is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus is subject to scientific scrutiny.

That's only a very small start. The Bible makes hundreds of claims which are subject to scientific scrutiny. And in most cases, they fail that scrutiny.

So trying to hide the Bible from the lens of science is simple dishonesty.

I'm not "hiding from the lens of science", there is no need and no need for dishonesty.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 11:24:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 7:14:02 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:41:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:37:20 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

Nnnnnno I'm pretty sure the phrase applies to all claims. If I claim to be king of England then chances are you're not going to believe me 'til I post a selfie with the Queen, are you?

Nnnnnno, the belief in God is not a scientific claim, but a spiritual one, nice try though.

The claim that God created the universe is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that God exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Heaven exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that there is a spiritual ream is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Earth existed before the sun and stars is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus was resurrected is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that the Earth was completely flooded is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that a man built a wooden ship over 500-feet in length and used it to salvage the species of Earth is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that Jesus lived in Nazareth around the first third of the first century is subject to scientific scrutiny.
The claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus is subject to scientific scrutiny.

That's only a very small start. The Bible makes hundreds of claims which are subject to scientific scrutiny. And in most cases, they fail that scrutiny.

So trying to hide the Bible from the lens of science is simple dishonesty.

I'm not "hiding from the lens of science", there is no need and no need for dishonesty.

So then you admit that God either exists, or he doesn't, and whether or not God exists is open to scientific scrutiny?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 2:54:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:41:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:37:20 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

Nnnnnno I'm pretty sure the phrase applies to all claims. If I claim to be king of England then chances are you're not going to believe me 'til I post a selfie with the Queen, are you?

Nnnnnno, the belief in God is not a scientific claim, but a spiritual one, nice try though.

Doesn't matter what the nature of the claim is, and if you want to prove me wrong then the only way to do so is to raise an entire generation of people without them ever seeing a bible or being tol about God and yet have them still know the stories and life of Jesus contained within.

Besides, I'd argue that the existence of God is the MOST scientific claim you can get. The origin of the planet and all life onit, the existence of every chemical, every amino acid, every plant, fish, germ, mammal, bird, reptile, the formation of every mountaintop and the shape of every seabed, the elements, radiation, heat, fusion and aerodynamics. From the basic laws that govern gravity to the laws of the conservation of matter, the size, shape and design of every bone, muscle, organ, vein, artery and piece of DNA in the body of every living thing. Comets, stars, asteroids, moons, all of which, according to your faith, have a fundamental existence because of God.

This is why science and religion don't get along. God by definition is little more than science given a voice and a temperament, but so far we've managed not to upset it too much by learning about it.

If you want to claim that God doesn't require proof then that's fine, but I hope you won't mind me deciding that I don't need proof to have a reason not to believe it.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 8:00:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

I rather enjoy responding to statements such as these below; that is what a Biblical revearing Christian should do right? Let's take a hack at then shall we.

The claim that God created the universe is subject to scientific scrutiny.

It most certainly is, you are correct. Indeed all claims are subject to scrutiny. What does the science show us? Science shows us that God could, not does, could exist. All that is needed is the possibility which leaves it as a plausible claim.

The claim that God exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Again a plausible claim for example "cells". Cell theory tells us that cells only come about by other cells. Well how did the first cell come about? It is obvious from science that a cell must come about by another cell or the theory on cells and a hinge to biology should be thrown out the window. Of course the small chance that spontaneous generation may occur but by testing and experience science points to cells must come from other cells (i.e. cells outside of the universal plane).

The claim that Heaven exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.

This is directly connected to the next one so let's address both there o.k.

The claim that there is a spiritual ream is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Again we only need the possibility from science. Science gives way to the possibility of multiple dimensions as well as various unknowns. The evidence may not a solid as the cell theory and others but again we have a possibility using the scientific method.

The claim that Earth existed before the sun and stars is subject to scientific scrutiny.

You use earth here in a manner only for the planet in which we live. Earth also means just matter on a much larger scale and indeed science will show that matter is a foundation block of all things. So, matter, earth have you, would exist before a sun or star.

The claim that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Indeed, would a plant survive without sunlight for days? Indeed they would. This is not a problem for those whom believe in either a seven day creation or the catastrophe theory. Either way your statement is not coherent with scripture.

The claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans is subject to scientific scrutiny.

This statement is pretty bogus. Using science and even evolution would tell you that a male and female is required at the beginning of humanity. Adam means man and Eve mother and even if we use evolution or creationism we have a father and mother of humanity which the names Adam and Eve represent.

The claim that Jesus existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Yes it is and historical record and science would give account that a historical Jesus did indeed live.

The claim that Jesus was resurrected is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Yes it is and if you can find over two thousand year old scientific evidence then have at it. We observe that dead and buried people do not arise from their graves but we do observe people arising from a death like state all the time. Countless reports of people losing heart beats and dying on the medical table reviving afterwards(I am not saying this happened to Jesus but this supports the story). This story is no more far fetched than claiming that cells spontaneously arose when scientific observation equally says different.

The claim that the Earth was completely flooded is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Well there is indeed scientific evidence to the effect all over the plant. One could interpret it in various ways, and it could be evidence suggesting something else, but there is evidence that leans to the possibility.

The claim that a man built a wooden ship over 500-feet in length and used it to salvage the species of Earth is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Are you saying that one could not build a 500-foot vessel? Are you also saying that one could not save himself and his family in it while the remaining people perished? Both can happen. Every culture around the world has such a story in their legends.

The claim that Jesus lived in Nazareth around the first third of the first century is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Who claims the entire first third of the 1st century? Scripture only reports He lived there for a portion of His life, a small portion at that.

The claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Indeed it is. Since I do not believe or care about such a cloth I will move on.

That's only a very small start. The Bible makes hundreds of claims which are subject to scientific scrutiny. And in most cases, they fail that scrutiny.

Do you know what scrutiny means? It means simply critical observation or examination. You can do both all you want, the evidence does not have to be overwhelming to be possible. You take scrutiny to mean absolutes and it does not mean that, to strutinize something means to examine something through and when does that one cannot say impossible in each one of your statements, maybe improbable but not impossible.

So trying to hide the Bible from the lens of science is simple dishonesty.

One does not need to hide from the scientific lens. Your casting glares on the lens creating a obscure image. Science is not to make facts certain but to show possibilities and to cancel out impossibilities and none of your statements are impossible scientifically.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 8:33:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:00:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

I rather enjoy responding to statements such as these below; that is what a Biblical revearing Christian should do right? Let's take a hack at then shall we.

The claim that God created the universe is subject to scientific scrutiny.

It most certainly is, you are correct. Indeed all claims are subject to scrutiny. What does the science show us? Science shows us that God could, not does, could exist. All that is needed is the possibility which leaves it as a plausible claim.

The claim that God exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Again a plausible claim for example "cells". Cell theory tells us that cells only come about by other cells. Well how did the first cell come about? It is obvious from science that a cell must come about by another cell or the theory on cells and a hinge to biology should be thrown out the window. Of course the small chance that spontaneous generation may occur but by testing and experience science points to cells must come from other cells (i.e. cells outside of the universal plane).

The claim that Heaven exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.

This is directly connected to the next one so let's address both there o.k.

The claim that there is a spiritual ream is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Again we only need the possibility from science. Science gives way to the possibility of multiple dimensions as well as various unknowns. The evidence may not a solid as the cell theory and others but again we have a possibility using the scientific method.

The claim that Earth existed before the sun and stars is subject to scientific scrutiny.

You use earth here in a manner only for the planet in which we live. Earth also means just matter on a much larger scale and indeed science will show that matter is a foundation block of all things. So, matter, earth have you, would exist before a sun or star.

The claim that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Indeed, would a plant survive without sunlight for days? Indeed they would. This is not a problem for those whom believe in either a seven day creation or the catastrophe theory. Either way your statement is not coherent with scripture.

The claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans is subject to scientific scrutiny.

This statement is pretty bogus. Using science and even evolution would tell you that a male and female is required at the beginning of humanity. Adam means man and Eve mother and even if we use evolution or creationism we have a father and mother of humanity which the names Adam and Eve represent.

The claim that Jesus existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Yes it is and historical record and science would give account that a historical Jesus did indeed live.

The claim that Jesus was resurrected is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Yes it is and if you can find over two thousand year old scientific evidence then have at it. We observe that dead and buried people do not arise from their graves but we do observe people arising from a death like state all the time. Countless reports of people losing heart beats and dying on the medical table reviving afterwards(I am not saying this happened to Jesus but this supports the story). This story is no more far fetched than claiming that cells spontaneously arose when scientific observation equally says different.

The claim that the Earth was completely flooded is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Well there is indeed scientific evidence to the effect all over the plant. One could interpret it in various ways, and it could be evidence suggesting something else, but there is evidence that leans to the possibility.

The claim that a man built a wooden ship over 500-feet in length and used it to salvage the species of Earth is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Are you saying that one could not build a 500-foot vessel? Are you also saying that one could not save himself and his family in it while the remaining people perished? Both can happen. Every culture around the world has such a story in their legends.

The claim that Jesus lived in Nazareth around the first third of the first century is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Who claims the entire first third of the 1st century? Scripture only reports He lived there for a portion of His life, a small portion at that.

The claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Indeed it is. Since I do not believe or care about such a cloth I will move on.

That's only a very small start. The Bible makes hundreds of claims which are subject to scientific scrutiny. And in most cases, they fail that scrutiny.

Do you know what scrutiny means? It means simply critical observation or examination. You can do both all you want, the evidence does not have to be overwhelming to be possible. You take scrutiny to mean absolutes and it does not mean that, to strutinize something means to examine something through and when does that one cannot say impossible in each one of your statements, maybe improbable but not impossible.

So trying to hide the Bible from the lens of science is simple dishonesty.

One does not need to hide from the scientific lens. Your casting glares on the lens creating a obscure image. Science is not to make facts certain but to show possibilities and to cancel out impossibilities and none of your statements are impossible scientifically.

And all you need do is discover evidence, test that evidence and make predictions based on those actions and you will prove your god scientifically, simple really.

Get back to us with your results.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 8:37:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:33:37 AM, bulproof wrote:

And all you need do is discover evidence, test that evidence and make predictions based on those actions and you will prove your god scientifically, simple really.

Get back to us with your results.

Who ever said I can, will, and should prove that God exist scientifically? Are you going to address the above statements specifically or continue to go off topic?
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 8:56:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:37:04 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 9/17/2014 8:33:37 AM, bulproof wrote:

And all you need do is discover evidence, test that evidence and make predictions based on those actions and you will prove your god scientifically, simple really.

Get back to us with your results.

Who ever said I can, will, and should prove that God exist scientifically? Are you going to address the above statements specifically or continue to go off topic?

You want to claim that your little deity beliefs are scientific, but when requested to show that scientifically you run away.

Never mind, you have nothing now that you are back just as you had nothing before.

Pretending to be intelligent is so funny.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 10:33:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 2:54:07 AM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:41:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:37:20 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

Nnnnnno I'm pretty sure the phrase applies to all claims. If I claim to be king of England then chances are you're not going to believe me 'til I post a selfie with the Queen, are you?

Nnnnnno, the belief in God is not a scientific claim, but a spiritual one, nice try though.

Doesn't matter what the nature of the claim is, and if you want to prove me wrong then the only way to do so is to raise an entire generation of people without them ever seeing a bible or being tol about God and yet have them still know the stories and life of Jesus contained within.

Why does it not matter what the nature of the claim is, how does science examine a spiritual Being? You haven't even begun to answer that and so the problem remains.

Besides, I'd argue that the existence of God is the MOST scientific claim you can get. The origin of the planet and all life onit, the existence of every chemical, every amino acid, every plant, fish, germ, mammal, bird, reptile, the formation of every mountaintop and the shape of every seabed, the elements, radiation, heat, fusion and aerodynamics. From the basic laws that govern gravity to the laws of the conservation of matter, the size, shape and design of every bone, muscle, organ, vein, artery and piece of DNA in the body of every living thing. Comets, stars, asteroids, moons, all of which, according to your faith, have a fundamental existence because of God.

All these elements are physical and we already utilize science to observe physical phenomenon. How does science examine a spiritual God? Of course science can examine what was created, but how do they validate the existence of a supernatural Entity? The answer is they can't and so which was my point sir.

This is why science and religion don't get along. God by definition is little more than science given a voice and a temperament, but so far we've managed not to upset it too much by learning about it.

They don't have to not get along, they are forced to not get along by Atheists and propaganda. As a creationist I have no plans of rejecting science to believe in God no matter how hard it is pushed my way. I love the study of our universe and always will.

If you want to claim that God doesn't require proof then that's fine, but I hope you won't mind me deciding that I don't need proof to have a reason not to believe it.

Let me make something very clear, you will never hear me say that believing in God doesn't require proof, that is NOT my resolve by any means please understand that. When I say God can't be proven or examined by science I'm not saying that there is no way to observe God or even believe in Him, what I'm saying is that there is no avenue for the scientific method to observe God, God is observed spiritually. I'm not making crap up to dodge science or run from arguments, to dismiss the existence of God because science is unable and unequipped to verify it is an argument from ignorance. Science cannot know whether or not this Being exists it should be a no-brainer. That's not to say that individuals cannot know, at all. I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't know that God exists however I have no testable scientific proof that could be verified in a lab that's just not how it works my friend.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

You see, the above passage is a principle, that principle will never change. This is how God is found, not through science experiments.

Romans 8
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

You see, if we ignore what the scriptures reveal then we ignore God and His existence, God is found and sought in spirit not the material.
I'm not trying to get over on you or win some argument, I'm simply presenting the truth so you can have a clear understanding instead of relying on faulty thinking.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 10:52:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Theists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Bible doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what someone claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind, is simply a display of your robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S mind. But it does waste a lot of space.

I suppose that is part of the reason I don't post as much actually scripture as some say I should. If I use scripture at all it is simply to show where I got what I am saying from.

The problem with quoting scripture is that to do so properly can take up an awful lot of tme asd space, because where so many go wrong is considering scriptures in isolatio.

For isntance, understanding what Genesis 1:16 means is impossible unless you include Genesis 1:1 in your thinking, because Genesis 1:1 shows that Genesis 1:16 cannot possibly be describing the creation of teh sun because it ahs already been covered in verse 1.

Therefore the only thing it can be describing is the sun and moon becoming visible from the earth.

That is the simplest and more obvious example but there are many many more.

What has to be remembered is that all too often in the past scripture has been translated, mistranslated, sometimes deliberately, and misunderstood for centuries. Therefore whilst the meanings behind is all has not changed, the actual wording often has, making it harder to get to the core of it.

That is why something I have said so often is that if you want to understand scripture you have to learn to understand it as a coherent whole, which it is. You have to use scripture to help you understand scripture.

You also need to ask God for help. James 1:5-8.

The trouble is that if, as the majority do, you try to understand it any other way, all of a sudden you introduce what seem to be contradictions.

I do however post what scripture teaches, and will happily back that up with scripture for any serious enquirer, if any fond it interesting enough.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 11:47:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:00:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

I rather enjoy responding to statements such as these below; that is what a Biblical revearing Christian should do right? Let's take a hack at then shall we.
If the Christian is interested in truth, they can't just assume the Bible to be true. They need to show that the Bible is true. Otherwise, they're not interested in the truth.

The claim that God created the universe is subject to scientific scrutiny.

It most certainly is, you are correct. Indeed all claims are subject to scrutiny. What does the science show us? Science shows us that God could, not does, could exist. All that is needed is the possibility which leaves it as a plausible claim.
What part of science suggests that life without a body is plausible? Science defines life as a particular set of chemical reactions, carried out in an embodiment. How is that to occur in a non-physical state? And what part of science allows for the chemistry of a brain (or "mind") to provide consciousness without a physical body? Disembodied life, and disembodied consciousness are not deemed to be plausible by science. They contradict the very definitions. Those suggests are oxy-morons.

The idea that science suggests - in ANY way - that God might exist is purely bankrupt. There is absolutely no evidence consistent with a God, so science says nothing. Science cannot function without evidence.

Science does have something to say about the concept of creation, and what it says is that creation is not possible, (First Law of Thermodynamics). So what science says about a creator God is that it is not known to be possible.

- I'm going to cut these into smaller sections, as I suspect each will grow into thread-sized exchanges. -
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:10:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:00:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

The claim that God exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Again a plausible claim for example "cells". Cell theory tells us that cells only come about by other cells.
No field of science exists independently from other fields of science. And since abiogenesis is a field of science, nothing in cell theory can tell us that cells can only come from other cells. It may state that we have only observed cells coming from other cells, but does not state this to be the only possible method.

Well how did the first cell come about?
Through abiogenesis. And current abiogenesis research has demonstrated multiple means for proto-cells to form without intent.

It is obvious from science that a cell must come about by another cell or the theory on cells and a hinge to biology should be thrown out the window.
As shown previously, this is not correct. Cell theory shows that to date; cells have only been observed coming about via other cells. It does not state that cells may only come about from other cells.

Of course the small chance that spontaneous generation may occur but by testing and experience science points to cells must come from other cells (i.e. cells outside of the universal plane).
Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are two very different suggestions. Spontaneous generation does not hold scientific plausibility. Abiogenesis not only demonstrates scientific plausibility, but has demonstrated that a simple mixture of just 4-chemicals in a water solution, can take on and demonstrate motility, the ability to seek out food, the ability to avoid other proto-cells, and the ability to alter its environment. And while this does not meet the definition of life, a casual observation of these proto-cells leaves them indistinguishable from life, without intense analysis and scrutiny.

https://www.youtube.com...

The actual behaviors of the proto-cells start at about 6:00 in the video.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:26:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:00:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

The claim that Heaven exists is subject to scientific scrutiny.

This is directly connected to the next one so let's address both there o.k.

The claim that there is a spiritual ream is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Again we only need the possibility from science. Science gives way to the possibility of multiple dimensions as well as various unknowns.
Which of these dimensions is non-physical? What part of science suggests that a non-physical realm is plausible?

The evidence may not a solid as the cell theory and others but again we have a possibility using the scientific method.
And as I have shown, the claims of cell-theory are not what you suggested them to be. It's a matter of careful wording between saying , "cells are only observed to come from other cells", verses "cells can only come from other cells". But the scientific plausibility for abiogenesis is more than sufficient to demonstrate that it is a matter of what has been observed, thus far - which shows that abiogenesis is highly plausible - rather than the claim that cells may not come about by means other than cells themselves.

Were science to simply state that cells can only come about via other cells, it would leave no plausibility for the existence of a first cell.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:33:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:41:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:37:20 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:33:38 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:31:14 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:27:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atheists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale ignorantly enough. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Atheist doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what an Atheist claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind is stupid, it is simply a display of Atheists robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S (Atheist) mind of course. But it does waste a lot of space.


So don't bother you dumb Theists, Atheists have the monopoly on what is truth and what is fiction.

Scientific claims made without evidence can be dismissed without scientific evidence.

Nnnnnno I'm pretty sure the phrase applies to all claims. If I claim to be king of England then chances are you're not going to believe me 'til I post a selfie with the Queen, are you?

Nnnnnno, the belief in God is not a scientific claim, but a spiritual one, nice try though.

Existence is not a question of spiritual belief. It is an empirical question of truth (existence) or falsehood (absence). Either the claim is true, and a deity exists, or the claim is false, and a deity does not exist. The state of existence is not one of spiritual truth without requirement of establishing its truth. Before you can proceed to ANY religious claims, including requirements for behavior and doctrine, the existence MUST be established, without question. If you are going to ask that I accept something based on the edict of a deity, and that deity does not exist, then that edict doesn't exist, either. The human that claims an edict comes from a deity, only to find that the deity does not exist, proves that they cannot be trusted, and their edict is more safely ignored than obeyed. At that point, it also becomes necessary to investigate MOTIVE for proclaiming edicts...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:38:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 10:52:07 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:05:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
Theists need to understand that non-theists are no more compelled by scripture, than they might be by the verses of a Mother Goose Fairytale. Posting a verse or two to make a point is fine. It's perfectly fruitful to post a verse if you're addressing a claim that the Bible doesn't say what you claim it says. It's fine to show that it does say what someone claims it doesn't say.

But to post scripture because you think reading it is going to change anyone's mind, is simply a display of your robotic thought processes, and ignorance. It's not going to change ANYONE'S mind. But it does waste a lot of space.

I suppose that is part of the reason I don't post as much actually scripture as some say I should. If I use scripture at all it is simply to show where I got what I am saying from.

The problem with quoting scripture is that to do so properly can take up an awful lot of tme asd space, because where so many go wrong is considering scriptures in isolatio.

For isntance, understanding what Genesis 1:16 means is impossible unless you include Genesis 1:1 in your thinking, because Genesis 1:1 shows that Genesis 1:16 cannot possibly be describing the creation of teh sun because it ahs already been covered in verse 1.

Therefore the only thing it can be describing is the sun and moon becoming visible from the earth.

That is the simplest and more obvious example but there are many many more.

What has to be remembered is that all too often in the past scripture has been translated, mistranslated, sometimes deliberately, and misunderstood for centuries. Therefore whilst the meanings behind is all has not changed, the actual wording often has, making it harder to get to the core of it.

That is why something I have said so often is that if you want to understand scripture you have to learn to understand it as a coherent whole, which it is. You have to use scripture to help you understand scripture.

You also need to ask God for help. James 1:5-8.

The trouble is that if, as the majority do, you try to understand it any other way, all of a sudden you introduce what seem to be contradictions.

That's utterly ridiculous. It is tantamount to saying that the Scriptures are so implausible that no one would possibly believe them unless God comes along and illuminates or enlightens them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:43:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:00:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

The claim that Earth existed before the sun and stars is subject to scientific scrutiny.

You use earth here in a manner only for the planet in which we live.
I used it in the same context provided in the Bible, since I was addressing biblical claims.

Earth also means just matter on a much larger scale and indeed science will show that matter is a foundation block of all things. So, matter, earth have you, would exist before a sun or star.
Nice twisting of the reality. The "Earth" referenced in the Bible was covered with water, and the only elements which existed in space-time prior to stars were hydrogen, helium and a fractional percentage of lithium. These things don't comprise "earth" by any definition. And indeed, a planet which can have water, an atmosphere, "dry land", plants and animals cannot be composed of hydrogen, helium and lithium. So this brings us back to square-one... the plausibility of the Earth upon which we live (since that is what Genesis references), existing prior to the stars which were responsible for fusing all of the elements with atomic numbers above 3.

And science doesn't hold any plausibility for the planet "Earth" (or any other planet), to have existed before stars.

The mind-set of the authors of Genesis (and most of the books of the Bible), held that man is the singularly most important achievement of the physical - indeed, the physical encapsulation for the spiritual which they saw to be highly superior to the physical. It was believed that everything in the physical world, existed simply for man. So it was natural for them to conclude that Earth - being the residence of man - would be created before anything external to Earth. Their human-centric assumptions led them to many false conclusions. In the 4th century, (and often before), these false conclusions were deemed "the word of God" by men who saw themselves as the pinnacle of physical existence. Their arrogance and ignorance lead to many false conclusions - false conclusions still held by those who subscribe to their recorded ancient ignorance.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:55:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:00:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:51:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

The claim that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun existed is subject to scientific scrutiny.

Indeed, would a plant survive without sunlight for days?
You're either avoiding, or ignoring the problem. The problem isn't light, it's heat.

Indeed they would.
Sorry, but you're being incredibly short-sighted here and that short-sightedness is causing you to err rather dramatically. Sun does not provide only light. Are you unaware that Earth receives more energy from the sun in the form of heat, than it does in light? And without that heat, Earth wouldn't be cold, it would be cryogenic. In fact, since the mean temperature of space is -454 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of Earth without the sun would be no more than 400 degrees below zero. And no... no plant could survive 5-minutes in such temperatures, let alone a day.

This is not a problem for those whom believe in either a seven day creation or the catastrophe theory. Either way your statement is not coherent with scripture.
You'll need to support that claim. How is the existence of plants, a day before the sun, incoherent with,

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

This portion of Genesis 1 clearly asserts that Earth existed before the sun, and that plants existed on Day-3, while the sun was not made until Day-4.

Anyone wishing to present any semblance of scientific credibility should instantly recognize that stars (and the sun - a star), must precede the existence of planets, plants, and even water. Water cannot exist without stars.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire