Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

the problem of faith

crazedAtheist
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 12:11:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
it should be noted that this is primarily a response to sye ten-esque methods of presuppositionalism and secondly anyone who values faith as greater than or equal to evidence.

the problem with valuing faith as a virtue, is that the following belief system would be justified if faith was considered more valuable than evidence or logic:

title: X
{ all propositions in x are true.
god does not exist.
it is immoral to doubt the truth of X or its propositions.
it is self evident that god does not exist.
anyone who says they believe in god is lying.
}

this is a perfectly internally consistent worldview prototype. if faith is an acceptable method of belief, then a worldview based on this prototype should be no more problematic than a biblical worldview. the following would also be acceptable:

title: Y
{ all propositions in Y are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of Y or its propositions
it is immoral to not do what Y says should be done.
it is immoral to do what Y says shouldn't be done.
{X}
no one should say they believe in god
anyone who says they believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they believe in god is evil
anyone who says they believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they believe in god should be enslaved or tortured to death
no one should attempt to examine the validity Y with anyone who says they believe in god.
}

this system may seem rather gruesome, but it mirrors theistic systems of the past, and how some some theistic systems of today strictly adhere to or interpret verses parallel to these propositions in their holy books. There have been rules saying that anyone who believes in any other god or who believes in no god, are subhuman. such rules can be seen in both the old testament and the quran. in only a small set of propositions, i am capable making the most heinous and morally disgusting prototype for a belief system, and yet still have them be internally consistent.

and if faith is more valuable than evidence and reason, than how are we to tell whether this system is wrong? there are no contradictions in Y so how we can't use reason alone, but if you want to use evidence you have to remember that faith comes first. appealing to other faiths is useless here. why have faith in gods? according to Y god nonexistence is self evident. according to Y if you say god doesn't exist, then you're lying. and its immoral for anyone who believes in Y to examine Y with anyone who doesn't believe in god anyway. (that was a nod to sye tenbruggencate for anyone who didn't get it) such a system is a logical trap for anyone who beleives faith is more valuable than evidence.

take a similar theistic system which is equally disgusting:

G
{ all propositions in G are true
god exists
god inspired the writings of G, and thus G is the word of god
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G or its propositions
it is self evident that god exists
anyone who says they don't believe god exists is lying
}

G2
{ all propositions in G2 are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G2 or its propositions
God inspired the writing of G2 and thus G2 is the word of god
it is immoral to not do what G2 says ought to be done
it is immoral to do what G2 says ought not to be done
{G}
faith is good
you ought not say you don't believe in god
anyone who says they don't believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they don't believe in god is evil
anyone who says they don't believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they don't believe in god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who says gods name in vain ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who does not obey the priests of god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
}

this should help to explain my view on the issues of faith.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 12:23:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Or we could simply look at the fact that most people accept the claim that faith is a virtue, and blind faith is foolishness, yet "faith" and "blind faith" are the very same thing.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 6:22:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 12:11:47 AM, crazedAtheist wrote:
it should be noted that this is primarily a response to sye ten-esque methods of presuppositionalism and secondly anyone who values faith as greater than or equal to evidence.

the problem with valuing faith as a virtue, is that the following belief system would be justified if faith was considered more valuable than evidence or logic:

title: X
{ all propositions in x are true.
god does not exist.
it is immoral to doubt the truth of X or its propositions.
it is self evident that god does not exist.
anyone who says they believe in god is lying.
}

this is a perfectly internally consistent worldview prototype. if faith is an acceptable method of belief, then a worldview based on this prototype should be no more problematic than a biblical worldview. the following would also be acceptable:

title: Y
{ all propositions in Y are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of Y or its propositions
it is immoral to not do what Y says should be done.
it is immoral to do what Y says shouldn't be done.
{X}
no one should say they believe in god
anyone who says they believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they believe in god is evil
anyone who says they believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they believe in god should be enslaved or tortured to death
no one should attempt to examine the validity Y with anyone who says they believe in god.
}

this system may seem rather gruesome, but it mirrors theistic systems of the past, and how some some theistic systems of today strictly adhere to or interpret verses parallel to these propositions in their holy books. There have been rules saying that anyone who believes in any other god or who believes in no god, are subhuman. such rules can be seen in both the old testament and the quran. in only a small set of propositions, i am capable making the most heinous and morally disgusting prototype for a belief system, and yet still have them be internally consistent.

and if faith is more valuable than evidence and reason, than how are we to tell whether this system is wrong? there are no contradictions in Y so how we can't use reason alone, but if you want to use evidence you have to remember that faith comes first. appealing to other faiths is useless here. why have faith in gods? according to Y god nonexistence is self evident. according to Y if you say god doesn't exist, then you're lying. and its immoral for anyone who believes in Y to examine Y with anyone who doesn't believe in god anyway. (that was a nod to sye tenbruggencate for anyone who didn't get it) such a system is a logical trap for anyone who beleives faith is more valuable than evidence.

take a similar theistic system which is equally disgusting:

G
{ all propositions in G are true
god exists
god inspired the writings of G, and thus G is the word of god
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G or its propositions
it is self evident that god exists
anyone who says they don't believe god exists is lying
}

G2
{ all propositions in G2 are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G2 or its propositions
God inspired the writing of G2 and thus G2 is the word of god
it is immoral to not do what G2 says ought to be done
it is immoral to do what G2 says ought not to be done
{G}
faith is good
you ought not say you don't believe in god
anyone who says they don't believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they don't believe in god is evil
anyone who says they don't believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they don't believe in god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who says gods name in vain ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who does not obey the priests of god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
}

this should help to explain my view on the issues of faith.

Despite the above I see no problem with faith because to be faith it has to at least be based on evidence, as mine is.

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:49:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 6:22:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Despite the above I see no problem with faith because to be faith it has to at least be based on evidence, as mine is.

If you have this evidence, then why have you not told anyone?

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I have yet to deny any evidence, I have yet to find any evidence for a god. You claim to have some. Can you pleases tell me what this evidence is?

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

Wait, so the evidence clearly exists? Even though the existence of a god is one of the most debated philosophical questions?

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.

You keep mentioning evidence, but never tell us what the evidence is.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:58:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 12:11:47 AM, crazedAtheist wrote:
it should be noted that this is primarily a response to sye ten-esque methods of presuppositionalism and secondly anyone who values faith as greater than or equal to evidence.

the problem with valuing faith as a virtue, is that the following belief system would be justified if faith was considered more valuable than evidence or logic:

title: X
{ all propositions in x are true.
god does not exist.
it is immoral to doubt the truth of X or its propositions.
it is self evident that god does not exist.
anyone who says they believe in god is lying.
}

this is a perfectly internally consistent worldview prototype. if faith is an acceptable method of belief, then a worldview based on this prototype should be no more problematic than a biblical worldview. the following would also be acceptable:

title: Y
{ all propositions in Y are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of Y or its propositions
it is immoral to not do what Y says should be done.
it is immoral to do what Y says shouldn't be done.
{X}
no one should say they believe in god
anyone who says they believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they believe in god is evil
anyone who says they believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they believe in god should be enslaved or tortured to death
no one should attempt to examine the validity Y with anyone who says they believe in god.
}

this system may seem rather gruesome, but it mirrors theistic systems of the past, and how some some theistic systems of today strictly adhere to or interpret verses parallel to these propositions in their holy books. There have been rules saying that anyone who believes in any other god or who believes in no god, are subhuman. such rules can be seen in both the old testament and the quran. in only a small set of propositions, i am capable making the most heinous and morally disgusting prototype for a belief system, and yet still have them be internally consistent.

and if faith is more valuable than evidence and reason, than how are we to tell whether this system is wrong? there are no contradictions in Y so how we can't use reason alone, but if you want to use evidence you have to remember that faith comes first. appealing to other faiths is useless here. why have faith in gods? according to Y god nonexistence is self evident. according to Y if you say god doesn't exist, then you're lying. and its immoral for anyone who believes in Y to examine Y with anyone who doesn't believe in god anyway. (that was a nod to sye tenbruggencate for anyone who didn't get it) such a system is a logical trap for anyone who beleives faith is more valuable than evidence.

take a similar theistic system which is equally disgusting:

G
{ all propositions in G are true
god exists
god inspired the writings of G, and thus G is the word of god
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G or its propositions
it is self evident that god exists
anyone who says they don't believe god exists is lying
}

G2
{ all propositions in G2 are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G2 or its propositions
God inspired the writing of G2 and thus G2 is the word of god
it is immoral to not do what G2 says ought to be done
it is immoral to do what G2 says ought not to be done
{G}
faith is good
you ought not say you don't believe in god
anyone who says they don't believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they don't believe in god is evil
anyone who says they don't believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they don't believe in god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who says gods name in vain ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who does not obey the priests of god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
}

this should help to explain my view on the issues of faith.

Good post.

Yes, the biggest objection I have to religion is that it is a 'mind trap', since doubting/denying it's truth once you are within it's belief system is reprehensible.

In Christianity for instance you are punishable for thought crime, and numerous verses which depict non believers as 'fools', who will go to hell, etc. In Islam.... Well... Yeah.... Nuff said.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:59:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 12:11:47 AM, crazedAtheist wrote:
it should be noted that this is primarily a response to sye ten-esque methods of presuppositionalism and secondly anyone who values faith as greater than or equal to evidence.

the problem with valuing faith as a virtue, is that the following belief system would be justified if faith was considered more valuable than evidence or logic:

title: X
{ all propositions in x are true.
god does not exist.
it is immoral to doubt the truth of X or its propositions.
it is self evident that god does not exist.
anyone who says they believe in god is lying.
}

this is a perfectly internally consistent worldview prototype. if faith is an acceptable method of belief, then a worldview based on this prototype should be no more problematic than a biblical worldview. the following would also be acceptable:

title: Y
{ all propositions in Y are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of Y or its propositions
it is immoral to not do what Y says should be done.
it is immoral to do what Y says shouldn't be done.
{X}
no one should say they believe in god
anyone who says they believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they believe in god is evil
anyone who says they believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they believe in god should be enslaved or tortured to death
no one should attempt to examine the validity Y with anyone who says they believe in god.
}

this system may seem rather gruesome, but it mirrors theistic systems of the past, and how some some theistic systems of today strictly adhere to or interpret verses parallel to these propositions in their holy books. There have been rules saying that anyone who believes in any other god or who believes in no god, are subhuman. such rules can be seen in both the old testament and the quran. in only a small set of propositions, i am capable making the most heinous and morally disgusting prototype for a belief system, and yet still have them be internally consistent.

and if faith is more valuable than evidence and reason, than how are we to tell whether this system is wrong? there are no contradictions in Y so how we can't use reason alone, but if you want to use evidence you have to remember that faith comes first. appealing to other faiths is useless here. why have faith in gods? according to Y god nonexistence is self evident. according to Y if you say god doesn't exist, then you're lying. and its immoral for anyone who believes in Y to examine Y with anyone who doesn't believe in god anyway. (that was a nod to sye tenbruggencate for anyone who didn't get it) such a system is a logical trap for anyone who beleives faith is more valuable than evidence.

take a similar theistic system which is equally disgusting:

G
{ all propositions in G are true
god exists
god inspired the writings of G, and thus G is the word of god
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G or its propositions
it is self evident that god exists
anyone who says they don't believe god exists is lying
}

G2
{ all propositions in G2 are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G2 or its propositions
God inspired the writing of G2 and thus G2 is the word of god
it is immoral to not do what G2 says ought to be done
it is immoral to do what G2 says ought not to be done
{G}
faith is good
you ought not say you don't believe in god
anyone who says they don't believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they don't believe in god is evil
anyone who says they don't believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they don't believe in god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who says gods name in vain ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who does not obey the priests of god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
}

this should help to explain my view on the issues of faith.

None of the Christians understand what "faith" means, so I certainly don't expect an atheist to know what it means. Belief is a whole different thing than faith but Christians think they mean the same thing. LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:18:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:49:19 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 6:22:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Despite the above I see no problem with faith because to be faith it has to at least be based on evidence, as mine is.

If you have this evidence, then why have you not told anyone?


I have many tiems, and it is all around you. You are even a part of it.

There is also evidence of both the historical and prophetic accuracy of scripture in Museums around the world, as well as in life around us. It is so accurate historically that Holy Land Archaeologists use it to make help them make finds.

Plus when you consider that there are accurate scientific statements in scripture which could not possibly have been known to the ancients, some of which are only recently been proved who else do you think could have supplied the information.

The only people who say scripture is to scientifically accurate are the ones who deny the facts of the matter and insist on defying logic as well as evidence. It is accurate enough for some scientists to put 100% faith in what it teaches. Want to read some of their stories?

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I have yet to deny any evidence, I have yet to find any evidence for a god. You claim to have some. Can you pleases tell me what this evidence is?


If you claim not to have found evidence of God then you are denying the evidence that is all around you in creation.

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

Wait, so the evidence clearly exists? Even though the existence of a god is one of the most debated philosophical questions?


Yes it clearly exists, but when has evidence ever stopped people making claims against it? After all look how many people claim that Evolution has been proved when it is far from proven. David Attenborough for one.

There is actually as much circumstantial evidence against it as for it, and quite a bit of solid, reliable evidence against it, complex mechanisms which gradual evolution cannot explain suddenly appearing and working first time.

The propulsions of some single celled creatures spring straight to mind, some even have a form of gearbox. That is why so many scientists became disillusioned with Evolution and formed the Intelligent design theory.

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.

You keep mentioning evidence, but never tell us what the evidence is.

I have said it many times on here but I have yet to meet the Atheist who accepts it for what it is. Most appear to be frightened stiff of the responsibility that having a creator puts on us.

OK, I have a question for you.

Can you give me a logical, reasonable explanation for the number of Mammoths which have been discovered in the thawing permafrost over the last century or so which were obviously frozen instantly.

Some appeared to have been crushed by a heavy weight even though they were in the middle of the plains without so much as a tall tree in the area.

Some have been found to have been still chewing the vegetation they had in their mouths as they died, and the vegetation was also perfectly frozen and preserved.

Even today, as a recent TV program showed, scientist have to rush to get to any finds before the hungry locals eat too much of them, or sell off the valuable ivory.

Can you give me a reasonable hypothesis to explain what can only have been caused by a catastrophic climate event affecting at least the Northermost parts of the globe?

I can give you one from scripture.

One which I also believe may have caused the splitting up of the single continent (also mentioned in scripture as well as the distortions evident in the earth's crust, which are still causing mountains like Everest to grow measurably.

There's a good challenge for you, but you will have to ignore science's speculative datings, which are obtained by what can only be called "best guess science" anyway.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:21:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:18:40 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:19 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 6:22:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Despite the above I see no problem with faith because to be faith it has to at least be based on evidence, as mine is.

If you have this evidence, then why have you not told anyone?


I have many tiems, and it is all around you. You are even a part of it.

There is also evidence of both the historical and prophetic accuracy of scripture in Museums around the world, as well as in life around us. It is so accurate historically that Holy Land Archaeologists use it to make help them make finds.

Plus when you consider that there are accurate scientific statements in scripture which could not possibly have been known to the ancients, some of which are only recently been proved who else do you think could have supplied the information.

The only people who say scripture is to scientifically accurate are the ones who deny the facts of the matter and insist on defying logic as well as evidence. It is accurate enough for some scientists to put 100% faith in what it teaches. Want to read some of their stories?

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I have yet to deny any evidence, I have yet to find any evidence for a god. You claim to have some. Can you pleases tell me what this evidence is?


If you claim not to have found evidence of God then you are denying the evidence that is all around you in creation.

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

Wait, so the evidence clearly exists? Even though the existence of a god is one of the most debated philosophical questions?


Yes it clearly exists, but when has evidence ever stopped people making claims against it? After all look how many people claim that Evolution has been proved when it is far from proven. David Attenborough for one.

There is actually as much circumstantial evidence against it as for it, and quite a bit of solid, reliable evidence against it, complex mechanisms which gradual evolution cannot explain suddenly appearing and working first time.

The propulsions of some single celled creatures spring straight to mind, some even have a form of gearbox. That is why so many scientists became disillusioned with Evolution and formed the Intelligent design theory.

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.

You keep mentioning evidence, but never tell us what the evidence is.

I have said it many times on here but I have yet to meet the Atheist who accepts it for what it is. Most appear to be frightened stiff of the responsibility that having a creator puts on us.

OK, I have a question for you.

Can you give me a logical, reasonable explanation for the number of Mammoths which have been discovered in the thawing permafrost over the last century or so which were obviously frozen instantly.

Some appeared to have been crushed by a heavy weight even though they were in the middle of the plains without so much as a tall tree in the area.

Some have been found to have been still chewing the vegetation they had in their mouths as they died, and the vegetation was also perfectly frozen and preserved.

Even today, as a recent TV program showed, scientist have to rush to get to any finds before the hungry locals eat too much of them, or sell off the valuable ivory.

Can you give me a reasonable hypothesis to explain what can only have been caused by a catastrophic climate event affecting at least the Northermost parts of the globe?

I can give you one from scripture.

One which I also believe may have caused the splitting up of the single continent (also mentioned in scripture as well as the distortions evident in the earth's crust, which are still causing mountains like Everest to grow measurably.

There's a good challenge for you, but you will have to ignore science's speculative datings, which are obtained by what can only be called "best guess science" anyway.

There is no evidence that I exist, MCB. I only speak through My saints and prophets and most of them were killed by you religious fanatics who believed their own interpretations of the prophecies.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:39:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:21:19 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:18:40 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:19 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 6:22:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Despite the above I see no problem with faith because to be faith it has to at least be based on evidence, as mine is.

If you have this evidence, then why have you not told anyone?


I have many tiems, and it is all around you. You are even a part of it.

There is also evidence of both the historical and prophetic accuracy of scripture in Museums around the world, as well as in life around us. It is so accurate historically that Holy Land Archaeologists use it to make help them make finds.

Plus when you consider that there are accurate scientific statements in scripture which could not possibly have been known to the ancients, some of which are only recently been proved who else do you think could have supplied the information.

The only people who say scripture is to scientifically accurate are the ones who deny the facts of the matter and insist on defying logic as well as evidence. It is accurate enough for some scientists to put 100% faith in what it teaches. Want to read some of their stories?

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I have yet to deny any evidence, I have yet to find any evidence for a god. You claim to have some. Can you pleases tell me what this evidence is?


If you claim not to have found evidence of God then you are denying the evidence that is all around you in creation.

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

Wait, so the evidence clearly exists? Even though the existence of a god is one of the most debated philosophical questions?


Yes it clearly exists, but when has evidence ever stopped people making claims against it? After all look how many people claim that Evolution has been proved when it is far from proven. David Attenborough for one.

There is actually as much circumstantial evidence against it as for it, and quite a bit of solid, reliable evidence against it, complex mechanisms which gradual evolution cannot explain suddenly appearing and working first time.

The propulsions of some single celled creatures spring straight to mind, some even have a form of gearbox. That is why so many scientists became disillusioned with Evolution and formed the Intelligent design theory.

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.

You keep mentioning evidence, but never tell us what the evidence is.

I have said it many times on here but I have yet to meet the Atheist who accepts it for what it is. Most appear to be frightened stiff of the responsibility that having a creator puts on us.

OK, I have a question for you.

Can you give me a logical, reasonable explanation for the number of Mammoths which have been discovered in the thawing permafrost over the last century or so which were obviously frozen instantly.

Some appeared to have been crushed by a heavy weight even though they were in the middle of the plains without so much as a tall tree in the area.

Some have been found to have been still chewing the vegetation they had in their mouths as they died, and the vegetation was also perfectly frozen and preserved.

Even today, as a recent TV program showed, scientist have to rush to get to any finds before the hungry locals eat too much of them, or sell off the valuable ivory.

Can you give me a reasonable hypothesis to explain what can only have been caused by a catastrophic climate event affecting at least the Northermost parts of the globe?

I can give you one from scripture.

One which I also believe may have caused the splitting up of the single continent (also mentioned in scripture as well as the distortions evident in the earth's crust, which are still causing mountains like Everest to grow measurably.

There's a good challenge for you, but you will have to ignore science's speculative datings, which are obtained by what can only be called "best guess science" anyway.

There is no evidence that I exist, MCB. I only speak through My saints and prophets and most of them were killed by you religious fanatics who believed their own interpretations of the prophecies.

There is less evidence that you exist than there is that God exists, I'll grant you that, lol.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:40:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:39:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:21:19 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:18:40 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:19 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 6:22:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Despite the above I see no problem with faith because to be faith it has to at least be based on evidence, as mine is.

If you have this evidence, then why have you not told anyone?


I have many tiems, and it is all around you. You are even a part of it.

There is also evidence of both the historical and prophetic accuracy of scripture in Museums around the world, as well as in life around us. It is so accurate historically that Holy Land Archaeologists use it to make help them make finds.

Plus when you consider that there are accurate scientific statements in scripture which could not possibly have been known to the ancients, some of which are only recently been proved who else do you think could have supplied the information.

The only people who say scripture is to scientifically accurate are the ones who deny the facts of the matter and insist on defying logic as well as evidence. It is accurate enough for some scientists to put 100% faith in what it teaches. Want to read some of their stories?

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I have yet to deny any evidence, I have yet to find any evidence for a god. You claim to have some. Can you pleases tell me what this evidence is?


If you claim not to have found evidence of God then you are denying the evidence that is all around you in creation.

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

Wait, so the evidence clearly exists? Even though the existence of a god is one of the most debated philosophical questions?


Yes it clearly exists, but when has evidence ever stopped people making claims against it? After all look how many people claim that Evolution has been proved when it is far from proven. David Attenborough for one.

There is actually as much circumstantial evidence against it as for it, and quite a bit of solid, reliable evidence against it, complex mechanisms which gradual evolution cannot explain suddenly appearing and working first time.

The propulsions of some single celled creatures spring straight to mind, some even have a form of gearbox. That is why so many scientists became disillusioned with Evolution and formed the Intelligent design theory.

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.

You keep mentioning evidence, but never tell us what the evidence is.

I have said it many times on here but I have yet to meet the Atheist who accepts it for what it is. Most appear to be frightened stiff of the responsibility that having a creator puts on us.

OK, I have a question for you.

Can you give me a logical, reasonable explanation for the number of Mammoths which have been discovered in the thawing permafrost over the last century or so which were obviously frozen instantly.

Some appeared to have been crushed by a heavy weight even though they were in the middle of the plains without so much as a tall tree in the area.

Some have been found to have been still chewing the vegetation they had in their mouths as they died, and the vegetation was also perfectly frozen and preserved.

Even today, as a recent TV program showed, scientist have to rush to get to any finds before the hungry locals eat too much of them, or sell off the valuable ivory.

Can you give me a reasonable hypothesis to explain what can only have been caused by a catastrophic climate event affecting at least the Northermost parts of the globe?

I can give you one from scripture.

One which I also believe may have caused the splitting up of the single continent (also mentioned in scripture as well as the distortions evident in the earth's crust, which are still causing mountains like Everest to grow measurably.

There's a good challenge for you, but you will have to ignore science's speculative datings, which are obtained by what can only be called "best guess science" anyway.

There is no evidence that I exist, MCB. I only speak through My saints and prophets and most of them were killed by you religious fanatics who believed their own interpretations of the prophecies.

There is less evidence that you exist than there is that God exists, I'll grant you that, lol.

When God finishes killing the rest of the flesh in this world, there won't be any witnesses around to prove that God did it.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:44:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:18:40 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:19 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 6:22:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Despite the above I see no problem with faith because to be faith it has to at least be based on evidence, as mine is.

If you have this evidence, then why have you not told anyone?


I have many tiems, and it is all around you. You are even a part of it.

How about elaborating instead of asserting vague, undefined claims?

There is also evidence of both the historical and prophetic accuracy of scripture in Museums around the world, as well as in life around us.

Examples?

It is so accurate historically that Holy Land Archaeologists use it to make help them make finds.

Really now?

Plus when you consider that there are accurate scientific statements in scripture which could not possibly have been known to the ancients, some of which are only recently been proved who else do you think could have supplied the information.

Any examples?

The only people who say scripture is to scientifically accurate are the ones who deny the facts of the matter and insist on defying logic as well as evidence. It is accurate enough for some scientists to put 100% faith in what it teaches. Want to read some of their stories?

I only care about the evidence, not anecdotes, when dealing with facts.

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I have yet to deny any evidence, I have yet to find any evidence for a god. You claim to have some. Can you pleases tell me what this evidence is?


If you claim not to have found evidence of God then you are denying the evidence that is all around you in creation.

What creation?

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

Wait, so the evidence clearly exists? Even though the existence of a god is one of the most debated philosophical questions?


Yes it clearly exists, but when has evidence ever stopped people making claims against it? After all look how many people claim that Evolution has been proved when it is far from proven. David Attenborough for one.

Evolution is one of the most supported scientific theories. It is a fact. We do not know everything about it, but we know it happened.

There is actually as much circumstantial evidence against it as for it, and quite a bit of solid, reliable evidence against it, complex mechanisms which gradual evolution cannot explain suddenly appearing and working first time.

Examples? Or just empty assertions?

The propulsions of some single celled creatures spring straight to mind, some even have a form of gearbox. That is why so many scientists became disillusioned with Evolution and formed the Intelligent design theory.

Can you show a link to a source that says this? Because all the evidence I can find is that Intelligent Designed was proposed when the Supreme Court said that creationism was not scientific and could not be taught in science classes.

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.

You keep mentioning evidence, but never tell us what the evidence is.

I have said it many times on here but I have yet to meet the Atheist who accepts it for what it is. Most appear to be frightened stiff of the responsibility that having a creator puts on us.

Have any given refutations of your evidence?

OK, I have a question for you.

I will answer to the best of my personal abilities. I know that I do not know everything, so do not assume god where I personally cannot answer.

Can you give me a logical, reasonable explanation for the number of Mammoths which have been discovered in the thawing permafrost over the last century or so which were obviously frozen instantly.

Loaded question. You say they were obviously frozen INSTANTLY. It was relatively quick compared to the time it takes to completely decay, but not instantaneous.

I think you are mistaking Ted Holden's assertions with facts.

The Berezovka mammoth, which Ted Holden says was frozen instantly, shows evidence of the following:
1) Buried in a landslide
2) Cold mud acts as preservative
3) permafrost froze the carcass.

I assume this is the case with the other mammoths you are talking about.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Some appeared to have been crushed by a heavy weight even though they were in the middle of the plains without so much as a tall tree in the area.

This is an assertion that I cannot find any evidence for.

Some have been found to have been still chewing the vegetation they had in their mouths as they died, and the vegetation was also perfectly frozen and preserved.

If true, the above explanation still explains it.

Even today, as a recent TV program showed, scientist have to rush to get to any finds before the hungry locals eat too much of them, or sell off the valuable ivory.

1) What tv show?
2) TV is not always accurate.

Can you give me a reasonable hypothesis to explain what can only have been caused by a catastrophic climate event affecting at least the Northermost parts of the globe?

Considering how you asserted that they were in the middle of the plains, which I cannot find any good source for, I personally do not know. This does not mean you can insrt your own explanation.

I can give you one from scripture.

Just because it is in scripture does not mean it happened. You must find evidence that the event actually took place.

One which I also believe may have caused the splitting up of the single continent (also mentioned in scripture as well as the distortions evident in the earth's crust, which are still causing mountains like Everest to grow measurably.

Plate tectonics is what causes continental shift and the growth of mountain Everest.

There's a good challenge for you, but you will have to ignore science's speculative datings, which are obtained by what can only be called "best guess science" anyway.

Really? Can you back up that assertion that dating is "best guess science"?

I am sorry, but I have seen quite a few unsupported assertions here. Can you support what you are saying?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:31:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:58:49 AM, Envisage wrote:


Good post.

Yes, the biggest objection I have to religion is that it is a 'mind trap', since doubting/denying it's truth once you are within it's belief system is reprehensible.

In Christianity for instance you are punishable for thought crime, and numerous verses which depict non believers as 'fools', who will go to hell, etc. In Islam.... Well... Yeah.... Nuff said.

I will address this post in particular.

Doubting, as with doubting Thomas, is considered normal with the Christian Community. There are certainly elements within Christinaity that are hostile to this, but as a instance of doctrine and teaching ... that is simply not the case.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

It should also be noted that the closest thing to 'faith' is actually inductive reasoning. These are things that we take a basis of 'evidence' without certainty. Rare, at least in mature Christians, will you get the proverbial 'I believe because the Bible says its so,' the testimony of most Christians has almost nothiung whatsoever to do with these simplified strawmen positions.

What I will also point is that there is a difference between honest doubt and simply contrarianism. At some point, even the most able Christian Apologists will realize that they are dealing with someone not seeking to understand but to disagree. Intent is important here, and there is not 'perfect' line with this.

Yet the best advice I have received regarding this is that we should not let others determine our relationship with God (or the information about God).
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:08:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the news says a hurricane is coming, do people believe it? If astronomers announced that there will be an eclipse, do people believe them? If there is an announcement that the electricity will be cut off for maintenance, do people believe it? If a large amount of people bought a plane ticket, do people believe that there will be a plane that will take off? If many history books describes a character (say Abraham Lincoln), do you believe them?

Belief in a testimony requires:
1- Belief that the source is trustworthy.
2- Belief that people who transmit from the source are trustworthy.

As long as the core assumptions are rational (based on logic or evidence) and justified, then other beliefs are rational and justified.

Faith has a wide spectrum of different definitions. However, when Atheists use it they invariably choose the most restrictive definition: "Blind faith". They refuse to acknowledge their use of faith of many probabilistic propositions and prediction of future events, like "the sun will rise tomorrow", "my food is not poisoned", to "science will explain everything", and "dinosaurs evolved to birds". Do they have faith regarding the eternal truth value of the laws of logic and math through time and space? Do they have faith that the known laws of physics will remain consistent from this moment to the next?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:26:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Faith is always placed in context of religion and treated as some sort of evil. It seems for some deceptive reason.

If you remove non-believer"s dark view of religion from faith, faith remains. Without faith you succeed at nothing, and accomplish nothing, and shall have no fulfillment in nothing. And doubt is for failure of fulfillment. Sporting teams win championships by faith, believing in the fulfillment there of. Not by doubting they can do it, or not believing they can experience the fulfillment of the goal.

But logic is nothing more then a method, like a tool to use for something being done. The flaw in placing too much faith in logic is, logic is no more then a garbage in garbage out system, just like a computer. The info coming out is no better then the info entered in.

For such and such a thing one places faith in a promise to experience a expected result or fulfillment.

For example: logic may have been used to calculate and figure out a thing or two when the US first went to the moon but it was faith that they could do it successfully. JFK pointed, they saw and figured out how to do it in ten years. But they had to believe can, trust, have faith to do it, doubt would cause failure and it wouldn"t be done.

Again in the case of Christianity, Jesus states that the Son sees what the Father does and does the same. And the Apostles see what the Son of God does and do the same, and the beat goes on from there. Therefore the Faith of Jesus Christ isn"t blind, but if on can"t see, then one has no faith therein.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 9:06:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:44:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:


Having just seen your profile I find it interesting that you believe in communism. If you mean the real Communism as opposed to the Socialist fake that once dominated the USSR then you might be interested to know that the ethos of Christianity, as taught by Christ and the Apostles, is very much the same as that of communism in that it promotes, and points to a time when there will be:

Equality for all in every sense of the word.

No human rulers.

No human ownership of anything.

The one big difference is that it also promotes reliance on the Wisdom of God for guidance.

After all, it's only two absolute laws are:

You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart yur whole mind and your whole being.

and

You must love your neighbour as your fellow man.

Follow the first one alone and you have true Communism, Follow the two and you have true Christianity.
Take just one of Jesus commands to his foolowers. "Let the one of you who owns two coats give one to the one who has none" is that not the true Communist ethos?

Luke 3:11
ASV(i) 11 And he answered and said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath food, let him do likewise.

I have many times, and it is all around you. You are even a part of it.

How about elaborating instead of asserting vague, undefined claims?


OK. The propelling mechanisms of single celled organisms could not possibly have evolved. Too complex, in some cases even involving a form of gearbox. The whole complex mechanism would eitehr work first time or the organism would die.

There is also evidence of both the historical and prophetic accuracy of scripture in Museums around the world, as well as in life around us.

Examples?

http://www.britishmuseumshoponline.org...

The Cyrus Cylinder in the British Museum.

I'm sure you can find more if you can be bothered.

It is so accurate historically that Holy Land Archaeologists use it to make help them make finds.

Really now?


Yup, really. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

Plus when you consider that there are accurate scientific statements in scripture which could not possibly have been known to the ancients, some of which are only recently been proved who else do you think could have supplied the information.

Any examples?


Job 26:7
ASV(i) 7 He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Unfortunately the old Hebrew had no word for sphere or ball so the description, of the earth as a circle actually indicates a 3 dimensional circle, i. e. a sphere. It is a fact that nowhere in scripture does it say that the earth is flat.

If you read Genesis 1 as it was meant to be read. Verse 1 as a bald statement of the creation of the heavens and the earth, and verse 2 onwards as being viewed from the earth then tat section fits in completely with sciences idea of who the earthwas brought from it's wild state to being suitable for life.

The sun and moon are not made in that passage, but made visible from the earth's surface, the same as happens when clouds clear away even now. Light being made to appear fits in with what would have been an atmosphere full of dust and debris preventing light from reaching the ground similar to eh darkness brought about in the USA during some relatively recent massive dust storms.

It is all down to working out what the passages say not individual words.

The only people who say scripture is to scientifically accurate are the ones who deny the facts of the matter and insist on defying logic as well as evidence. It is accurate enough for some scientists to put 100% faith in what it teaches. Want to read some of their stories?

I only care about the evidence, not anecdotes, when dealing with facts.


Fair enough, but sometimes people's experiences are evidence.The course would have little success without such evidence.

Or are you just looking for an escape route?

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I have yet to deny any evidence, I have yet to find any evidence for a god. You claim to have some. Can you pleases tell me what this evidence is?


If you claim not to have found evidence of God then you are denying the evidence that is all around you in creation.

What creation?

You deny the evidence of your own existence and of all the things which shriek design at you every time you deny the existence of God. This universe is far too organised to have come about by accident.

At the very least it's development was directed.

However the one thing that is explained by the existence of God for which there is no other explanation is "where did the first particle come from, and how did it change into all the others currently in existence?

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

Wait, so the evidence clearly exists? Even though the existence of a god is one of the most debated philosophical questions?



Yes, but only because people refuse to accept that the evidence of God's existence is really evidence at all. But then anyone can do that who wants a way out. However, when push comes to shove it is evidence whether people wan to accept it or not.

Some people will doubtless go into destruction telling God and Christ that they don;t really exist.

Yes it clearly exists, but when has evidence ever stopped people making claims against it? After all look how many people claim that Evolution has been proved when it is far from proven. David Attenborough for one.

Evolution is one of the most supported scientific theories. It is a fact. We do not know everything about it, but we know it happened.


Then please show me the evidence.

Show me how the gaps between certain types and kinds were bridged, because no-one else knows.

If you can actually prove evolution you will make a fortune since no-one has managed so far.

In fact the evidence of the fossil record provides more support for creation than it does for evolution provided you accept the evidence in the world around it and think about exactly what the creation account is saying.

Genesis 1 (ASV) 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

Does that say anywhere that God created everything as we know it? Of course it doesn't and only a fool would claim it did.

What it does indicate is that God created the basic kinds and then gave them the ability to adapt to any changes in environment as needed.

That is what the fossil record shows us, and what we see in evidence such as the Galapagos Finches. No matter how much they adapted, they stayed fiches did they not?

Which actually helps with understanding the story of the Ark, which according to scripture was not a boat or ship, but simply a massive box with three stories, and if only the basic kinds existed at that point and were taken along, and only young examples were taken then then Ark would easily contain them.

So much of what people like you say relies on the false information and understandings you have been given of scripture at the prompting of God's enemy, Satan.

Continued in next post:
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 9:06:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:44:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:


Continued from last post


The propulsions of some single celled creatures spring straight to mind, some even have a form of gearbox. That is why so many scientists became disillusioned with Evolution and formed the Intelligent design theory.

Can you show a link to a source that says this? Because all the evidence I can find is that Intelligent Designed was proposed when the Supreme Court said that creationism was not scientific and could not be taught in science classes.


The DVD I saw that on was "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and the book I have is "The Design Revolution" by William A Dembski, one of the founding fathers of the group of scientists who formed that theory.

Some are "Christians" some are not, and it doesn't attempt to demonstrate the origin of everything, simply the massive and multiple holes in the theory of evolution which evolutionists do all they can to cover up.

In fact it raises questions that evolutionists do all they can to dodge, and to which there really is no answer.

I had not heard your definition of how it started, and it certainly doesn't come up in the DVD or book as far as I can remember, but I won't argue with it.

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.

You keep mentioning evidence, but never tell us what the evidence is.

I have said it many times on here but I have yet to meet the Atheist who accepts it for what it is. Most appear to be frightened stiff of the responsibility that having a creator puts on us.

Have any given refutations of your evidence?

No, they just deny it's existence as evidence.


OK, I have a question for you.

I will answer to the best of my personal abilities. I know that I do not know everything, so do not assume god where I personally cannot answer.

Can you give me a logical, reasonable explanation for the number of Mammoths which have been discovered in the thawing permafrost over the last century or so which were obviously frozen instantly.

Loaded question. You say they were obviously frozen INSTANTLY. It was relatively quick compared to the time it takes to completely decay, but not instantaneous.


Of course it's a loaded question, lol.

I think you are mistaking Ted Holden's assertions with facts.

The Berezovka mammoth, which Ted Holden says was frozen instantly, shows evidence of the following:
1) Buried in a landslide
2) Cold mud acts as preservative
3) permafrost froze the carcass.

I assume this is the case with the other mammoths you are talking about.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Some appeared to have been crushed by a heavy weight even though they were in the middle of the plains without so much as a tall tree in the area.

This is an assertion that I cannot find any evidence for.

Then spend a little time on Google because I fund it easily enough and I wasn't even looking for it. There are so many mammoths though.

I vaguely remember the story of the Berezovka mammoth, and didn't think it provided much evidence either way, though if I remember rightly it was one that Appeared to have been crushed and the remains were certainly deformed. However I am working purely from memory there.


Some have been found to have been still chewing the vegetation they had in their mouths as they died, and the vegetation was also perfectly frozen and preserved.

If true, the above explanation still explains it.

Even today, as a recent TV program showed, scientist have to rush to get to any finds before the hungry locals eat too much of them, or sell off the valuable ivory.

1) What tv show?
2) TV is not always accurate.


Sorry, but apart from the fact that I believe it was on a Nat Geo channel I cannot remember. And no, you cannot trust anything you read in the papers, see on TV or even get told by scientists and most definitely not by most religionists. Satan and his colleagues may well be influencing any or all of them.

Fortunately, even as a child I learned I could trust no-one, not even my parents, so doubting and checking has been my lifelong habit. However I have also learned that sometimes you have to accept things until something better comes along.

Can you give me a reasonable hypothesis to explain what can only have been caused by a catastrophic climate event affecting at least the Northermost parts of the globe?

Considering how you asserted that they were in the middle of the plains, which I cannot find any good source for, I personally do not know. This does not mean you can insert your own explanation.


Just look up the areas they were found in on maps, most were found on plains, and in fact Mammoths were, as Elephants today are, plains living creatures.

I can give you one from scripture.

Just because it is in scripture does not mean it happened. You must find evidence that the event actually took place.


True enough, sometimes even science can't give us a demonstrable explanation though.

One which I also believe may have caused the splitting up of the single continent (also mentioned in scripture as well as the distortions evident in the earth's crust, which are still causing mountains like Everest to grow measurably.

Plate tectonics is what causes continental shift and the growth of mountain Everest.

There's a good challenge for you, but you will have to ignore science's speculative datings, which are obtained by what can only be called "best guess science" anyway.

Really? Can you back up that assertion that dating is "best guess science"?



ONly with an illustration.

Imagine that you were asked to find out how long a tank had been leaking for, but no-one could tell you for certain how much water had been in there in the first place, or whether anything had happened to alter the rate of leakage?

You could only guess, right?

What that is exactly what science has done.There was no-one there to measure original radiation levels and even NASA believes there may have been a gas layer of somewhere in or near the thermosphere which could have had an effect on radiation both arriving on the earth and leaving it.

Incidentally scripture says that there was, the "waters above the earth", which doubtless water vapour, and which were brought down to form the deluge.

Sorry the best source I can give you is Astro-bilogy Magazine, NASA's own publication.

I am sorry, but I have seen quite a few unsupported assertions here. Can you support what you are saying

Have I?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 9:24:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:58:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:11:47 AM, crazedAtheist wrote:
it should be noted that this is primarily a response to sye ten-esque methods of presuppositionalism and secondly anyone who values faith as greater than or equal to evidence.

the problem with valuing faith as a virtue, is that the following belief system would be justified if faith was considered more valuable than evidence or logic:

title: X
{ all propositions in x are true.
god does not exist.
it is immoral to doubt the truth of X or its propositions.
it is self evident that god does not exist.
anyone who says they believe in god is lying.
}

this is a perfectly internally consistent worldview prototype. if faith is an acceptable method of belief, then a worldview based on this prototype should be no more problematic than a biblical worldview. the following would also be acceptable:

title: Y
{ all propositions in Y are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of Y or its propositions
it is immoral to not do what Y says should be done.
it is immoral to do what Y says shouldn't be done.
{X}
no one should say they believe in god
anyone who says they believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they believe in god is evil
anyone who says they believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they believe in god should be enslaved or tortured to death
no one should attempt to examine the validity Y with anyone who says they believe in god.
}

this system may seem rather gruesome, but it mirrors theistic systems of the past, and how some some theistic systems of today strictly adhere to or interpret verses parallel to these propositions in their holy books. There have been rules saying that anyone who believes in any other god or who believes in no god, are subhuman. such rules can be seen in both the old testament and the quran. in only a small set of propositions, i am capable making the most heinous and morally disgusting prototype for a belief system, and yet still have them be internally consistent.

and if faith is more valuable than evidence and reason, than how are we to tell whether this system is wrong? there are no contradictions in Y so how we can't use reason alone, but if you want to use evidence you have to remember that faith comes first. appealing to other faiths is useless here. why have faith in gods? according to Y god nonexistence is self evident. according to Y if you say god doesn't exist, then you're lying. and its immoral for anyone who believes in Y to examine Y with anyone who doesn't believe in god anyway. (that was a nod to sye tenbruggencate for anyone who didn't get it) such a system is a logical trap for anyone who beleives faith is more valuable than evidence.

take a similar theistic system which is equally disgusting:

G
{ all propositions in G are true
god exists
god inspired the writings of G, and thus G is the word of god
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G or its propositions
it is self evident that god exists
anyone who says they don't believe god exists is lying
}

G2
{ all propositions in G2 are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G2 or its propositions
God inspired the writing of G2 and thus G2 is the word of god
it is immoral to not do what G2 says ought to be done
it is immoral to do what G2 says ought not to be done
{G}
faith is good
you ought not say you don't believe in god
anyone who says they don't believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they don't believe in god is evil
anyone who says they don't believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they don't believe in god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who says gods name in vain ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who does not obey the priests of god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
}

this should help to explain my view on the issues of faith.

Good post.

Yes, the biggest objection I have to religion is that it is a 'mind trap', since doubting/denying it's truth once you are within it's belief system is reprehensible.

In Christianity for instance you are punishable for thought crime, and numerous verses which depict non believers as 'fools', who will go to hell, etc. In Islam.... Well... Yeah.... Nuff said.

Ya'll really need to get out of thhe mindset that certain minority strains of fundamentalist/near fundamentalist Protestant American Christanity = Christianity on the whole.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:10:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 9:06:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Having just seen your profile I find it interesting that you believe in communism.

Marxism to be more specific.

If you mean the real Communism as opposed to the Socialist fake that once dominated the USSR then you might be interested to know that the ethos of Christianity, as taught by Christ and the Apostles, is very much the same as that of communism in that it promotes, and points to a time when there will be:

There are some similarities, but what is the point? I might find some things taught in the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, Hindu texts, etc. to be good teachings, but that does not mean that I have to agree with all points.

Equality for all in every sense of the word.

Okay.

No human rulers.

I do agree that Marxism would be perfect, but it is impossible to implement. I believe that in order for it to work that there does have to be some kind of leadership, but one with very limited power. However, under capitalism, I have to take the Liberal view because it works on equality, which I find to be the most important issue.

No human ownership of anything.

Communism has community ownership.

The one big difference is that it also promotes reliance on the Wisdom of God for guidance.

After all, it's only two absolute laws are:

You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart yur whole mind and your whole being.

and

You must love your neighbour as your fellow man.

Follow the first one alone and you have true Communism, Follow the two and you have true Christianity.

I think you mean the second on for communism.

Take just one of Jesus commands to his foolowers. "Let the one of you who owns two coats give one to the one who has none" is that not the true Communist ethos?

No, because that implies ownership of the coats. True communism will not work, but it is the perfect ideal government. There has to be tweaks in order to make it work, but not so many that it becomes the crap that was the USSR.

How about elaborating instead of asserting vague, undefined claims?


OK. The propelling mechanisms of single celled organisms could not possibly have evolved. Too complex, in some cases even involving a form of gearbox. The whole complex mechanism would eitehr work first time or the organism would die.

Really? It could not have evolved? Are you sure? I remember seeing a biology lecture that showed that it could easily have evolved. I believe what you are talking about are bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia.

This might interest you:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Examples?

http://www.britishmuseumshoponline.org...

Asked for examples, not a book.

The Cyrus Cylinder in the British Museum.

Elaborate on how this is connected to a Christian prophecy.

I'm sure you can find more if you can be bothered.

There are so many fake discoveries, frauds, involving Christianity that I am wondering what you have found that is authentic and proves such.

Really now?


Yup, really. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

That is Biblical archaeology. This is misleading. Biblical archaeologists would obviously use the Bible, but that does not represent secular archaeology.

Any examples?


Job 26:7
ASV(i) 7 He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Unfortunately the old Hebrew had no word for sphere or ball so the description, of the earth as a circle actually indicates a 3 dimensional circle, i. e. a sphere. It is a fact that nowhere in scripture does it say that the earth is flat.

Okay, so one correct statement that contradicts Genesis. By the way, the idea of what "nothing" was then and now is different. It is not that crazy of an idea that they would say the Earth is in nothing (it actually isn't as there is no "nothing" within the universe).

If you read Genesis 1 as it was meant to be read. Verse 1 as a bald statement of the creation of the heavens and the earth, and verse 2 onwards as being viewed from the earth then tat section fits in completely with sciences idea of who the earthwas brought from it's wild state to being suitable for life.

How do YOU know how it is supposed to be interpreted?

The sun and moon are not made in that passage, but made visible from the earth's surface, the same as happens when clouds clear away even now. Light being made to appear fits in with what would have been an atmosphere full of dust and debris preventing light from reaching the ground similar to eh darkness brought about in the USA during some relatively recent massive dust storms.

Wait, are you saying that Genesis matches real life? Because that is far from it.
http://www.huecotanks.com...

It is all down to working out what the passages say not individual words.

It appears like you are saying that it is up to you to make it fit, not to actually see if it does or not.

I only care about the evidence, not anecdotes, when dealing with facts.


Fair enough, but sometimes people's experiences are evidence.The course would have little success without such evidence.

People claiming experiences about being kidnapped by aliens is not evidence that aliens visit us in any way.

Or are you just looking for an escape route?

Anecdotes are extremely unreliable, and therefore are pointless to use as evidence. I can say that I had an experience where aliens visited me, said that the Illuminati are real and are descended from Martians, and guess what? That is in no way evidence that it is real.

What creation?

You deny the evidence of your own existence and of all the things which shriek design at you every time you deny the existence of God. This universe is far too organised to have come about by accident.

1) I find nothing that shows "design" in the natural world.
2) A universe like the one we have is what would arise with just the natural laws we have discovered.
http://www.haaretz.com...
3) The universe appears as if it functions under the B-theory of time, which does not really allow for there to be a creator.

At the very least it's development was directed.

There is no reason to believe this.

However the one thing that is explained by the existence of God for which there is no other explanation is "where did the first particle come from, and how did it change into all the others currently in existence?

This is also explained with quantum physics. I will give you a link to a brief answer of where the first particle could have come from.
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, but only because people refuse to accept that the evidence of God's existence is really evidence at all. But then anyone can do that who wants a way out. However, when push comes to shove it is evidence whether people wan to accept it or not.

You cannot assert evidence, then assert that people just do not want to accept it. That makes it harder for you. You still have the burden of proof that there is evidence, but now you also have the burden of proof to show that people do not want to accept it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:10:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 9:06:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Some people will doubtless go into destruction telling God and Christ that they don;t really exist.

The burden of proof is on those saying they do, and if it has not been met then the rational conclusion is that they probably do not.

Evolution is one of the most supported scientific theories. It is a fact. We do not know everything about it, but we know it happened.


Then please show me the evidence.

This is a good start:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Show me how the gaps between certain types and kinds were bridged, because no-one else knows.

Define "kind" in a way that does not have special pleading. DO it in a way that uses biology. Otherwise, the word "kind" when dealing with biology is useless.

If you can actually prove evolution you will make a fortune since no-one has managed so far.

Proof does not exist in science, evidence does. Enough evidence can make something be considered a scientific fact. Evolution is one of the most supported scientific theories, so much so that no credible biologist has questioned if evolution exists, only about the mechanisms of evolution.

In fact the evidence of the fossil record provides more support for creation than it does for evolution provided you accept the evidence in the world around it and think about exactly what the creation account is saying.

How does it? Please provide a link to a scientist that says this.

Genesis 1 (ASV) 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

Does that say anywhere that God created everything as we know it? Of course it doesn't and only a fool would claim it did.

What it does indicate is that God created the basic kinds and then gave them the ability to adapt to any changes in environment as needed.

That is what the fossil record shows us, and what we see in evidence such as the Galapagos Finches. No matter how much they adapted, they stayed fiches did they not?

I am not going to respond here as the link I provided to talkorigins deals with this already.

Which actually helps with understanding the story of the Ark, which according to scripture was not a boat or ship, but simply a massive box with three stories, and if only the basic kinds existed at that point and were taken along, and only young examples were taken then then Ark would easily contain them.

There is literally no evidence of a massive flood. There is no evidence that the Ark exists. Why should I believe this story? You keep adding story after story that has no evidence.

So much of what people like you say relies on the false information and understandings you have been given of scripture at the prompting of God's enemy, Satan.

THIS ONLY MAKES IT WORSE FOR YOU!
Now you have the burden of proof that the Bible is accurate, and that Satan, if such a being exists, is giving us false information.

Saying conspiracy does not rid you of the burden of proof.

The DVD I saw that on was "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and the book I have is "The Design Revolution" by William A Dembski, one of the founding fathers of the group of scientists who formed that theory.

William A Dembski is not a scientist.

Some are "Christians" some are not, and it doesn't attempt to demonstrate the origin of everything, simply the massive and multiple holes in the theory of evolution which evolutionists do all they can to cover up.

All things about evolution will not be addressed until you show that you have looked through the link I provided earlier. I do not take people seriously that do not attempt to research a subject.

In fact it raises questions that evolutionists do all they can to dodge, and to which there really is no answer.

Like what?

I had not heard your definition of how it started, and it certainly doesn't come up in the DVD or book as far as I can remember, but I won't argue with it.

It is what I find on many site when I try and find the start of ID.

No, they just deny it's existence as evidence.

What exactly is the "evidence" then? Some people assume something is evidence when it really is not.

Of course it's a loaded question, lol.

You realize that loaded questions are not good questions, right?

Then spend a little time on Google because I fund it easily enough and I wasn't even looking for it. There are so many mammoths though.

How about giving a link to a reliable source?

I vaguely remember the story of the Berezovka mammoth, and didn't think it provided much evidence either way, though if I remember rightly it was one that Appeared to have been crushed and the remains were certainly deformed. However I am working purely from memory there.

Well, then I would like a reliable link to the mammoth story you are talking about.

Sorry, but apart from the fact that I believe it was on a Nat Geo channel I cannot remember. And no, you cannot trust anything you read in the papers, see on TV or even get told by scientists and most definitely not by most religionists. Satan and his colleagues may well be influencing any or all of them.

You do realize that you just keep adding to your BoP, right?

Fortunately, even as a child I learned I could trust no-one, not even my parents, so doubting and checking has been my lifelong habit. However I have also learned that sometimes you have to accept things until something better comes along.

So, do not trust the consensus of experts it the field of biology?

Just look up the areas they were found in on maps, most were found on plains, and in fact Mammoths were, as Elephants today are, plains living creatures.

It could be very possible, but I would still like you, who has asserted this story as evidence of a biblical event, to provide evidence and a reliable source.

True enough, sometimes even science can't give us a demonstrable explanation though.

Even if that is true, that does not mean inserting something just because you feel like it.

ONly with an illustration.

Oh, goody.

Imagine that you were asked to find out how long a tank had been leaking for, but no-one could tell you for certain how much water had been in there in the first place, or whether anything had happened to alter the rate of leakage?

You could only guess, right?

What that is exactly what science has done.There was no-one there to measure original radiation levels and even NASA believes there may have been a gas layer of somewhere in or near the thermosphere which could have had an effect on radiation both arriving on the earth and leaving it.

I recommend reading this:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I cannot remember if it addresses that argument specifically, but it has addressed all other arguments I have heard from creationists about radiometric dating.

Incidentally scripture says that there was, the "waters above the earth", which doubtless water vapour, and which were brought down to form the deluge.

You have no evidence that it means water vapor. It also says that there was a firmament between the water and water, so claiming water vapor is kinda stupid. In reality, the author was probably trying to understand why it rains and why the sky was blue.

Sorry the best source I can give you is Astro-bilogy Magazine, NASA's own publication.

Really? Can I see an online version of the article?

Have I?

Yes, a lot. You also seem to increase your BoP at most responses, which is never a good thing.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
crazedAtheist
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:23:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
i read some of the responses and realized i should have been more clear on my definition of faith.

i'm not using a super strict definition of faith, but i'm not using a particularly liberal one either. faith, as i was using it in the OP, was something along the lines of 'a strongly held conviction in something' or 'a belief that is not subject to change with evidence' or something along those lines. remember that the secondary goal of beginning this thread was to express my thoughts on the problems of viewing faith as a virtue. in the sense i'm using it, faith is best understood as 'conviction devoid of evidence' (not necessarily despite evidence)

so when i hear the likes of william lane craig say that their faith or their 'witness of the holy spirit' would keep them believing regardless of evidence, i see it as a problem, and i used the example of X and Y to articulate the problem i see with it. where X is a messed up system and Y is a morally revolting system.

i stressed the problem of faith as being viewed as 'superior' to reason. so that in a system that takes reason and evidence only after checking ones faith and convictions, there would be no way to differentiate between two internally consistent systems. there would be no convincing anyone out of it. envisage put it well when he said it was a 'mind trap'.

i personally see no problems if people view things like trust in other people and conviction in moral principles as social virtues, but they should not be seen as intellectual virtues. i would argue that they are amongst the greatest intellectual vices. when trying to help people, make people happy or when trying to lead a group; faith, trust and conviction are good things to have, but when trying to find the truth of something or investigate the world they are the among the greatest impediments.

it should also be noted that this was addressed primarily to sye ten style presuppositionalism. if you noticed, i mentioned internal consistency. any worldview that starts of with X or Y can be said to be internally consistent. if sye were to ask 'how do you know god doesn't exist' all you would have to say is "X says he doesn't" if he were to ask if how do we know X is true all we would have to say is 'according to X, X is true'.

i could add another clause to X like: 'X was inspired by the tenth dimension entering crazed mind and causing his hand to write undeniable truths' or some such, and then referencing that would create the same 'virtuous circularity' that sye ten loves to rant about. so, keep in mind you guys, if you reread my OP that i was primarily thinking of that particular brand of presuppositionalism when writing it.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:43:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:10:49 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:06:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Some people will doubtless go into destruction telling God and Christ that they don;t really exist.

The burden of proof is on those saying they do, and if it has not been met then the rational conclusion is that they probably do not.

Why should it not be up to you to reprove the opposite? After all, it is your life on the line.

That is the problem with Atheists, and is probably the reason you are atheists, the burden of proof is always somebody else's never yours.

Well I think I have given you more than enough things to check out, and if you can't be bothered to check them out thoroughly then I don;ts ee why I should go further to do it for you.

After all, as I say it si yur life on the line, not mine.

I took responsibility for my own life and checked it all out for myself, why should you not do so?

As for:


So, do not trust the consensus of experts it the field of biology?


No, as I have already told you, I trust no-one, absolutely no-one, not even theists. Far too many humans have their own agenda, and that goes for those in all walks of life, including too many, far too many theists.

However, as I said, I was happy to take responsibility for my own life andd research it myself picking out the most reasonable and logical explanations I could find from science, scripture, history etc..

My faith is based purely on Logic and Reason, the first line of logic I perused was "If God exists, he wants me to know him, so if I ask he is bound to help me".

He did, and still does.

My understanding of scripture is also based on logical and reason, the main line of reasoning for that being "If it really is the word of God then it cannot contain contradictions and therefore it should be possible to resolve any that appear to contradict".

That means of course that I don;t even trust teh translators of scripture to have got it right so I look beyond the words to find all possible meanings and then settle on the one that actually works.

I also use any know evidence to help, which i show I arrive at my understanding of Genesis 1 and just about every other part of scripture.

For instance, did you know that someone once worked out that for the Israelites to have crossed the Red Sea in the time available, not only would the waters have to have been parted by at least 2 miles, but the ground would have had to be bone dry.

True that could make it even harder to accept, but at least it is a reasonable explanation of what must have happened.

I wish you all the best, and suggest you do your own research, and not just from a one sided perspective.

Oh, and don't trust anyone, not even the most qualified of people after all, to get their qualifications they had to demonstrate that they fitted on with the Status Quo and would never have passed any exams if they didn't. That's no use to the genuine truth seeker.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 12:00:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:43:28 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:10:49 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The burden of proof is on those saying they do, and if it has not been met then the rational conclusion is that they probably do not.

Because evidence is that which creates a demonstrable link between A and B. You cannot create a demonstrable link between something that exists and something that does not. This means there is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

Also, I am getting this from one of envisage's debates:
A: A priori, it is more likely that God exists than it doesn"t (assumption)
P1. If A is true, then all entities are more likely to exist then not (a1, a2, a3" etc)
P2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
P3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2 & 3"ad infinitum), therefore A is false

The debate can be found here:
http://www.debate.org...

Why should it not be up to you to reprove the opposite? After all, it is your life on the line.

How is it my life on the line? How about you prove that there is no Allah, after all, your life is on the line. Or a deistic god that only lets atheists into heaven. It is because the BoP is on the one proposing existence.

That is the problem with Atheists, and is probably the reason you are atheists, the burden of proof is always somebody else's never yours.

No, the BoP is on the positive claim. I say Jesus was originally believed to be a celestial being. I accept the BoP for that. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for a god (I looked when I was a Christian, when I had bias for there being a god) and there is no need for a god to exist.

Well I think I have given you more than enough things to check out, and if you can't be bothered to check them out thoroughly then I don;ts ee why I should go further to do it for you.

I have given you A LOT to check out, and provided links. You have not really provided any sources.

After all, as I say it si yur life on the line, not mine.

Yes yours is. You will burn for the deistic god that only lets atheists into heaven will torture you for believing in a god. Allah will send you to hell. Etc.

I took responsibility for my own life and checked it all out for myself, why should you not do so?

I have. Many times. If this is you trying to get out of having the BoP, it is VERY poorly done.

As for:


So, do not trust the consensus of experts it the field of biology?


No, as I have already told you, I trust no-one, absolutely no-one, not even theists. Far too many humans have their own agenda, and that goes for those in all walks of life, including too many, far too many theists.

So, do you trust the Bible? It was written by men.

However, as I said, I was happy to take responsibility for my own life andd research it myself picking out the most reasonable and logical explanations I could find from science, scripture, history etc..

You have to show that scripture is accurate, not assume it is. I look towards logic, philosophy, math, history, and science for answers. I have come to the conclusion that a god is very unlikely to exist.

My faith is based purely on Logic and Reason, the first line of logic I perused was "If God exists, he wants me to know him, so if I ask he is bound to help me".

And did you receive a placebo?

He did, and still does.

How?

My understanding of scripture is also based on logical and reason, the main line of reasoning for that being "If it really is the word of God then it cannot contain contradictions and therefore it should be possible to resolve any that appear to contradict".

Okay, so is salvation from faith alone (as said by Paul) or do you need work and deeds (as said in James)?

That means of course that I don;t even trust teh translators of scripture to have got it right so I look beyond the words to find all possible meanings and then settle on the one that actually works.

So, you look for what you want to see.

I also use any know evidence to help, which i show I arrive at my understanding of Genesis 1 and just about every other part of scripture.

For instance, did you know that someone once worked out that for the Israelites to have crossed the Red Sea in the time available, not only would the waters have to have been parted by at least 2 miles, but the ground would have had to be bone dry.

True that could make it even harder to accept, but at least it is a reasonable explanation of what must have happened.

There is absolutely no evidence that the exodus story happened. There is no evidence that Egypt had that many Israelite slaves at one time.

I wish you all the best, and suggest you do your own research, and not just from a one sided perspective.

Oh, so just because we have different views, I must have done biased research? This is a classic example of stupidity.

Oh, and don't trust anyone, not even the most qualified of people after all, to get their qualifications they had to demonstrate that they fitted on with the Status Quo and would never have passed any exams if they didn't. That's no use to the genuine truth seeker.

Oh, so I should make conspiracy theories and claim I do not have to back them up?

Sorry if I sound rude, but you have lost all possible respect in the way you have been acting here.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:20:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 12:00:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:43:28 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:10:49 AM, SNP1 wrote:
The burden of proof is on those saying they do, and if it has not been met then the rational conclusion is that they probably do not.

Because evidence is that which creates a demonstrable link between A and B. You cannot create a demonstrable link between something that exists and something that does not. This means there is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

Also, I am getting this from one of envisage's debates:
A: A priori, it is more likely that God exists than it doesn"t (assumption)
P1. If A is true, then all entities are more likely to exist then not (a1, a2, a3" etc)
P2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
P3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2 & 3"ad infinitum), therefore A is false

The debate can be found here:
http://www.debate.org...

Why should it not be up to you to reprove the opposite? After all, it is your life on the line.

How is it my life on the line? How about you prove that there is no Allah, after all, your life is on the line. Or a deistic god that only lets atheists into heaven. It is because the BoP is on the one proposing existence.

That is the problem with Atheists, and is probably the reason you are atheists, the burden of proof is always somebody else's never yours.

No, the BoP is on the positive claim. I say Jesus was originally believed to be a celestial being. I accept the BoP for that. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for a god (I looked when I was a Christian, when I had bias for there being a god) and there is no need for a god to exist.

Well I think I have given you more than enough things to check out, and if you can't be bothered to check them out thoroughly then I don;ts ee why I should go further to do it for you.

I have given you A LOT to check out, and provided links. You have not really provided any sources.

After all, as I say it si yur life on the line, not mine.

Yes yours is. You will burn for the deistic god that only lets atheists into heaven will torture you for believing in a god. Allah will send you to hell. Etc.

I took responsibility for my own life and checked it all out for myself, why should you not do so?

I have. Many times. If this is you trying to get out of having the BoP, it is VERY poorly done.

As for:


So, do not trust the consensus of experts it the field of biology?


No, as I have already told you, I trust no-one, absolutely no-one, not even theists. Far too many humans have their own agenda, and that goes for those in all walks of life, including too many, far too many theists.

So, do you trust the Bible? It was written by men.

However, as I said, I was happy to take responsibility for my own life andd research it myself picking out the most reasonable and logical explanations I could find from science, scripture, history etc..

You have to show that scripture is accurate, not assume it is. I look towards logic, philosophy, math, history, and science for answers. I have come to the conclusion that a god is very unlikely to exist.

My faith is based purely on Logic and Reason, the first line of logic I perused was "If God exists, he wants me to know him, so if I ask he is bound to help me".

And did you receive a placebo?

He did, and still does.

How?

My understanding of scripture is also based on logical and reason, the main line of reasoning for that being "If it really is the word of God then it cannot contain contradictions and therefore it should be possible to resolve any that appear to contradict".

Okay, so is salvation from faith alone (as said by Paul) or do you need work and deeds (as said in James)?

That means of course that I don;t even trust teh translators of scripture to have got it right so I look beyond the words to find all possible meanings and then settle on the one that actually works.

So, you look for what you want to see.

I also use any know evidence to help, which i show I arrive at my understanding of Genesis 1 and just about every other part of scripture.

For instance, did you know that someone once worked out that for the Israelites to have crossed the Red Sea in the time available, not only would the waters have to have been parted by at least 2 miles, but the ground would have had to be bone dry.

True that could make it even harder to accept, but at least it is a reasonable explanation of what must have happened.

There is absolutely no evidence that the exodus story happened. There is no evidence that Egypt had that many Israelite slaves at one time.

I wish you all the best, and suggest you do your own research, and not just from a one sided perspective.

Oh, so just because we have different views, I must have done biased research? This is a classic example of stupidity.

Oh, and don't trust anyone, not even the most qualified of people after all, to get their qualifications they had to demonstrate that they fitted on with the Status Quo and would never have passed any exams if they didn't. That's no use to the genuine truth seeker.

Oh, so I should make conspiracy theories and claim I do not have to back them up?


No, lol, just check everything everyone tells you.

Sorry if I sound rude, but you have lost all possible respect in the way you have been acting here.

That's OK I don;t expect anyone to understand, partly because Christ said few would.

Don;t worry I have been thoroughly forewarned in scripture about all I may come up against, though hopefully I'll miss out on the worst of it, lol.

I don;t take any of it personally because as Christ says if anyone insults the message I carry they are not insulting me, but the one the message comes from, God through Christ.

So though I have nothing to win, apart from the knowledge that I have done my duty to the best of my feeble ability, I cannot lose eitehr, all I can do is try to inform the rest is between you and God, since it is you who will have to answer for it, as we each must, and Christ to whom we will all have to answer.

After all, the majority didn't listen to Christ, why should you listen to me. The majority didn't respect Christ, so why should you respect me? I am not better than Christ, not as good even.

So no worries. Nothing you can say can diminish or increase me, your words can only diminish yourself or build yourself up.

All the best.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:36:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 9:24:19 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:58:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:11:47 AM, crazedAtheist wrote:
it should be noted that this is primarily a response to sye ten-esque methods of presuppositionalism and secondly anyone who values faith as greater than or equal to evidence.

the problem with valuing faith as a virtue, is that the following belief system would be justified if faith was considered more valuable than evidence or logic:

title: X
{ all propositions in x are true.
god does not exist.
it is immoral to doubt the truth of X or its propositions.
it is self evident that god does not exist.
anyone who says they believe in god is lying.
}

this is a perfectly internally consistent worldview prototype. if faith is an acceptable method of belief, then a worldview based on this prototype should be no more problematic than a biblical worldview. the following would also be acceptable:

title: Y
{ all propositions in Y are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of Y or its propositions
it is immoral to not do what Y says should be done.
it is immoral to do what Y says shouldn't be done.
{X}
no one should say they believe in god
anyone who says they believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they believe in god is evil
anyone who says they believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they believe in god should be enslaved or tortured to death
no one should attempt to examine the validity Y with anyone who says they believe in god.
}

this system may seem rather gruesome, but it mirrors theistic systems of the past, and how some some theistic systems of today strictly adhere to or interpret verses parallel to these propositions in their holy books. There have been rules saying that anyone who believes in any other god or who believes in no god, are subhuman. such rules can be seen in both the old testament and the quran. in only a small set of propositions, i am capable making the most heinous and morally disgusting prototype for a belief system, and yet still have them be internally consistent.

and if faith is more valuable than evidence and reason, than how are we to tell whether this system is wrong? there are no contradictions in Y so how we can't use reason alone, but if you want to use evidence you have to remember that faith comes first. appealing to other faiths is useless here. why have faith in gods? according to Y god nonexistence is self evident. according to Y if you say god doesn't exist, then you're lying. and its immoral for anyone who believes in Y to examine Y with anyone who doesn't believe in god anyway. (that was a nod to sye tenbruggencate for anyone who didn't get it) such a system is a logical trap for anyone who beleives faith is more valuable than evidence.

take a similar theistic system which is equally disgusting:

G
{ all propositions in G are true
god exists
god inspired the writings of G, and thus G is the word of god
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G or its propositions
it is self evident that god exists
anyone who says they don't believe god exists is lying
}

G2
{ all propositions in G2 are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G2 or its propositions
God inspired the writing of G2 and thus G2 is the word of god
it is immoral to not do what G2 says ought to be done
it is immoral to do what G2 says ought not to be done
{G}
faith is good
you ought not say you don't believe in god
anyone who says they don't believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they don't believe in god is evil
anyone who says they don't believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they don't believe in god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who says gods name in vain ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who does not obey the priests of god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
}

this should help to explain my view on the issues of faith.

Good post.

Yes, the biggest objection I have to religion is that it is a 'mind trap', since doubting/denying it's truth once you are within it's belief system is reprehensible.

In Christianity for instance you are punishable for thought crime, and numerous verses which depict non believers as 'fools', who will go to hell, etc. In Islam.... Well... Yeah.... Nuff said.

Ya'll really need to get out of thhe mindset that certain minority strains of fundamentalist/near fundamentalist Protestant American Christanity = Christianity on the whole.

That's not fundamentalism, it's something I believed too, and I was about as non-fundamental as they get.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:37:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:20:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/9/2014 12:00:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Because evidence is that which creates a demonstrable link between A and B. You cannot create a demonstrable link between something that exists and something that does not. This means there is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

Also, I am getting this from one of envisage's debates:
A: A priori, it is more likely that God exists than it doesn"t (assumption)
P1. If A is true, then all entities are more likely to exist then not (a1, a2, a3" etc)
P2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
P3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2 & 3"ad infinitum), therefore A is false

The debate can be found here:
http://www.debate.org...

Why should it not be up to you to reprove the opposite? After all, it is your life on the line.

How is it my life on the line? How about you prove that there is no Allah, after all, your life is on the line. Or a deistic god that only lets atheists into heaven. It is because the BoP is on the one proposing existence.

That is the problem with Atheists, and is probably the reason you are atheists, the burden of proof is always somebody else's never yours.

No, the BoP is on the positive claim. I say Jesus was originally believed to be a celestial being. I accept the BoP for that. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for a god (I looked when I was a Christian, when I had bias for there being a god) and there is no need for a god to exist.

Well I think I have given you more than enough things to check out, and if you can't be bothered to check them out thoroughly then I don;ts ee why I should go further to do it for you.

I have given you A LOT to check out, and provided links. You have not really provided any sources.

After all, as I say it si yur life on the line, not mine.

Yes yours is. You will burn for the deistic god that only lets atheists into heaven will torture you for believing in a god. Allah will send you to hell. Etc.

I took responsibility for my own life and checked it all out for myself, why should you not do so?

I have. Many times. If this is you trying to get out of having the BoP, it is VERY poorly done.

As for:


So, do not trust the consensus of experts it the field of biology?


No, as I have already told you, I trust no-one, absolutely no-one, not even theists. Far too many humans have their own agenda, and that goes for those in all walks of life, including too many, far too many theists.

So, do you trust the Bible? It was written by men.

However, as I said, I was happy to take responsibility for my own life andd research it myself picking out the most reasonable and logical explanations I could find from science, scripture, history etc..

You have to show that scripture is accurate, not assume it is. I look towards logic, philosophy, math, history, and science for answers. I have come to the conclusion that a god is very unlikely to exist.

My faith is based purely on Logic and Reason, the first line of logic I perused was "If God exists, he wants me to know him, so if I ask he is bound to help me".

And did you receive a placebo?

He did, and still does.

How?

My understanding of scripture is also based on logical and reason, the main line of reasoning for that being "If it really is the word of God then it cannot contain contradictions and therefore it should be possible to resolve any that appear to contradict".

Okay, so is salvation from faith alone (as said by Paul) or do you need work and deeds (as said in James)?

That means of course that I don;t even trust teh translators of scripture to have got it right so I look beyond the words to find all possible meanings and then settle on the one that actually works.

So, you look for what you want to see.

I also use any know evidence to help, which i show I arrive at my understanding of Genesis 1 and just about every other part of scripture.

For instance, did you know that someone once worked out that for the Israelites to have crossed the Red Sea in the time available, not only would the waters have to have been parted by at least 2 miles, but the ground would have had to be bone dry.

True that could make it even harder to accept, but at least it is a reasonable explanation of what must have happened.

There is absolutely no evidence that the exodus story happened. There is no evidence that Egypt had that many Israelite slaves at one time.

I wish you all the best, and suggest you do your own research, and not just from a one sided perspective.

Oh, so just because we have different views, I must have done biased research? This is a classic example of stupidity.

Oh, and don't trust anyone, not even the most qualified of people after all, to get their qualifications they had to demonstrate that they fitted on with the Status Quo and would never have passed any exams if they didn't. That's no use to the genuine truth seeker.

Oh, so I should make conspiracy theories and claim I do not have to back them up?


No, lol, just check everything everyone tells you.

With what? Something else you will call from an unreliable source that you cannot trust? You have stated that no one is reliable, that means all information is unreliable.

Sorry if I sound rude, but you have lost all possible respect in the way you have been acting here.

That's OK I don;t expect anyone to understand, partly because Christ said few would.

No, I lost all respect because you are on a DEBATE website, and the way you have been answering the questions shows that you have ABSOLUTELY NO interest in debating.

Don;t worry I have been thoroughly forewarned in scripture about all I may come up against, though hopefully I'll miss out on the worst of it, lol.

You mean through vaggue "prophecies" that can fit any number of situations? Or "prophecies" that describe what always happened, was happening, and would continue to happen?

I don;t take any of it personally because as Christ says if anyone insults the message I carry they are not insulting me, but the one the message comes from, God through Christ.

No, I am insulting YOU. Why? Because you have pretty much admitted that you are closed minded. Closed minded people do not belong on a debate website.

So though I have nothing to win, apart from the knowledge that I have done my duty to the best of my feeble ability, I cannot lose eitehr, all I can do is try to inform the rest is between you and God, since it is you who will have to answer for it, as we each must, and Christ to whom we will all have to answer.

Then get some REAL evidence, with sources, and fill your BoP. Oh, and accept that you might be wrong. I have looked at previous threads at how you act.

After all, the majority didn't listen to Christ, why should you listen to me. The majority didn't respect Christ, so why should you respect me? I am not better than Christ, not as good even.

How about evidence that this stuff happened? That is a start.

So no worries. Nothing you can say can diminish or increase me, your words can only diminish yourself or build yourself up.

Because you are so closed minded that you cannot imagine that you could possibly be wrong?

All the best.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:56:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:18:40 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:49:19 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 6:22:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Despite the above I see no problem with faith because to be faith it has to at least be based on evidence, as mine is.

If you have this evidence, then why have you not told anyone?


I have many tiems, and it is all around you. You are even a part of it.

There is also evidence of both the historical and prophetic accuracy of scripture in Museums around the world, as well as in life around us. It is so accurate historically that Holy Land Archaeologists use it to make help them make finds.

Plus when you consider that there are accurate scientific statements in scripture which could not possibly have been known to the ancients, some of which are only recently been proved who else do you think could have supplied the information.

The only people who say scripture is to scientifically accurate are the ones who deny the facts of the matter and insist on defying logic as well as evidence. It is accurate enough for some scientists to put 100% faith in what it teaches. Want to read some of their stories?

All Atheism appears to be based on is a denial of the evidence that exists. An extremely negative outlook.

I have yet to deny any evidence, I have yet to find any evidence for a god. You claim to have some. Can you pleases tell me what this evidence is?


If you claim not to have found evidence of God then you are denying the evidence that is all around you in creation.

I confess I have never seen any value in denying evidence which so clearly exists, whether or not I like it, but of course that is my choice. After all denying it doesn't change it so why not just learn to live within it?

Wait, so the evidence clearly exists? Even though the existence of a god is one of the most debated philosophical questions?


Yes it clearly exists, but when has evidence ever stopped people making claims against it? After all look how many people claim that Evolution has been proved when it is far from proven. David Attenborough for one.

There is actually as much circumstantial evidence against it as for it, and quite a bit of solid, reliable evidence against it, complex mechanisms which gradual evolution cannot explain suddenly appearing and working first time.

The propulsions of some single celled creatures spring straight to mind, some even have a form of gearbox. That is why so many scientists became disillusioned with Evolution and formed the Intelligent design theory.

However many people, even those who profess a belief in a supreme being, are very good at denying what they don;t like, preferring to live in a fantasy world.

You keep mentioning evidence, but never tell us what the evidence is.

I have said it many times on here but I have yet to meet the Atheist who accepts it for what it is. Most appear to be frightened stiff of the responsibility that having a creator puts on us.

OK, I have a question for you.

Can you give me a logical, reasonable explanation for the number of Mammoths which have been discovered in the thawing permafrost over the last century or so which were obviously frozen instantly.

Some appeared to have been crushed by a heavy weight even though they were in the middle of the plains without so much as a tall tree in the area.

Some have been found to have been still chewing the vegetation they had in their mouths as they died, and the vegetation was also perfectly frozen and preserved.

Even today, as a recent TV program showed, scientist have to rush to get to any finds before the hungry locals eat too much of them, or sell off the valuable ivory.

Can you give me a reasonable hypothesis to explain what can only have been caused by a catastrophic climate event affecting at least the Northermost parts of the globe?

I can give you one from scripture.

One which I also believe may have caused the splitting up of the single continent (also mentioned in scripture as well as the distortions evident in the earth's crust, which are still causing mountains like Everest to grow measurably.

There's a good challenge for you, but you will have to ignore science's speculative datings, which are obtained by what can only be called "best guess science" anyway.

<...wipes away tears...>
Thank you, MCB... I haven't laughed that hard in a VERY long time...
"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
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:56:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:37:03 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:20:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Because you are so closed minded that you cannot imagine that you could possibly be wrong?

I would say that describes you more than me. I am not the one who deliberately refuses to open his mind to the obvious evidence of God in the world around him.

If my mind was closed I would still be like you.


All the best.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:59:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:56:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:37:03 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:20:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Because you are so closed minded that you cannot imagine that you could possibly be wrong?

I would say that describes you more than me. I am not the one who deliberately refuses to open his mind to the obvious evidence of God in the world around him.

If my mind was closed I would still be like you.

You have not presented any evidence. You have made assertions, talked about there being anecdotes, have yet to fill your BoP, and tried to shift the BoP onto me. You have yet to present a shred of evidence.

Being open minded does not mean accepting everything.
Accepting something and not thinking you could be wrong (which is what you are doing) is the very definition of closed mindedness.

All the best.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 3:06:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:36:15 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:24:19 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:58:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:11:47 AM, crazedAtheist wrote:
it should be noted that this is primarily a response to sye ten-esque methods of presuppositionalism and secondly anyone who values faith as greater than or equal to evidence.

the problem with valuing faith as a virtue, is that the following belief system would be justified if faith was considered more valuable than evidence or logic:

title: X
{ all propositions in x are true.
god does not exist.
it is immoral to doubt the truth of X or its propositions.
it is self evident that god does not exist.
anyone who says they believe in god is lying.
}

this is a perfectly internally consistent worldview prototype. if faith is an acceptable method of belief, then a worldview based on this prototype should be no more problematic than a biblical worldview. the following would also be acceptable:

title: Y
{ all propositions in Y are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of Y or its propositions
it is immoral to not do what Y says should be done.
it is immoral to do what Y says shouldn't be done.
{X}
no one should say they believe in god
anyone who says they believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they believe in god is evil
anyone who says they believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they believe in god should be enslaved or tortured to death
no one should attempt to examine the validity Y with anyone who says they believe in god.
}

this system may seem rather gruesome, but it mirrors theistic systems of the past, and how some some theistic systems of today strictly adhere to or interpret verses parallel to these propositions in their holy books. There have been rules saying that anyone who believes in any other god or who believes in no god, are subhuman. such rules can be seen in both the old testament and the quran. in only a small set of propositions, i am capable making the most heinous and morally disgusting prototype for a belief system, and yet still have them be internally consistent.

and if faith is more valuable than evidence and reason, than how are we to tell whether this system is wrong? there are no contradictions in Y so how we can't use reason alone, but if you want to use evidence you have to remember that faith comes first. appealing to other faiths is useless here. why have faith in gods? according to Y god nonexistence is self evident. according to Y if you say god doesn't exist, then you're lying. and its immoral for anyone who believes in Y to examine Y with anyone who doesn't believe in god anyway. (that was a nod to sye tenbruggencate for anyone who didn't get it) such a system is a logical trap for anyone who beleives faith is more valuable than evidence.

take a similar theistic system which is equally disgusting:

G
{ all propositions in G are true
god exists
god inspired the writings of G, and thus G is the word of god
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G or its propositions
it is self evident that god exists
anyone who says they don't believe god exists is lying
}

G2
{ all propositions in G2 are true
it is immoral to doubt the truth of G2 or its propositions
God inspired the writing of G2 and thus G2 is the word of god
it is immoral to not do what G2 says ought to be done
it is immoral to do what G2 says ought not to be done
{G}
faith is good
you ought not say you don't believe in god
anyone who says they don't believe in god is a fool
anyone who says they don't believe in god is evil
anyone who says they don't believe in god is subhuman
anyone who says they don't believe in god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who says gods name in vain ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
anyone who does not obey the priests of god ought to be enslaved or tortured to death
}

this should help to explain my view on the issues of faith.

Good post.

Yes, the biggest objection I have to religion is that it is a 'mind trap', since doubting/denying it's truth once you are within it's belief system is reprehensible.

In Christianity for instance you are punishable for thought crime, and numerous verses which depict non believers as 'fools', who will go to hell, etc. In Islam.... Well... Yeah.... Nuff said.

Ya'll really need to get out of thhe mindset that certain minority strains of fundamentalist/near fundamentalist Protestant American Christanity = Christianity on the whole.

That's not fundamentalism, it's something I believed too, and I was about as non-fundamental as they get.

You don't have to be a dyed in wool, conservative, YEC, no alchohol christian to have fundamentalist strains of thought.

Doubting and questioning was encouraged growing up in a Christian household and this wasn't unique to me. Israel MEANS to struggle with God. That includes intellectual struggles. That's part of the journey.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 3:20:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:59:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:56:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:37:03 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:20:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Because you are so closed minded that you cannot imagine that you could possibly be wrong?

I would say that describes you more than me. I am not the one who deliberately refuses to open his mind to the obvious evidence of God in the world around him.

If my mind was closed I would still be like you.

You have not presented any evidence. You have made assertions, talked about there being anecdotes, have yet to fill your BoP, and tried to shift the BoP onto me. You have yet to present a shred of evidence.

Being open minded does not mean accepting everything.
Accepting something and not thinking you could be wrong (which is what you are doing) is the very definition of closed mindedness.

All the best.

Not true, I presented you with quite a bit of evidence you simply don;t want to open iour mind and accept it for what it is.

However I also left plenty for you to check out for yourself.

Of what value is it if I do everything for you? IT will always be mine and never yours. You need to make it yours.

Really you are simply copping out and blaming me rather than yourself.

Sorry it may wash with some but it won't wash with God.

Your choice. but what is the point in me giving you evidence if you refuse to open your firmly closed and locked mind to it?