frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Religion or Atheism Which is better?

124



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn AND because 1 doesn't equal 1 at a low level of abstraction.
    Erfisflat
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Thus, when dealing with absolutes, I suppose we can say that there are absolutely no absolutes.  Because Coveny says there are no absolutes.  If there are no absolutes, then there are absolutely no absolutes.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Evidence
    I'm speechless. The level of fallaciousness in your arguments is beyond anything I've ever seen.


    @Sylynn So you think that everything that can be said doesn't exist actually does? You believe there is a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe? Again, I'm speechless.

    Yes, it does now, that you came up with it.
    If you really want to understand God, you will have to step outside your religious belief system, that you are nothing but a evolving amoeba, that your brain creates your mind, because this will never do.

    Look, when I tell my son to take out the garbage, and he is sitting there front of his computer playing, and tells me: "I can't" does that mean he really can't?

    What is real to YOU?

    Look at a table for instance, does the physical table go into your brain, or does your eyes digitize that table for your mind, which is YOU to be able to see it and recognize it as a table?

    Now the same thing happens when I hear you say the word "table", I visualize a table.
    Now tell me, which table is more real to me, the one I seen, or the one you suggested?

    The same when you said: "there is a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe", I actually visualized a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe!

    Now does what I said about:
    "Can you, or ANYONE tell me something that doesn't exist?
    Impossible, because it doesn't exist." make sense?

    @Sylynn So Mr Higgs has the ability to create a physical object with just the power of his thoughts?

    That's how creation starts, and that's how it will end, until they figure out how to mutate, or put an entire table into your brain where you can say: "Now I believe that table exist, I can feel and see it with my brain!"

    I am having a very difficult time typing here, the words trail behind, so I will cut this short, besides, the rest of your comments hang on you understanding that our existence does not rely on physics only, but you are far more than that.

    @Sylynn I have to admit, I spent over 30 years as a Christian, but if I had been taught the ridiculousness you believe is true, I wouldn't have lasted a day in it.

    Well said, which is why I left the Religion because I realized they did not worship the God of the Bible, but think that all gods are the same, created by the whim of man.
    This is why I say that theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin, the coin being "religion".

    By now becoming an atheist, you didn't change anything, now you just claim you don't believe in gods theist believe in, look, I can even ask you "which god/gods don't you believe in?" and you'll most likely tell me; the God Jehovah, and if I asked,, you most likely tell me all about Him!

    Can anyone give an accurate description of something, or someone that they say doesn't exist?
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Evidence again making logical impossibilities. A god that's not a god. An athiest who believes in god. I hold with no religion, I hold with no god, and I very much hold there was not a uncreated creator which you have ZERO evidence of, and is a logical impossibility. If everything MUST be created, then how can you have an uncreated creator? If you show as proof of a creator the complexity of the universe, then anything that created it must be more complex, this is another logical hole in your argument.

    Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you. Speaking of fallacies you are committing one. It's called shifting the burden of proof. You say your god exists, then they burden of proof is on YOU. YOU must prove your god exists, I don't have prove it doesn't exist. 


    or here - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

    What fallacy have I made? Name the fallacy, and point to where I did it. Otherwise don't make vague baseless accusations.

    No I can't pray... I'm an atheist.


    You need a Creator to create, which can be as simple as a robot that we program to create, to as complex as man, who can not only create, but dream up what he want's to create. It is THAT creator part of us that is God, for He gave us that part, our "mind" which is of, and IS God.

    Look friend, it is NOT a logical impossibility, you greatly underestimate who you really are, which comes from your indoctrination.

    @Coveny Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you.

    Science doesn't support a Big Bang, yet look how it is called science!?
    Why is the never observed, and I mean never ever observed thing like a quantum speck popping out of nothing, then Big-Banging in nothing and creates all this we observe with our senses considered science?
    A bad dream after eating too many burritos maybe, but someone actually observed such a thing?

    But look, even brilliant scientists will call it a "scientific possibility", yet no scientist has ever witnessed any quantum speck popping out of nothing and creating anything let alone our heavens and the earth and everything we see and can examine in it. So of course such religious science doesn't support me, because I am against religion and all the fake gods and creators they keep creating.

    How can there be ZERO evidence of an uncreated Creator when your mind is it? Nothing or no one can create your Mind, it was given from and of The Creator; The Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am".

    The Bible explains who our Creator is, and how He created everything, and we are so lucky because we have reached a time in mans existence where we can finally fully understand this, for never was man able to create worlds with people in it until only a few years ago. Sure we can't create men that have their own minds, this is when another human mind steps in and through a controller does the thinking for those created beings who are stuck in their created little world just as we are under this dome.

    Wake up people, get out of religion, and your religious upbringing and start using your mind,  not just what you've been taught.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Coveny said:
    @Sylynn haha I pray to Joe Pesci! I miss Carlin.   :'(


    Me too!






    Me too, he was funny and what a brilliant mind, yet in all his years he couldn't come an inch closer to finding God. (nice 666symbol with his hand, can't be in the show business without identifying your allegiance I guess?)

    I mean he pegged religion, that they were a joke and that none really worshipped God (except asking for things, like he said) which means none really knew God, which he didn't go far enough to see. Or that religion took over science by which he could have figured out that religion was desperately trying to hide God? That maybe that's why religions keep creating all these fake gods, and promising man to travel the universe, to go where they know no man can go to keep people from finding the One True Uncreated Creator!?
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Coveny - "No I can't pray... I'm an atheist."
    Sure you can. Just come up with an imaginary friend like they have, and talk to him. That's all they do, but they've simply attached the label "pray" to it.


    But why create an imaginary friend when you can communicate with your real Creator?
    I mean imagine your wife telling your young 5 year old son to: "Go get your father, tell him it's time to eat!" And the boy runs into his bedroom, and brings her one of his plastic toy soldiers and says: "Here is daddy!"
    That's exactly what religions have reduced humanity to, worshipping man made wood, stone and plastic gods over their real Father and Creator.
    Don't you see that this is all you guys (both theists and atheists) know, is fake, imaginary gods!? And you don't see a problem with that?
    I'm sure you would see a problem with your child doing that!
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:

    You need a Creator to create, which can be as simple as a robot that we program to create, to as complex as man, who can not only create, but dream up what he want's to create. It is THAT creator part of us that is God, for He gave us that part, our "mind" which is of, and IS God.

    Look friend, it is NOT a logical impossibility, you greatly underestimate who you really are, which comes from your indoctrination.

    @Coveny Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you.

    Science doesn't support a Big Bang, yet look how it is called science!?
    Why is the never observed, and I mean never ever observed thing like a quantum speck popping out of nothing, then Big-Banging in nothing and creates all this we observe with our senses considered science?
    A bad dream after eating too many burritos maybe, but someone actually observed such a thing?

    But look, even brilliant scientists will call it a "scientific possibility", yet no scientist has ever witnessed any quantum speck popping out of nothing and creating anything let alone our heavens and the earth and everything we see and can examine in it. So of course such religious science doesn't support me, because I am against religion and all the fake gods and creators they keep creating.

    How can there be ZERO evidence of an uncreated Creator when your mind is it? Nothing or no one can create your Mind, it was given from and of The Creator; The Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am".

    The Bible explains who our Creator is, and how He created everything, and we are so lucky because we have reached a time in mans existence where we can finally fully understand this, for never was man able to create worlds with people in it until only a few years ago. Sure we can't create men that have their own minds, this is when another human mind steps in and through a controller does the thinking for those created beings who are stuck in their created little world just as we are under this dome.

    Wake up people, get out of religion, and your religious upbringing and start using your mind,  not just what you've been taught.

    If you need a creator to create what created the creator? Oh look your logic is broken as usual even after taking two weeks to think about a response.

    We are not friends don't patronize me. If there must be a creator, then there must be a creator of the creator, this goes back to infinity, and creates a logical impossibility. (it has nothing to do with my estimation of myself)

    I don't believe in a creator god regardless of how many times you misuse the words. It's impossible to be an atheist who believes in a creator god.

    Science does support the big bang theory, but it's still contested as I've already stated. It's called science because objective proofs have been peer review that support it. The big bang isn't something out of nothing, again you show your complete lack of scientific understanding. 

    My mind is not evidence of an uncreated creator any more than dirt is. You have to prove that your creator exists. You have to prove that he was not created. You have to prove that he created by mind. You have a prove a whole host of things you just skip over because you use faith rather than reason. Lots of animals (we are animals after all) create minds, and they create them in a wide variety of ways, as well as creating minds that come in a wide variety of structures. (octopus with their brains in the tentacles are pretty dam cool if you ask me) 

    You follow the bible, you are religious, and you understand nothing, you just regurgitate your childhood programing with a new spin so you can impress people.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    But why create an imaginary friend when you can communicate with your real Creator?
    I mean imagine your wife telling your young 5 year old son to: "Go get your father, tell him it's time to eat!" And the boy runs into his bedroom, and brings her one of his plastic toy soldiers and says: "Here is daddy!"
    That's exactly what religions have reduced humanity to, worshipping man made wood, stone and plastic gods over their real Father and Creator.
    Don't you see that this is all you guys (both theists and atheists) know, is fake, imaginary gods!? And you don't see a problem with that?
    I'm sure you would see a problem with your child doing that!

    Oh look Evidence communicates with the creator, record one of those conversations. ROFL

    I'm an athiest I don't know (or communicate) with any gods... that's why I'm an athiest. It's like you are saying I'm dead but I talk to much or some other impossibility. Yes I see a problem with just about everything you say.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:

    You need a Creator to create, which can be as simple as a robot that we program to create, to as complex as man, who can not only create, but dream up what he want's to create. It is THAT creator part of us that is God, for He gave us that part, our "mind" which is of, and IS God.



    If you need a creator to create what created the creator? Oh look your logic is broken as usual even after taking two weeks to think about a response.


    Yes, we can create creators, I have two of my own, twins. Or I can build a robot to create things. What we're looking for here is the "Uncreated Creator", or The God, the Only One and not "a-god", which we have plenty of.

    I already explained this many times now to you, but instead of using your "mind", you regress to the created part of you (your brain/memory) which has been heavily indoctrinated, like we all have been.

    Jesus said (He is the co-Creator by the way): Mark 9:23 “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
    Now this is extremely important for us to understand if we are to understand God, and to understand that "breath of life" which is the "god within us"

    1 Crinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

    It is His Spirit that was given to us by God. The statement Jesus made in Mark 9:23 is a scientific fact, we can do experiments to prove it.

    Look, like this:
    Take any object, like a table for instance, look at it, then close your eyes and make it as big as your NASA imaginary universe.
    Now make it bigger than this NASA universe, matter of fact so big, that you could put a million "bubble-in-a-bubble" universe on top of this table, ... you see how easy it is?
    You can NEVER run out of room in your mind, because like I said, it IS Infinite, and it came from our Infinite Creator.

    I think I already told you this, but here again; God IS Infinite, He doesn't "go on through infinity", instead He IS Infinite.
    Infinity refers ONLY to that which was created.
    Infinite refers to the Only One Possible, not a being, but the Ground of Being.

    The reason people cannot understand this is because "religion" has created tens of thousands of gods, and they also taken over the Bible so they can speak on Gods behalf, and God just lets them because we have all refused to accept God. Instead we accept religion created gods and even science fiction gods like the little miracle child gravity, and like Tinkerbelle, can do magical things,  and his mommy and daddy Mother Nature and Father Time.
    So God said: "Fine, you people rather believe in globe planets spinning and swirling through space, you can have it, and my friend @Erfisflat is awesome at demonstrating this truth, that people rather believe NASA's than their own Creator and His actual creation, even to the point to deny themselves, and accept some cult leader like Richard Dawkins calling them animals, evolving rats and apes mind you!?

    Don't patronize you? I called "you" friend, and you are, that's how I think of you; "my debating friend", doesn't matter what YOU think of me?
    Like Richard Dawkins calls us animals, evolving apes, cousins of rats, would you rather that I call you, or refer to you in those terms?
    Please don't tell me how I should think of people, please respect my freedom of choice, as I respect yours. If you call me an , your number one enemy whom you just absolutely hate with a passion, fine. Doesn't change how I think of you my friend.

    @Coveny said: If there must be a creator, then there must be a creator of the creator, this goes back to infinity, and creates a logical impossibility. (it has nothing to do with my estimation of myself)

    That's right, if there is "a creator", and not The Creator, which in Greek I just learned from another debater friend, is the Only One, .. then yes, a creator will have to have a creator, but "The" Creator does not.
    Why?
    Because The Creator IS Infinite, and Infinite is without boarders, and Infinite by definition cannot be created, but simply Is. Anything besides the Creator is finite, or created, even a spoken "word" is creatyed and is finite, so all things, like in "things" which are obviously created are IN The Creator; The Infinite, and Eternal conscious and creative mind "I Am".

    Impossible, sheessh, come on, you know nothing is impossible, just listen to @Erfisflat, he'll show you that some Nazis who were brought over from Germany through Operation Paperclip took an idea like this old globe earth con, and through artist rendered pictures and paintings are robbing humanity of 10's of Billions of $$$ a month, and people love it! "Give us some more please, I can't afford medical for my kids, but yes, please more, and please take my children and make them Astronauts so they too can go on the USS Enterprise to go where no man has EVER gone before!
    I mean come on?


    .. this is crimes against humanity, just as calling our children animals, apes and evolving rats. How long will people put up with this ?

    You think these Nazis would stop short of putting a bunch of our brainwashed children on one of their fake Shuttles to Mars and blow it up and claim they got "Lost In Space"?  I'm willing to bet that, that TV show was created just for this purpose, so when they do fake an actual Mars Trip, they'll just kill them all, ..  and say they got "Lost In Space", .. we've lost all connection, but not to worry, the spaceship was equipped with the most up to date computer that will find the nearest habitable planet that they can safely land on". And from time to time even have a few acknowledgements from the craft that; they did find a planet, and it is beautiful, only communication is very difficult, but we will keep you up to date which will cost you another billion dollars a month, and a sew hundred billion to "send for Help", Get Them Home or some other b.s. And you know what? People will send in their entire savings to get them back, LOL.

    Coveny said: I don't believe in a creator god regardless of how many times you misuse the words. It's impossible to be an atheist who believes in a creator god.

    Oh come on, how can you say that an atheist doesn't believe in a creator god?

    OK, look, I have personally asked many "atheists" if they believe in "a creator god", and they said no.
    I said: "Do you even know what I'm talking about?"
    They said: "Yes, you are talking about some gods that supposedly created the universe, like Zeus, or that Jesus-god in the Bible!"
    I said: "I thought you don't believe in gods, yet you just described two creators?"

    So I pointed out that it is not really true that atheists don't believe in god or gods, because they can clearly define them, and even point to the source that has more information on them. That is all that theists can do, no more and no less. So again, what is the difference between theists and atheists?

    Here it is (again)

    Theists admit that they believe in god/gods, and atheist deny that they do, but they BOTH do.
    atheists example: "I don't believe in gods, oh Zeus, did I say Zeus? No I didn't, what's a Zeus? See, I don't believe in gods!"

    I on the other hand am a true atheist, not that I don't believe in god/gods that are studied in theology (look up the word theology) but that I KNOW that none of the gods that theists/atheists believe/not believe in are the Real creator: The God (in Greek) meaning the Only One. There are gods, like "a god", but those are created gods, they are either men, or wood/stone/plastic gods, idols with stories behind them.

    THIS is what Christians believe in; gods as in the Greek; theos which is why I don't say I'm a Christian. Christians are those who belong to the Christian Religion created by Constantine and the Catholic Church, they believe in the Greek definition of god/gods as in "theology". They believe in "deities" and become mediums to these divine beings who rule from the supernatural realm.

    Look it up, Christians go to Schools of Divinity to get a degree in none other than "Divination". They become Dr's of Divinity, or master diviners, which is clearly an abomination to our Infinite Creator. It's all there in the Bible!

    - to be continued -

    Look friend, if you're not going to read all this and refer to it when asking questions, I will not respond to you. I took my time to carefully as possible answer everything you question, but you keep asking the same questions, and making the same responses when I already explained it to you, which means you didn't really read what I said.
    Instead ask me, "how can you be an atheist, and believe in God?" I keep explaining it, but maybe I am doing it wrong? Please read my next post?
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:
    But why create an imaginary friend when you can communicate with your real Creator?
    I mean imagine your wife telling your young 5 year old son to: "Go get your father, tell him it's time to eat!" And the boy runs into his bedroom, and brings her one of his plastic toy soldiers and says: "Here is daddy!"
    That's exactly what religions have reduced humanity to, worshipping man made wood, stone and plastic gods over their real Father and Creator.
    Don't you see that this is all you guys (both theists and atheists) know, is fake, imaginary gods!? And you don't see a problem with that?
    I'm sure you would see a problem with your child doing that!

    Oh look Evidence communicates with the creator, record one of those conversations. ROFL

    I'm an athiest I don't know (or communicate) with any gods... that's why I'm an athiest. It's like you are saying I'm dead but I talk to much or some other impossibility. Yes I see a problem with just about everything you say.

    First let me finish answering you this:

    @Coveny said: Science does support the big bang theory, but it's still contested as I've already stated. It's called science because objective proofs have been peer review that support it. The big bang isn't something out of nothing, again you show your complete lack of scientific understanding. 

    First, the Big Bang is NOT a theory, it is a religious doctrine created by a very cultic and dangerous religious group called the "Popes Marines", the Jesuits, who have sworn to defend the Catholic Religion by any means.




    Coveny said: "My mind is not evidence of an uncreated creator any more than dirt is. You have to prove that your creator exists. You have to prove that he was not created. You have to prove that he created by mind. You have a prove a whole host of things you just skip over because you use faith rather than reason."

    Go into an "isolation chamber" and maybe you'll get the picture that 'you' are more than your physical body, actually when you get to the state of feeling, seeing and hearing absolutely nothing, you'll realize that it's just 'you' now!
    It is this 'you/spirit' who dreams, comes up with ideas to create, that is who you really are. It is this breath of life/spirit in our bodies that make us living souls.

    Now dream up of something while in there that you never, ever seen before (nothing that is in your memory), now how will you bring it about? This is when the 'body' comes into play. You send those dreams, those intelligently designed ideas into your physical brain/memory, then send it to all the neurons in your brain and make your body get to work.
    You spirit/mind control the brain through the neurons, which we can see through fMRI and watch how from seemingly nowhere the information to the brain is being transmitted, and from there the brain sends it to the rest of our body.

    Coveny said: Lots of animals (we are animals after all) create minds, and they create them in a wide variety of ways, as well as creating minds that come in a wide variety of structures. (octopus with their brains in the tentacles are pretty dam cool if you ask me)

    Sure, this is why so many human heads along with the stem, brain exposed are in large jars, hooked up to all kinds of life support keeping it alive, which is hooked up to monitors receiving all kinds of new ideas coming from the brain right?
    It's been tried for centuries, doesn't work. Without the mind/spirit present in the body the brain is no different than your Gluteus Maximus, and will achieve just about as much.

    Look, when someone is dying, we watch until that person is "gone", right?
    Gone? Gone where? The body, the brain is still there, warm, yet we know that person is gone.

    Animals have that spirit of life in them too, only limited to every animal after their kind. You and I on the other hand were created for much more than a stake dinner, and I sooo wish you could see that? It is frightening to even think that another human, especially one that can handle a gun would believe he is an animal! I mean think about that for a while?

    Coveny said: "You follow the bible, you are religious, and you understand nothing, you just regurgitate your childhood programing with a new spin so you can impress people."

    NASA, CERN and Magicians impress, so they can deceive people and get paid for it.
    Me, I'm hoping and praying to wake people up from millennia of deception we all been subjected to. It has gone far enough, look, even you believe you're an animal. My God, even a child, no, even an infant can tell the difference between an animal and a human. So what happened that a child lost this ability, .. which should be the last thing a human looses as he is dying, .. to differentiate between animals and humans?

    Heavy, and dangerous MK ultra indoctrination that's what, a mental lobotomy, staring with the globe in school, then all the cartoons, movies, all that religious indoctrination till the child looses his identity and becomes a dumb animal, just as the Devil and his children the Jesuits have been planning for all these years.
    From the looks, it worked perfectly, billions of people walk around thinking they are animals, and that their closest relatives are apes.

    Look at the "Family pictures" that Dawkins made of that poor suburb housewife?



    If I were that lady, I would sue the pants off of that devilish, insulting moron Dawkins! How dare he?

    Yes, you are an atheist who knows the names, the identities, the powers and probably could even draw me a picture of all them gods you claim you don't know, or believe exist. If you can't see the serious problem with that, I'm sorry, I cannot help you?
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Let me make this as clear as possible.

    When you say that the proof that god exists is because things exist, is disproven when you say there is an uncreated creator. If you “law” is that everything MUST have a creator, then the creator must have a creator, and the creator of the creator must have a creator, etc etc etc on into an impossible infinity. By having a uncreated ANYTHING you break your own rule of EVERYTHING must be created. And you aren’t breaking it with something simple, you are breaking it with the most complex entity in existence. 

    What it comes down to is this. I say matter has always existed, you say that’s not possible someone must have created it! I say well who created the creator of matter? Your respond he’s always existed. You have been indoctrinated to believe that you MUST have a master, that you can’t exist without someone out there in “control”, so you just make up, you follow a religion that STOLE from the religions before it because it even lacks originality and creativity. Now I don’t see how you can miss the HUGE logical flaw, but I assume it must do with cognitive dissonance. 

    Oh look like every other theist in this country you are quoting the holy text at me again as “proof” of something. Your text even states that this is only you hope for and there is no evidence of what you are saying is true. Hebrews 11:1. I got some bad news for you, Santa isn’t real, it was just your parents. Oh look like all the people who worship yehwah you think he’s infinite. 

    You state “God IS Infinite” and “Infinity refers ONLY to that which was created.” So you just said god was created. So we are back to who created your god? Oh ya this is your semantic word play where infinite and infinity are two completely different words rather than the same word as a noun and an adjective. Really, it’s like this “Space is infinite” and “Space stretches out to infinity”, same word different conjugation. (so maybe it’s just that you are bad at English…) 

    “How long will people put up with this ?” Not much longer, a few generations. It’s been proven that theists like you are dying out as science educates us to the real world rather than superstition. Every year less and less people believe your fairy tales. Your region is a receding pocket of unknown that science keeps making smaller and smaller. There will come a time when no more witches are burnt, no more children are sexually mutilated, no more hate on homosexuals, no more wars, rape, slavery, and murder in the name of your imaginary sky friend. To quote Denis Diderot “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

    Oh look more flawed logic. Because I can define something I believe in it? Define a dragon for me… oh you can, well then you obviously believe dragon exist because you just described them!!! Checkmate non-dragon believers! ROFL you are SO bad. it gets worse you go on to say you are a true atheist after just describing Zeus (whom you must believe in because you described him) so again you break your own “laws” by describing other gods created by men while claiming anyone who can describe something believes in it. You just become the biggest polytheist on the planet as you just described around what 3k or so in gods that you believe in?

    Oh, I read it all, it’s utter , but I read it. You put out a lot of words, but say very little, it’s very annoying, but then again you are a conman hawking your wares so if you can’t dazzle us with brilliance you gotta baffle us with .

    The big bang is a theory as defined in science. “a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.” The catholic church has killed more than a few people stop the spread of its proof. (theists love to kill those who disagree with you)

    I’ve spent a far amount of time in a isolation chamber meditating with my thoughts. Yes, I have ideas and thoughts… just like my dogs, or any other animal. The difference between you and me though is that I’m better at thinking than my dog. The brain is like a biological computer firing electronic signs. 

    They are actually preforming the first head transplant in December 2017. We are finally knowledgeable enough about how the human body works to attempt this, and it’s pretty exciting. The idea of quadriplegic getting a new body from a brain-dead coma patient is pretty insane. Not that any of that matters, just because we can’t do something right now doesn’t mean we won’t in the future. (in this case a few months in the future) As previously stated you represent a receding pocket of unknown that your cling to like a child afraid of the dark.

    They don’t “go” anywhere else, they are dead. We get this when it comes to any other living thing except humans. (well maybe pets too) When an ant dies it’s no longer there, it’s GONE. They didn’t exist before, and they don’t exist anymore. Gone.

    It’s frightening to believe someone who talks to imaginary friends, following yahweh, who’s followers have a history of murder can handle a gun. I mean think about that for a while… a LONG while. Look around at the bombs this country is dropping on children because they worship yahweh in a different way than most Americans do.

    I too am hoping to wake up people from a millennium of deception. For our entire existence man, has attempted to explain the unknown with . This desire in humans to have an answer even when that answer is a fairy tale has cause us SO much harm as a species. This egotistical belief that we are the center of the universe, that we are the most important creatures in existence, that everything revolves around us has got to end. I get you are scared of death. I get that you are scared of this life you know ending, but the harm your fairy tales cause is far reaching. You indoctrinate your children so they believe your fairy tales. You teach children lies, and you are SUPPOSED to be the people who helps them. They trust you, and you fill their head with nonsense and betray that trust. Santa is NOT real. Yes it is affecting billions of people, just as it is affecting you. How dare anyone tell you the truth though, how DARE they!

    I know a great mean things, I don’t however believe everything I know. Aristotle said many years ago “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”. Anyone can describe something without believing in it, as you have just shown by describing zeus, and not believing in zeus. We as a people have created labels we call words for objects, ideas, concepts etc. It is impossible to disagree with something if you don’t know what that something is. This is what I mean when you create logical impossibilities. You can describe both a round and a flat world, yet the world cannot be both can it?

    I am an atheist because I do not believe any god exists. It doesn’t matter if I know everything or very little about a god. One of my favorite books is from R.A. Salvatore, I can describe the characters, the spells the cast, the places they go, and the adventures they have, but I know it’s all fantasy, and that’s something you lack.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    I can't speak for all relgions, but the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity says nothing about true Biblical Christianity. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that most people, atheists and Chrsitains alike haven't read the Bible and are only familiar with the more talked about parts and not familiar with prophecy. The Bible itself is a book that page after page warns its readers of the evils of man-made religions, and of false prophets who pervert the message of God's one true relgion. The Bible only uses the word 'religion' in a total of five places, and four are in a negatvie context.The only time its used in a positive context is in James 1:26-27, where he says that pure and undefiled religion is to visit orphans and widows in their affliction. In fact, the most important figure in christianity, Jesus Christ himself was put to death by people who were not only very religious, but were actually holding relgious offices established by God himself according to the Bible (the priesthood is established in Exodus and Leviticus). Christianity was founded on the idea that religious offices don't make one a good person, as the villians of Christ's story held an office established by God himself. Actually if you read the bible, believers are warned much more of false prophets and decievers WITHIN the church, than outside of it.  Again, this motif is found the fact that it was the Jews, God's chosen people, not the pagan Romans, who were the most adamant about crucifying Jesus. What many would be surprised to find if they read the Bible is that not one single mention of any actual character in the Bible who is an atheist. NOT ONE. Furthermore, a Biblical "future" villain known as the "anti-christ" is mentioned in the Bible. Unbenounced to most people the Greek prefix "anti," didn't actually mean "against," or "opposed to" like it does in modern English. It actually means "sustitute" or "place-holder." Such wording strongly indicates that said figure will be of a "Christian" orientation or background, likely even a self-proclaimed Christian. The simple fact is that the evils of Christians are a result of human nature, but Christianity gets blamed. Millions of attrocities have occured at the hands of atheists such as the Kim Dynasty, who had no Christian background. Most evil in the world has no relation to religon at all. Street crime, greed, etc are all everyday evils that we consider "human nature." But when a Christian does it, all the sudden the problem is Christianity. However, to the few who have actualy studied and come to understand Bible prophecies, the evils of Christianity are nothing more than proof of God, as these evils were predicted 2000 years ago, when Christianity was nothing more than a sect of a really small religious group in some backwater, outer edge province of the Roman Empire. many warnings to believers in the New Testament hint at a world where Christianity is a major influence, however, these warnings were written before such a world existed. In fact, the very fact that we consider the "evils" of Christianity "evil" at all is because of the Christian worldview we grew up in. You can go on all day about the evils of forcing religion on people but in the ancient world it was understood that when war happned, the local dieties were fighting in the heavens and the victor had a right to conquer, because their local diety had conquered the dieties of their enemies. Killing and raping for glory, caste-systems where it was legal for upper castes to rape and kill lower castes of people, torturing POW's, and a list of other evils were all not only commonplace, but were considered morally acceptable to the ancient world. It wasn't until the spread of Christianity that the idea that might makes right ceased to be the dominated worldview concerning rulership. Christians might have done some bad things in history, but without Christianity we would very likely still be barbarians. This can be seen by observing societies where Christianity has gained little foothold, such as India where certain people are able to do as they please, while other lower-caste people aren't even allowed to let their shadows touch these people. Meanwhile, when a childs parent dies, the child is often considered a curse, and so they are left out on the street so the don't bring the bad luck to the living parent. Jesus taught Christians to love their enemies, and you can't blame the teacher when people don't listen. But more importantly, the fact that so few listen is the best evidence for Christianity that their is, as the Bible predicts a great apostacy within Christianity. The Bible is the only relgious text which warns its readers that most its own alleged followers are liars and hypocrits. In fact the loudest critics of modern Christianity and the modern Church are biblical fundemenalists. You can name a million examples of Christians doing evil things, but Christians not following the Bible doesn't disprove the Bible, in fact it helps to prove the Bible as the Bible predicted this thousands of years ago.
    love2debate
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Evidence

    Let me make this as clear as possible.

    .....
    Good morning Coveny, thank you for your response.

    @Coveny said: "When you say that the proof that god exists is because things exist, is disproven when you say there is an uncreated creator. If you “law” is that everything MUST have a creator, then the creator must have a creator, and the creator of the creator must have a creator, etc etc etc on into an impossible infinity. By having a uncreated ANYTHING you break your own rule of EVERYTHING must be created. And you aren’t breaking it with something simple, you are breaking it with the most complex entity in existence.

    Yes, every "thing" must have a creator, God/Infinite is not a "thing", and by definition only Infinite is borderless, and Eternal .. nor is He made of "things", so He is not part of, or made up of His creation, but stands as "The Creator".
    In other words, before any "thing", God IS. Not was, not will be, but "IS" as in "I Am".

    Coveny said: What it comes down to is this. I say matter has always existed, you say that’s not possible someone must have created it! I say well who created the creator of matter? Your respond he’s always existed. You have been indoctrinated to believe that you MUST have a master, that you can’t exist without someone out there in “control”, so you just make up, you follow a religion that STOLE from the religions before it because it even lacks originality and creativity. Now I don’t see how you can miss the HUGE logical flaw, but I assume it must do with cognitive dissonance.

    Oh man, talking about "cognitive dissonance", I have had my share of that, and my friend @Erfisflat keeps bringing more things up that changes my attitude towards reality. I mean just think about it, here I was trying to get my children to be NASA Astronauts, and Wham! He took me right out of this imaginary space, and slammed me down to a Flat Earth. But all this he did just reinforced what I already figured out myself doing scientific mind/brain experiments, and studying the book called the Bible outside of the influence of any Religion; that there is a real God out there, the Only Possible One, He is Infinite, The conscious Infinite as in "I Am".

    Matter couldn't have always existed because we can measure it, weigh it by mass, and know it is finite. Something finite can grow infinitely, but can never become Infinite. Like infinite numbers, they just go on and on, but they are little finite numbers, and will stay finite. Just because there may be countless of some "thing", does not make it 'Infinite/God'.

    What I was Indoctrinated by was that God was a created being, an idea like the Trinity three-in-one gods that make up the idea of God. Other Religions besides Christianity have other created gods, this been going on since right after Cain killed his brother Able.

    But after leaving religion, and going more into observation (science) I realized that God, the One True Infinite God was not some idea, or made up of other Religion created gods, but was real. Yes, God is Real, but what I also found out is that it is creation that is not real, it is just that "created", made up by some rules God created and set in order.

    God can change that "order/law" just as easily as a computer Game programmer can change the rules in his gaming world he created.
    Like if the programmer made all the game-characters so that they can't go through walls, that's what those characters will go by, they can't disobey the laws they were created by, just as the number "1" cannot just change into a number "2" by its whim, but we can erase the number 1 and change it to number 2. This is what God can do, and when this happens, we call it a miracle, because there is no physical explanation for it.

    God performed many "miracles" in my pitiful life, people were shocked by it, and I had no explanation for them either other than that they were miracles.
    Yes, and if you knew my life, you would agree that I am a miracle, that I am alive today is because of many, many miracles. Even that I can reason and debate with intelligent people like yourself is a miracle in itself for me.

    Coveny said: "Oh look like every other theist in this country you are quoting the holy text at me again as “proof” of something. Your text even states that this is only you hope for and there is no evidence of what you are saying is true. Hebrews 11:1. I got some bad news for you, Santa isn’t real, it was just your parents. Oh look like all the people who worship yehwah you think he’s infinite."

    Awesome, you just touched upon another Bible verse that Religion grossly misinterpreted, and you, an atheist, quoting it in that Religion mutilated way proves my point, that there is no difference between theists and atheists, that they both believe/not believe in the same created gods, and understand Scripture the same erroneous way.

    Here is what Hebrews 11:1 says, please read it carefully:

    Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    And here is what the religious theist/atheist understand it saying, see if you can spot the difference?

    Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the things hoped for, of things not seen.

    You see, they leave out the most critical parts, "evidence with substance" which can only come from actual observation, experimentation and testing, or as we call it: "science".
    And what does Religion require?
    Blind faith,  leaving them hoping for things they have not seen or observed. This is why NASA has been so successful, we dumb Christians went on blind faith, trusting the Serpent and his lies just as Eve did.

    No religion, especially not any Christian Religion understands the word Infinite, nor do they worship our Creator  "Infinite", I have talked to just about all of them. They just say they worship "Infinite God", but ask them, just go and ask ANY person that belongs to the original Christian Religion (which is the Catholics) or any denomination thereof as to whom they worship, and they will all tell you that they worship "deities, or a certain special deity who reside in the supernatural realm".

    I explained all this before, that God does not live in the supernatural realm, that's where the fallen angels are staying in for the time being; earths supernatural realm. These are evil spirits, ghosts, demons, and Christians go to Schools of Divinity (just Google schools of divinity), and Trinity Colleges to get a degree in 'Divinity', .. become diviners/mediums for these demons.

    God, who is my God, the Only True and possible God "Infinite" lives in Heaven (I mean He, or more like His presence can live wherever He chooses, even in a tent here on earth, which He did for a while with Moses, and Joshua, remember?)
    And He does not "divine" to mediums as those do that Religious people worship, but God "reveals" His will to His chosen Prophets of Old, and now that His Son Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be with us, He reveals it to even a worm like me, a true nobody (how I, and the world considers me as)

    Coveny said: "You state “God IS Infinite” and “Infinity refers ONLY to that which was created.” So you just said god was created. So we are back to who created your god? Oh ya this is your semantic word play where infinite and infinity are two completely different words rather than the same word as a noun and an adjective. Really, it’s like this “Space is infinite” and “Space stretches out to infinity”, same word different conjugation. (so maybe it’s just that you are bad at English…)"

    No my friend, only "Infinite" is infinite, space is not Infinite, it may go on infinitely, like numbers can, but one is made up of quantum finite particles and the other, little finite numbers, and they can NEVER become Infinite. No "thing" can become Infinite, for Infinite IS, .. like I keep saying.

    If Infinite God did not exist, none of this could happen since we need Infinite to have things go on infinitely in.

    Coveny said: "“How long will people put up with this ?” Not much longer, a few generations. It’s been proven that theists like you are dying out as science educates us to the real world rather than superstition. Every year less and less people believe your fairy tales. Your region is a receding pocket of unknown that science keeps making smaller and smaller. There will come a time when no more witches are burnt, no more children are sexually mutilated, no more hate on homosexuals, no more wars, rape, slavery, and murder in the name of your imaginary sky friend. To quote Denis Diderot “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

    Oh, now I know you're just jesting. Do you mean like 666CERN and snake tongue NASA science?
    Do you mean "real world" as in a "spinning globe through an imaginary science fiction fairytale space that came about from the imagination of a Jesuit Catholic Priest?" Buddy, they are the number one mutilators and molestors of children, and you want them to rule this earth with their version of science?
    So true, that your Religion is making our observable reality smaller and smaller, we live in a sci-fi fairytale traveling through imaginary space vacuum with planets sitting on a space-fabric, that they make-belief that they are traveling to, .. like this Mars mission.

    There will come a time when no more witches are burnt? Who, .. may I ask labeled them Believers as witches, and killed all them innocent men, women and children, throwing them alive to lions, burning them at the stake, huh? That's right, the same people who brings you Star Trek and Star Wars space, and are destroying the truth, and interpret science by some loony religious doctrine like quantum mechanics which is destroying all logic at warp speed.

    "no more children are sexually mutilated", yeah, because it will no longer be considered mutilation, or rape, but men will be able to marry either young boys or girls.
    "no more hate on homosexuals" - yeah, the hate is now directed at normal heterosexuals. Normal people are getting so scared, that when asked for their "sex", they put down; "none of the above" in fear of being discriminated against being "normal".

    "no more wars, rape, slavery, and murder in the name of your imaginary sky friend." No more wars? You think your rich friends will stop all wars that made them rich and powerful in the first place? Look at the hand sings they make, which "Sky daddy's" name do you think they are doing it in?
    No more slavery? We have all become slaves, in the old days only men went to work, but now the women have to work too in order for the family to survive, and also the children, they have to work to put themselves through college. No more slavery because we are all slaves, and when everybody is a slave, no one is.

    To quote Denis Diderot “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

    Taken right out of the Jesuit Training Handbook. Did you watch that video I posted of the Jesuits? Was Mr. Diderot a Jesuit? Sure sounds like one.

    To be continued -
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Evidence

    Let me make this as clear as possible.


     continued -

    @Coveny said: Oh look more flawed logic. Because I can define something I believe in it? Define a dragon for me… oh you can, well then you obviously believe dragon exist because you just described them!!! Checkmate non-dragon believers! ROFL you are SO bad. it gets worse you go on to say you are a true atheist after just describing Zeus (whom you must believe in because you described him) so again you break your own “laws” by describing other gods created by men while claiming anyone who can describe something believes in it. You just become the biggest polytheist on the planet as you just described around what 3k or so in gods that you believe in?

    Did I ever say I don't believe in gods, or dragons, or Harry Potter? J. K. Rowling created Harry Potter, see, I even know that. Harry Potter exists just as Peter Pan, Tinkerbelle, and Pixy-space dust called 'redshift gasses' do. What I don't do is mix imagination with what is observed reality.

    God is real as my mind is, and if you can prove that I don't have a mind, then God will no longer exist either, for me anyways.

    @Coveny "Oh, I read it all, it’s utter , but I read it. You put out a lot of words, but say very little, it’s very annoying, but then again you are a conman hawking your wares so if you can’t dazzle us with brilliance you gotta baffle us with ."

    Show me my ?

    Coveny said: The big bang is a theory as defined in science. “a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.” The catholic church has killed more than a few people stop the spread of its proof. (theists love to kill those who disagree with you)

    You didn't watch the video about the Catholic Jesuits have you? Especially the part where they are to take opposite sides to achieve the end goal, which was always to take our Creator Bible God out of the picture. Please watch the video, unless it's against your religion or something?

    Coveny said: I’ve spent a far amount of time in a isolation chamber meditating with my thoughts. Yes, I have ideas and thoughts… just like my dogs, or any other animal. The difference between you and me though is that I’m better at thinking than my dog. The brain is like a biological computer firing electronic signs.

    Has your dog ever woken up from his dream and run to grab a pencil and paper to jot it down under the heading: "Good ideas to wok on!" ?

    The brain is NOT a biological computer, all it is, is a 3lb. memory storage unit, and a very complex 'control panel' that your mind uses to operate your body with, like cameras, pumps, muscles, and so on that makes up your body.

    Coveny said: They are actually preforming the first head transplant in December 2017. We are finally knowledgeable enough about how the human body works to attempt this, and it’s pretty exciting. The idea of quadriplegic getting a new body from a brain-dead coma patient is pretty insane. Not that any of that matters, just because we can’t do something right now doesn’t mean we won’t in the future. (in this case a few months in the future) As previously stated you represent a receding pocket of unknown that your cling to like a child afraid of the dark.

    Wow, head transplant, sounds interesting, can you post the website this is on? Ill try it on my dog and cat, and hope to create a cat-dog


    Yes, they may be able to sow one living body onto the next,  Or like we have conjoined twins sharing one body. But sowing parts of a dead body to a living person has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Let's see them take the dead brain of a crippled person, keep the brain fresh on life support and put it in a dead athletes skull, kick start it, and see what happens? You think that once the brain starts functioning, that it will "create a mind"? It should if the brain creates the mind, right?

    Coveny said: "They don’t “go” anywhere else, they are dead. We get this when it comes to any other living thing except humans. (well maybe pets too) When an ant dies it’s no longer there, it’s GONE. They didn’t exist before, and they don’t exist anymore. Gone."

    Huh? I'm not sure I understand?
    Yes, "they" that person in humans is gone, left the body, but the body is still there. We can keep the brain alive, but if the spirit left it, the brain will not create a mind, nor will that body be ever called a living being. The ant is still there too, only the life force is gone, back to the Creator who gave it.

    Coveny said: "It’s frightening to believe someone who talks to imaginary friends, following yahweh, who’s followers have a history of murder can handle a gun. I mean think about that for a while… a LONG while. Look around at the bombs this country is dropping on children because they worship yahweh in a different way than most Americans do."

    I agree, and not only that, but Christians will drop bombs even on children who worship YAHWEH the exact same way as they do!? Well, actually all religions do that. That's why I say "Get out of her (religion) my people"

    Coveny said: "I too am hoping to wake up people from a millennium of deception. For our entire existence man, has attempted to explain the unknown with . This desire in humans to have an answer even when that answer is a fairy tale has cause us SO much harm as a species. This egotistical belief that we are the center of the universe, that we are the most important creatures in existence, that everything revolves around us has got to end."

    Woah there, as a species? That's coming from the Evolution belief system! How on your globe earth does Mother Nature who took an amoeba that fell off a rock into a puddle of muddy water, and evolved it for the past 4.2 billion years through unintentional, unplanned, no will of anyone or anything random selection, all the way to us here great apes say that what our brain reacts to (evolution) could "cause so much harm"?

    In evolution we are NOT the most important creatures in existence, just evolving amoeba at different stages. The ape-man's brain may hallucinate until a lion comes over, knocks it down and eats it. That's evolution, every book written, every thing man thinks he intelligently designed and created, every religious belief like "that we are the most important creatures in existence, that everything revolves around us" is just our environment and the food we ate reacting on our brain! How, I mean how can that cause any harm? Are you now trying to direct evolution, you think you are special and can somehow interfere with the careless Mother Nature? Who is crazy now?
    Evolution can cause me to create a car, and cause you to be a NASA astronaut, it is NOT OUR CHOICE, selection, purposeless, no will of anyone or anything selection does that, what causes these different hallucinations on our brain, or so the evolution story goes.

    And how can your Minister Dawkins who claims he believes man came about by purposeless evolution, go out in public and say things like this?:



    I heard him explain that man thinks he has free will, but that's just an illusion, a malfunction in the brain as it is creating the mind. So why ridicule Believers, they are evolving monkeys just as he is, and as the story goes, they too will eventually run out of grazing ground forcing them to change their environment and the type of food they eat, and Pooff the brain will start hallucinating something else!
    If the brain is creating the mind, then there is no right or wrong thoughts, or beliefs, it's just part of evolution. So stop being a hypocrite evolutionists, and just accept we are all evolving. What else should evolution look like than what it is?

    Coveny said: "I get you are scared of death. I get that you are scared of this life you know ending, but the harm your fairy tales cause is far reaching. You indoctrinate your children so they believe your fairy tales. You teach children lies, and you are SUPPOSED to be the people who helps them. They trust you, and you fill their head with nonsense and betray that trust. Santa is NOT real. Yes it is affecting billions of people, just as it is affecting you. How dare anyone tell you the truth though, how DARE they!"

    You mean there is harm in the hallucinations caused by my environment and the food I ate on my brain? Is that even possible?
    You really should study evolution more, listen to your Pastor Dawkins in which you'll learn to accept your fate graciously like a good ape. Stop complaining or trying to direct evolution, if we run out of grazing ground, or the tectonic plates move changing our environment and our diet, so will these hallucinations coming from our brain change.

    What is evolutionists problem, always fighting, complaining about others evolution!? You see your cousin apes complaining about the chimps? If they get in their way, they simply tear them limb from limb, and eat them.
    Does other apes teaching their young about Santa Claus bother you, does it limit your food, or is forcing you from your environment? Don't worry, your instinct for survival of the fittest will kick in, take a machine gun and mow them all down. Hell, it's evolution, she kept you alive and evolving for over 4 BILLION years, she will not let you die out now just because some other apes believe in Santa Claus, so trust her.

    Coveny said: "I know a great mean things, I don’t however believe everything I know. Aristotle said many years ago “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”."

    And he actually accepted this thought to where he even wrote it down, .. what an !?

    Coveny wrote: "Anyone can describe something without believing in it, as you have just shown by describing zeus, and not believing in zeus."

    Look, again, I said I believe in Zeus who was created by an ancient Greek religion, he is the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter.

    If I can describe it, how could I deny it? Again, I believe in Zeus, in Santa, in Peter Pan and Tinkerbelle and even Harry Potter, they are make belief characters of fairytales, and others of Religion-created stories which people got so attached to, that they created huge statues, idols of them, worshipped them to a point they even sacrificed their children, their own flesh and blood to these idols.

    I know what these stories are, what these idols are, so I make sure my children know them too, so they won't go and believe that they are something more, .. something some whacked out Religious Priest tells them they are. Just like the religious sci-fi stories like the Big-Bang, and Evolution, sold as actual science. Now these are very dangerous, because they are forced on our children as science, not what it truly is, a religion. Sneaky these BB-Evolutionist, aren't they?

    Coveny said: "We as a people have created labels we call words for objects, ideas, concepts etc. It is impossible to disagree with something if you don’t know what that something is. This is what I mean when you create logical impossibilities. You can describe both a round and a flat world, yet the world cannot be both can it?"

    I know you mean a flat spheroid, not round and flat, right?

    No, God created words, starting with His Son "Word". We destroy even the languages that God created. No human can create a workable language, it is way too difficult.

    Besides, what I have been saying is that for an atheist to say: "I don't believe in god", and yet they obviously do, is wrong. And then on top of that go and join a religion that claims not to believe in gods, like atheism is, and call themselves atheists is well, ridiculous.

    Both theists and atheist believe these gods exist, you showed me that you do, what neither of you realize is that both atheists and theists been duped.

    Here, please listen carefully: It's not about believing or not believing in gods that actually exist, that were created by religions, we all agree they do, it's about whether these gods are God our Creator or not?
    I mean hey, who am I to tell people not to believe in some gods, some cool looking gods like Thor, Odin, Zeus etc. go ahead, have fun, exercise your God given freedom of choice, BUT PLEASE don't make them into something they are not!

    They are NOT our Creator God, the Infinite and Eternal "I Am" OK? None of the created our world, and us. Matter of fact they can neither hear, nor speak, let alone create something.

    That's when problems start, and if not put in proper perspective can get way out of hand, like when millions of people in poverty, where their children are dying of hunger and yet they go and give their last morsels of food to some rats in a Rat Temple, there is a big problem there?

    Did those rats really do anything for anybody? I think not.

    But our One and Only Creator God "I Am" did create us, and shown over and over again how He loves us, He is real. He is in you and me, He is the life-force of every animal too, He is the One that gave you "you", your mind/spirit which He breathed into an incredible body that He created out of dust, from tiny quantum dust particles from each atom, to cells to bones and flesh and skin that is perfect in every way.

    Now why should we let these religions slowly rob us of even the knowledge of our Creator with such cheap imitations and the children's fairytale that goes along with them?

    Coveny said: "I am an atheist because I do not believe any god exists. It doesn’t matter if I know everything or very little about a god. One of my favorite books is from R.A. Salvatore, I can describe the characters, the spells the cast, the places they go, and the adventures they have, but I know it’s all fantasy, and that’s something you lack."

    Why do you keep saying that you don't believe any god exist when you admitted you know they do? That you know everything about them.
    Why don't you say what you mean, that you don't believe a Creator God exists, don't believe that a God could create the heavens and the earth and everything in it, right?

    Then we can go on to the next question like:

    * Then who, or what do you think created the heavens, the stars, the Earth and all plant and animal life in it, and us humans who rule over the earth?

  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Evidence ; Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence ; Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.


    Hello @RollTide420 a pleasure to debate with you.

    Yes, I get what you are saying, only you take in things that haven't been even witnessed by science as facts, and like my other debaters on this subject, you have the wrong definition of Infinite, like you keep mentioning infinity and liken it to Infinite.

    Infinite cannot be both finite (like a number, a speck of sand, or a star in heaven) and the actual Infinite which is; without boarders. In other words, just because we have countless number of grains of sand, they each are finite, and no matter how many finite grains of sand we have, the sand cannot ever become "Infinite", do you agree there?

    RollTide420 wrote: All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that
    a) everything must have a cause,
    b) a cause must precede its effect) and
    c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe.

    Yes, I agree that "in our universe, meaning in the created finite heavens and on earth, all finite things must have a cause, and do have a cause. It's simple logic.

    Infinite on the other hand does not, nor cannot have a cause, I am not talking about finite things going on into infinity, (Like Cantors attic) I am talking about "Infinite" itself.
    There is an infinite difference between finite "things" going to infinity (like infinite numbers), .. and Infinite itself.

    Modern physics, because it is based on the Big Bang theory, and imaginary universe/universes has just about denied the existence of 'Infinite', just as they did "nothing", claiming "nothing is not nothing anymore" in hopes of hiding God, "The God" the only possible One, not "a god" which there are many of.

    So first off, let's go with what we have scientifically observed, which is that we have a Flat Earth, and an obvious curved dome over it. Above the firmament, or the Dome, we see stars. The stars we see is NOT planets like what NASA's artists painted, so unless you have been outside the dome and can show some actual photos of planets, we'll go by what we all can observe, which is a space above the firmament with billions of stars, and then a dome, and then an obvious flat earth.

    So we have finite (heavens and the earth with all that we see in them, including clouds and birds and then up above, the stars, and the earth, and whatever we have found below the earth, what the max dig is like 8 miles, and no great-balls-of-fire core found, that too is just wild imagination.

    I have found evidence of Infinite.

  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Evidence First off the infinite and infinity are the same thing. This is the definition of infinity that I copied and pasted from google: the state or quality of being infinite. Infinity is the root word infinite with the "e" dropped and replaced with a "y", which in English turns it from an adjective to a noun, but otherwise leaves the definition intact.
    Also the word "a" in English is always singular, so A God would indicate one God, and not many. If it were meant to imply many the suffix "s" would have been added and the word "a" would have been dropped.
    Also I am not promoting multiple universes, the key word in observable universe is observable. I only use the term universe because, while I believe in a flat earth with a dome, I don't want my argument to hang on that, so I use wording that clicks with ball-earthers. In saying that my  point is to show that existence goes beyond what can be observed, as indicated by multiple paradoxes created by a world with no creator, not that there are other universes with other rules.
    While I will agree the infinite exists, what evidence do you have that the anything infinite exists in our the observable universe? You gave no reason why I should believe there are limitless numbers of grains of sand. Also, how do you know that the stars are outside of the dome? I see stars but when the first ones come out with some daylight left they seem to me to be inside the dome, not outside.
    Also, I agree with your point about things "going into infinity," as that was the basis of my point of infinity only being a problem with negatives, I just didn't word that well.
    Finally, modern physics is not based on the Big Bang or multiple universes, as it predates both of these theories. Its based on experimentation and the scientific method, which these theories don't properly utilize. However, hard science, like what engineers use, is based on "proven in a lab" science. Lab testing is nothing more than proving a cause effect relationship, and we've yet to find the uncaused in anything we can observe. I acknowledge that the uncaused must exist, because of the paradoxes otherwise, but it cannot exist within the same restrictions that everything in the observable universe must follow, and therefore exists beyond our observable universe.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @RollTide420

    Oh look a "those theists are true theists" has joined the debate. Christ is yahweh, and yahweh killed a lot of people in the bible. I don't believe the book, but if you do, it didn't preach love and peace, and let us not forget chris wasn't even all love and peace. Matthew 10:34
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    God/infinite is a thing. I defined thing on the other post. Hasn’t changed. Your god, their god, or any god is a thing.

    Prove why matter can’t have existed infinitely. Take all the time you need. Take all the you use for your uncreated created, and apply it to dirt. Dirt wins because dirt is simply, and your major reason for wanting a creator is … wait for… because things are so complex.

    I get you have trouble with the concept infinity and infinite, but these are just conjugation of the SAME word. Yes infinite numbers go on infinitely, that’s how it works. Space is infinite, and goes on infinitely, and is a thing. If no one understands the word infinite, then it’s not a word. Words are simply the labels we put on what we understand something to be. I really wish you guys would stop with the semantic .

    You didn’t leave religion you changed it, and cult is gaining ground, just like anti-vaxxers, and anti-intellectualism. 

    No I would not agree they were miracles. But I will say that if your god can change everything why did he create evil?

    On Hebrews 11:1. Faith is evidence. Just like You are full of it. Why do you read the critical parts…

    Many religions don’t believe god lives in a realm. Pantheist (which is what you are) believe that god is the universe, we are all god, and we are all connected. I mean it’s utter , but again not a new concept. I think it was exactly what Jim Jones preached in Jonestown. Before he killed all those people.

    No you theist have no passage in your “holy” book against having sex with children, so you don’t see it as a sin, so you think it’s ok. Because that book is your absolute morals, so if the book doesn’t say it, it ok. (priests have actually said this in defense of pedophiles) But like all the immoral things your book doesn’t condone, atheists have righted those wrong AGAINST the wishes of theists like you.

    Sexually mutilation is circumcision, wow you are so indoctrinated you can’t even see anything wrong with cutting on a child’s penis. (this is my shocked face) Heterosexuals discriminated against? Seriously you went THERE? You are delusional. 

    So you believe in Harry Potter just as much as I believe in yahweh. I am an ATIEST. I don’t believe in your god, or any other god. Just like you can describe and have knowledge Harry Potter, I can describe and knowledge of Yahweh. So, either admit I’m an atheist who doesn’t believe in god, or admit you believe in Harry Potter. (I wouldn’t blame you, they are really good books)

    State you case, to pawn it off on a video about Jesuits. If you don’t understand it well enough to regurgitate what you watched, then don’t expect me to explain it to you. Do your own legwork.

    No, as of yet my dog has not, but AGAIN I’m better at thinking than my dog is. (and I have those opposable thumbs he doesn’t so there’s that too)

    You say it’s not a biological computer… then describe it as a computer. You really have a hard time with the meaning of words.

    Again if you are interested in the head transplant do the legwork yourself. They are sowing it onto a living body. They disjoin twins all the time already. As for bringing the dead back to life, they can so long as the damage isn’t too bad. Isn’t science awesome? (too bad those faith healers can’t do that) It wouldn’t “create the mind” the mind is the brain, and the brain already existed before the transplant.

    You have no proof of a spirit. And no it’s gone after some amount of time. Even in the best conditions organic matter still decomposes. Non-existence, existence, non-existence, this is what life is. Do you understand yet?

    Never said evolution causes so much harm, I was referring to theists. I don’t think I was intelligently designed, I actually think I was horrible designed if you want my opinion on the matter. I mean the whole eating and breathing out of the same pipe comes to mind, but with my allergies and those sinus cavity which serve no purpose cause massive headaches and pain I sure do NOT think I was intelligently designed. 

    Wow you really don’t understand evolution, do you? Yes evolution allows for individual decisions based on the mutations that I have. Food and environment don’t “make us” do anything. Evolution is just about the best adapted surviving and reproducing to make more. We all have free will, but what we do with it does effect evolution. If we are smart, and live we reproduce, otherwise we die. There are consequences for our decisions… just like my dog. I’m not trying to, nor could I direct evolution there are BILLIONS of humans on this planet.

    Did Dawkins hurt your feelings because he doesn’t believe in your imagery sky friend? You poor thing.

    Humans have created many languages, and constructed languages a MUCH better than the natural ones. Creating a language isn’t that hard, robot AI even do it now.

    If atheist’s obviously believe in god, then you obviously believe in Harry Potter. If you believe Harry Potter exists, then you are crazy, and we can end this debate. I also do NOT believe relgions created gods, please stop stating your opinions like they are facts.

    I’m going to say this again I do NOT believe god exists, therefore I am an atheist. Not sure why this is difficult to understand. It doesn’t matter if that god is the creator, the uncreated creator, creator god, the baboon creator, or whatever title you want to give the thing, I don’t believe the thing exists, and I don’t believe the thing created anything. I am an atheist, I do NOT believe in ANY of your gods. I don’t believe “heaven” exists. I believe matter has always existed, and that is what the stars, earth, planets, animals (including humans), are made of. We rule the earth NOW, because dinosaurs died out, and we become the top of the food chain, then finally left the food chain.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence First off the infinite and infinity are the same thing. This is the definition of infinity that I copied and pasted from google: the state or quality of being infinite. Infinity is the root word infinite with the "e" dropped and replaced with a "y", which in English turns it from an adjective to a noun, but otherwise leaves the definition intact.
    Also the word "a" in English is always singular, so A God would indicate one God, and not many. If it were meant to imply many the suffix "s" would have been added and the word "a" would have been dropped.
    Also I am not promoting multiple universes, the key word in observable universe is observable. I only use the term universe because, while I believe in a flat earth with a dome, I don't want my argument to hang on that, so I use wording that clicks with ball-earthers. In saying that my  point is to show that existence goes beyond what can be observed, as indicated by multiple paradoxes created by a world with no creator, not that there are other universes with other rules.
    While I will agree the infinite exists, what evidence do you have that the anything infinite exists in our the observable universe? You gave no reason why I should believe there are limitless numbers of grains of sand. Also, how do you know that the stars are outside of the dome? I see stars but when the first ones come out with some daylight left they seem to me to be inside the dome, not outside.
    Also, I agree with your point about things "going into infinity," as that was the basis of my point of infinity only being a problem with negatives, I just didn't word that well.
    Finally, modern physics is not based on the Big Bang or multiple universes, as it predates both of these theories. Its based on experimentation and the scientific method, which these theories don't properly utilize. However, hard science, like what engineers use, is based on "proven in a lab" science. Lab testing is nothing more than proving a cause effect relationship, and we've yet to find the uncaused in anything we can observe. I acknowledge that the uncaused must exist, because of the paradoxes otherwise, but it cannot exist within the same restrictions that everything in the observable universe must follow, and therefore exists beyond our observable universe.


    Oh, thank God you're a Flat Earther, that save us explaining a lot, or puts us closer to "one mind".

    Well, infinity and Infinite cannot be the same thing, something, actually 'all things' can only exist in Infinite, and then something can go on in infinity, like the ratio of circumference to diameter is the value of Pi. Pi is an irrational number—you can't write it down as a non-infinite decimal, it would go on infinitely, but would never become Infinite, do you see and agree with that? Or am I missing something?

    Since you are a FE'r also we can throw a lot of fiction out of the way and help each other figure where, who and how we exist. I believe that my faith should be built by seeking, and knocking for evidence with substance Hebrews 11:1 amd that God want's us to seek Him to come to know Him as He is.

    Lets suppose the expanding Big-Bang universe was real as they claim? (it's possible, if that is how God would have made it, but obviously He didn't) Now let's use that as an example; where would this universe exist, or be expanding in?
    Or, where is our heavens, the dome the stars and all the earth in?

    In Infinite:
    1. limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
    "the infinite mercy of God"
    synonyms:boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, never-ending, borderless

    some five years ago as I studied all the different definitions of Infinite, and how our Creator in the Bible is described, .. His Infinite qualities, and when Moses asked as to who He was, His answer "I Am who I Am" suddenly made sense. It all came together, and it is so simple, yet so awesome which we can see an example of in ourselves, in us humans who were created in His image.

    It was this, that Infinite is not just a quality of God, but Infinite IS God, and Infinite is conscious, because He said it right there to Moses: "tell them " Am" has sent me to you".

    Infinite by definition, using logic is Eternal, can be nothing less. And if Infinite is conscious, Her must be intelligent. If He is intelligent, He can create. If He can create, everything that He creates has to be finite m(obviously since it was created) and reside nowhere else, but IN Infinite, or God, and this is also Biblical.

    Please let me know what you think so far, because the Bible reveals everything else as to how God created things by, and what was the first thing that He created.

    Thank you.

  • THEDENIERTHEDENIER 78 Pts   -  
    Religion is harmful to the world even if we ignore fanatics who wish to kill. A religion influences decisions of its followers, from issues like abortions to elections. The trouble is, religion is has no real scientific grounding. It is always a problem when decisions are being made with criteria and using philosophies. Basically, people are making decisions irrationally because their religious criteria are irrational. A few examples include priests spending their lives in relative discomfort on dubious grounds, or disagreement with abortion for questionable religious reasons. This damages lives of individuals and society for reasons that may well be imaginary.
    Coveny
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @RollTide420

    Oh look a "those theists are true theists" has joined the debate.
    What is a "those theists are true theists"?

    Coveny said:
    @RollTide420

    Christ is yahweh, and yahweh killed a lot of people in the bible.
    You are correct here, but I have a few questions? First, if I killed someone, but I had a power that enabled me to bring back the dead, why would that be wrong? They're not gone, they could be brought back any time I wanted them to, and eventually they will be? Where is the harm in this?

    This is the situation we are dealing with in the Bible. The idea that being killed is so terrible rests on the a priori assumption that either there is no God, or at the very least that he doesn't have the power to raise the dead. However, the Bible describes a series of resurrections and goes into great detail about other events at the end of time, after everyone has died. Most of this is ignored or worked around by atheists and theists alike, which is where misconceptions such as the idea that we go straight to heaven or hell when we die and anyone who does accept Christ in THIS lifetime will burn in a fire for all eternity, which is more compatible with Greek views on the mind/body problem than it is with the philosophy set force in the Bible.

    My other question is as an atheist, what is your basis for determining right vs wrong? Why is killing bad? What gives life any inherent value whatsoever?

    From a Biblical perspective these questions are easy. a) Right and wrong is determined by God, b)killing is bad because God as the creator decide to reserve the decisions of life and death to himself, and therefore killing is only acceptable in cases where he gives explicit permission to do so, and c) God is what gives life its inherent value.

    With all this considered the genocides of the old testament and the use of the death penalty in ancient Israel are quite easy to justify. To start I'll explain why there is a general prohibit on murder. God had allowed the world to fall away from him into sin and death (I'll happily explain why in another post if you wish but to save time I'm going to skip that for now). Sin is defined as anything which causes displeasure towards God, and the thing God hates most is death, which is why he saves the best for last 1 Corinthians 15:26. God had plans to defeat death via his messiah, and one step in his plan to do so was to establish his own culture based around his teachings, seeing as how he knew best being the creator and all. Even if they didn't follow his teachings perfectly having a culture based around them was a key step in bringing about a culture in which his messiah, who did need to follow his rules perfectly, would be nurtured in a way which makes him able to do so.

    In order to establish this culture, he started by establishing a people which would ,for a while be an independent nation based on a way of life set forth by him. As much as he hates death, it is simply a fact of reality for the time being (again I'll happily explain why he allowed this in a future post).

    Generally speaking he doesn't defy the laws of physics as it would make no sense to create them in the first place if he planned to defy them like it was nothing. However, on a few rare equations he would break them for the express purpose of displaying his power. Luke 4:27. He did this to establish his nation when he brought them out of Egypt. He has the power to raise the dead. His plan for most people is that this will not happen until much later, but to prove he could do it he allowed a few examples of temporary resurrections and one permanent one (Christ's) to be seen my many people which is how he established his new covenant religion.

    The reason it is ok for him to take life is that he has the power to give it back, and plans to do so. The reason he hasn't is because that part of his plan comes at a later point in time than the present. With that being said, he didn't want to establish a people based on the idea that death, or any kind of moral wrong, was in any way good or acceptable. At the same time, he was working with the reality of the world in which his people lived, of which death was simply a part. What he did was made general rules prohibiting moral wrong, including murder (which is different than simply killing), but he also needed some way of preventing people from simply breaking the laws and nothing being done about it. So he told his people to simply get rid of those who wouldn't follow the rules, and the way of doing so was often to kill them so that they cannot continue to cause problems. In order to get rid of cultures which had already made child sacrifice and other disturbing customs normal in the land, God wanted them gone so that they didn't influence the Israelites into the same abominable practices. The Israelites were to destroy every pagan object of any kind, and all the people, man, woman, and child WITHIN the land of Israel during that specific mission of taking the holy land only. In wars against other countries outside the holy land they were actual prohibited from ever killing women and children, and there was no requirement that they had to kill the men either, as opposed to the holy land where the were to kill everyone. (Deuteronomy 20:10-18). The genocides were only in order to prevent pagan influences from becoming a problem. The fact that it would be a problem is proven by the fact hat they didn't kill all of the people, but disobeyed God and put some to tribute, and pagan influences became a huge problem because of it.

    Death may seem like a harsh way to go for some things, but the reality is every single person who has ever lived has either died, or will die at some point (unless they're among an extremely small minority of Christians who happen to still be alive at Christ's 2nd coming). From a Biblical perspective natural death doesn't occur because God couldn't keep someone alive, but because he chose not too. We all die, Christian or otherwise. So really the killing because God said too is no different than if someone died a natural death. Is dying at the same time with everyone else you grew up around in a war really worse than dying by yourself in a hospital bed? Or any of the many other ways people can die? God allows all of these things to happen so why is it so terrible that he ordered it certain limited cases?
    Coveny said:
    I don't believe the book, but if you do, it didn't preach love and peace, and let us not forget chris wasn't even all love and peace. Matthew 10:34
    Actually within the commandments given to Christians for everyday living love an peace forms the entire basis for the other commandments, the mindset, and the general Christian way of life. I can elaborate further and list verse after verse expressing this principle if you'd like, but I'll assume you've heard it all before. Instead I'll focus on the verse you referenced, which states "Do not think I came to bring peace, for I did not come to bring peace, but a sword". For starters a sword in the bible is often used as a metaphor for divisive words (Proverbs 12:18), and in Revelation 19:15 Christ's tongue is described as a two edged sword. Christ was acknowledging that his words would be divisive, as described in the next verse Matt 10:35 "For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household." While it is mainly a metaphor for division, I do not deny implications of violence in this verse, as Christ did explicitly say he did not come to bring peace. However, his statement is not command to Christian not live non-peaceful, but an instead an acknowledgment of what the results of his movement were going to be.

    In order to properly understand this verse, its context needs to be understood. The Bible describes a time when all evil will be wiped away, ushering in an eternal era of love peace, and no death. Many of Christ's followers misunderstood the reason for his 1st coming thought he had come to Earth  to bring that, and Christ was warning them not to expect peace on Earth any time soon, and not to expect everyone to just buy into their movement. He was warning them of what they were getting into, not telling them to be violent. Christians are supposed to avoid violence, not because the result is so terrible, because the reality is any given person is going to suffer and die, whether we cause it or not. The reason Christians aren't to engage in violence is because Christians are supposed to be living for the future, when the concept of violence will be done away with. Violence is a part of the world today, and Christians have to live with that. The bible lays out a few cases in which violence is permitted to prevent otherwise worse circumstances, but a lot of these, such as death penalty doesn't apply to the average person, as they lack the authority to execute legally, and vigilante justice is clearly condemned by Christ. While exceptions are made, generally speaking the Bible clearly prohibits violence. Again this isn't to prevent the effects of violence as God clearly allows those to happen, but instead violence is prohibited so that God can make sure that his people are willing to refrain from violence, because otherwise you don't belong in in a world where violence is non-existent.



    Evidence
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @RollTide420 I find theist who worship the same god like to point at other worshipers and say they are “true” worshipers. The implication is that the theist in question “understands” how to worship the god better than other theists who believe they “understand” how to worship the god better. There are what 20k or so difference dominations? You theists can’t agree on what is required to be a theist, but you SURE have no problem not accepting responsibility for those worshiping the same god, following the same bible. Or to put another way, the only person you are willing to consider a theist is yourself, as everyone else is “fake” or “not true”.

    Yes. If you kill someone it’s wrong to kill them even if you could bring them back. (that you need to ask if it’s wrong to kill someone does not start this off on a good note)

    The bible doesn’t “bring them back”, you never get your physical form back, read your bible, you seem confused here.

    Again, you need me to explain why being killed is a negative experience for the person being killed. The harm is that you killed someone. Get a clone of your dog, then shoot the first one, and then come back and tell me what’s the “harm”, and how pleasant and enjoyable it was for the dog you shot… even though he’s BACK!

    Dante’s inferno aside. It doesn’t matter how long you wait in purgatory, at some point the choice is cast between heaven and hell for eternity. Hell is a punishment regardless of if it’s painful or not, the bible is pretty clear on this point.

    Ah the moral angle. Let’s take slavery for instance. I can think about what it would be like to be owned as a slave, and decide that I should not do that to other human beings. This is something your god seems to have a problem with. One of the passages where the bible condones slavery. Ephesians 6:5 Another example would be killing innocent children instead of addressing the problems I have with their leader directly with their leader, I wouldn’t want to be punished for something I did do. This is something your god seem to have a problem with. Exodus 11:5 Or we could take things that aren’t even mentioned in the bible that I find morally wrong, like having sex with a child. Your god doesn’t seem to have a problem with adult’s screw children though as there is no mention against it, but do we know the age of lots daughter in that lovely bit of incestual rape? If you use the bible as a moral compass you are a horrible person, and lack even a shred of empathy. 

    Yahweh does NOT give life it’s inherent value. You need to look up the definition of “inherent”, and then think about how you can give someone something that is inherent. (spoiler alert… you can’t)

    Yahweh did not “let” the world fall away from him, yahweh CREATE evil. (I’ll happily explain this to you if you wish) Let me repeat that, an all knowing, all powerful entity created evil. 

    Yes resurrection and witness of that resurrection are popular with many religions that you don’t believe in as well most of what you are saying here.

    Natural death started occurring after Yahweh took eternal life from man when he cast them out of the garden of Eden. Again, you seem to lack a knowledge of your religious book.

    Ok so let me get this straight. You concede that yahweh can to earth not to create peace but to create strife which is violence, but that the Christians who follow him are seeking peace? You’re doing some serious mental gymnastics there…

    Could you show me the part where christ clearly condemned, following the bible’s command, to kill people if it’s against the law please? I missed that part.

    Look I get it. You seem peaceful, you feel like the only way to worship yahweh is peacefully, BUT your bible says nothing of the sort. You sir are a cherry picker, and you enable theist around the world to commit horrible acts because you have spread the bible to them.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @THEDENIER If God is real then correct religion SHOULD influence people's decisions. In fact without Christianity ideas such as equality, anti-imperialism, and non-discrimination, probably wouldn't be so prominent, as these were virtually unheard of prior to the rise of Christianity except in ancient Israel, which was one of few societies in its day to lack a formal caste system, or had a prohibition on mistreating foreigners (which wasn't always obeyed but the idea that it was bad did exist in the culture.) Look at India for example which is one of the few places on Earth that the Abrahamic religions haven't heavily permeated. In India, they still have a caste system with arranged marriage, and discrimination is the norm. From a biblical perspective man-made religions are harmful as they are in defiance to God's religion. In fact the Bible only uses the term religion in 5 places and 4 of them are in a negative context. Only in James 1:26 where James associates good religion with helping widows and orphans is it mentioned in a positive context, as opposed to most peoples idea of religion which involves a lot of meaningless rituals.

    With that being said, its the media and various false teachers within religion that negatively influence people's voting. The world's religions may be part of the problem, but the Bible itself is not what influences the voting of religious people. The religious right just in this last election voted overwhelmingly for a man who didn't know how to pronounce 2 Corinthians and claimed he didn't need to ask God for forgiveness. He is the antithesis of a Biblical lifestyle, yet the Religious right chose him overwhelmingly, not because he fit their views but because the other people they were associated with convinced them he was their guy. You also mentioned the priests who live in relative discomfort, but this practice is man-made and no such requirement can be found in the Bible that's given to all religious leaders in general.

    Also, you claim people use religion to want abortion banned for dubious reasons but is really fair to just assume they're not alive if the status is "questionable." People aren't against abortion because the Bible prohibits abortion and there is nothing else to it. People are against abortion because they consider it a form of murder. At very first cell formed in the wound already exhibits all 8 requirements to be alive, and it has the genetic makeup of a human, and therefore is by definition a living human. You can argue about whether its acceptable to kill it or not before a baby has any consciousness, but you can't just say people who disagree are a problem because religion influences them, especially since you gave no more reason to assume there isn't a God than religious people have to assume there is one. You say our reason may very well be imaginary, but it also may very well not be imaginary and you gave no reason to assume it isn't and in fact its more logical to assume there is given what we know.

    Religion needs no scientific grounding as science is one topic and religion is another. Science is defined as the study of the observable universe, and religion makes claims as to what exists beyond the observable universe, or in other words, outside of the realm studied by science. With that being said principles used in science do actually suggest a creator who exists outside of the observable universe. Said evidence was explained in the following post that I've made previously.
    Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.

  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Coveny
    Coveny said:
    @RollTide420 I find theist who worship the same god like to point at other worshipers and say they are “true” worshipers. The implication is that the theist in question “understands” how to worship the god better than other theists who believe they “understand” how to worship the god better. There are what 20k or so difference dominations? You theists can’t agree on what is required to be a theist, but you SURE have no problem not accepting responsibility for those worshiping the same god, following the same bible. Or to put another way, the only person you are willing to consider a theist is yourself, as everyone else is “fake” or “not true”.

    No person, regardless of religion should accept responsibility for the actions of others. I don't hold you responsible for the actions of Kim Jung Un, or Stalin, or any of the other atheists who have committed atrocities, I only bring them up is to point out the problem exists across the board, not just amongst Christians or religious people of any kind.

    And also the reason I think most theists are doing it wrong is because the Bible teaches that most theists are going to do it wrong. Jesus literally says most people who claim to worship him are in fact not saved. Therefore my claim to have it better than most theists is based on the Bible, which claims there is a right and a wrong way to worship God.

    Coveny said:
    Yes. If you kill someone it’s wrong to kill them even if you could bring them back. (that you need to ask if it’s wrong to kill someone does not start this off on a good note).

    It was a rhetorical question. Given what followed that should have been obvious.

    Coveny said:
    The bible doesn’t “bring them back”, you never get your physical form back, read your bible, you seem confused here.

    I have read my Bible, cover to cover, multiple times and it does not teach that people come back as disembodied spirits. They get new "Spirit Bodies" which are improvements upon their old bodies, which were corrupted by sin. You seem to define a person by their physical chemistry, when a people perspective defines personhood, in terms of personality, and the Bible teaches that your personality comes back in an improved immortal body and does not float around disembodied (1 Corinthians 15:44).

    Coveny said:

    Again, you need me to explain why being killed is a negative experience for the person being killed. The harm is that you killed someone. Get a clone of your dog, then shoot the first one, and then come back and tell me what’s the “harm”, and how pleasant and enjoyable it was for the dog you shot… even though he’s BACK!



    First off, your dog is not back. Clones are not the same person as what was cloned. Identical twins are considered to be clones, yet they clearly have distinct personalities. Again you define a person by their chemistry (although clones have mutations oh even by this standard clones are still different people). Now if that exact same dog that died could be brought back, remembering who he was, we would have an entirely different situation on our hands, which would be more analogous to the situation the Bible describes.

    Also you claim that the harm in killing someone is that you killed someone. That doesn't answer my question at all and it is the epitome of circular reasoning. The only explanation given as to why killing is always bad, even when it was the original giver of life, who has the power to return life, is your dog analogy, which is not truly analogous to the biblical resurrection where the same personality gets new bodies. Your analogy was the opposite with the same body and a different personality. (actually its not even the same body it just has similar chemistry.)

    Coveny said:

    Dante’s inferno aside. It doesn’t matter how long you wait in purgatory, at some point the choice is cast between heaven and hell for eternity. Hell is a punishment regardless of if it’s painful or not, the bible is pretty clear on this point.

    Yes but my point is the reason people burn. Most claim that the Bible teaches that everyone who doesn't accept Christ in this lifetime you will burn, to which many people claim that people shouldn't be punished eternally for not believing in God when there isn't adequate proof. If you read into the Bible it indicates that people are judged when they receive the Holy Spirit, and Christians being judged in the Flesh (1 Peter 4:6). In Old Testament prophecy (the part of the Bible most Christians haven't read) it talks of a time in the future will be poured out on all flesh and then God will judge the nation. The bible speaks of two resurrections. The first is for people who are saved, the second is for everyone else. But when God talks in Daniel about the last resurrection he doesn't say everyone will be condemned, he says some will raise to life and others to condemnation. Given this alongside other prophecies regarding the holy spirit being poured out on ALL flesh, the Bible seems to indicate that everyone in the 2nd resurrection (the people who weren't saved) will be given the holy spirit at the resurrection, and will then be judged. Judgement doesn't begin until you receive the holy spirit and God sees what you do with it, as we are all sinful by our nature and without the holy spirit we are hopeless. After God has raised everyone from the dead, revealed himself to everyone, and given them a piece of his spirit, anyone who at that point still refuses to do what is right DESERVE to be thrown into a lake of fire. What the Bible teaches is that people will be cast into the lake of fire for rejecting God outright, not failing to understand his existence or nature. When Christ says that those who blasphemes the holy spirit will receive no forgiveness in this life or the world to come. Why would someone need separate forgiveness in the world to come if all wrongdoing is handled in this life with judgment being nothing more than an analysis of this life? The answer is they wouldn't.

    Coveny said:

    Ah the moral angle. Let’s take slavery for instance. I can think about what it would be like to be owned as a slave, and decide that I should not do that to other human beings. This is something your god seems to have a problem with. One of the passages where the bible condones slavery. Ephesians 6:5 Another example would be killing innocent children instead of addressing the problems I have with their leader directly with their leader, I wouldn’t want to be punished for something I did do. This is something your god seem to have a problem with. Exodus 11:5 Or we could take things that aren’t even mentioned in the bible that I find morally wrong, like having sex with a child. Your god doesn’t seem to have a problem with adult’s screw children though as there is no mention against it, but do we know the age of lots daughter in that lovely bit of incestual rape? If you use the bible as a moral compass you are a horrible person, and lack even a shred of empathy. 

    Actually Ephesians 6:5 doesn't condone slavery, it acknowledges slavery and tells believer to accept their circumstances even if some things aren't right. Just like Jesus condemns the actions of the Pharisees and Sadducees but tells his followers to submit to their authority Matt 23:3. Believers are instructed to temporarily accept illegitimate authority, and to work with the world they are in for the sake of spreading the Gospel, but that doesn't mean that everything Christians accept should be engaged in by Christians themselves.

    Also, in reference to the killing of the children of Egypt as if its SOLE purpose was to punish, which it wasn't. First off, all of the firstborn died natural deaths, the Israelites were not instructed to kill anyone during this event. And second off the killing of the firstborn was a way of God showing his superiority over the Gods of Egypt, and convince Pharaoh to let his people go. It was a necessary step in bringing about the nation based on his ways, and the long term goal it went towards was providing eternal life to all willing to accept it. So again while killing may not seem like the best way to prove a point when you assume a priori that there is no life after death, or that all who disagree burn forever, but when you consider the ultimate plan with the resurrectionS (emphasis on the plural), it really isn't that bad, as all of those people who died still have a chance and morally this can't be distinguished from a natural death. In fact in this case it actually was a natural cause of death.

    You mention the incestual rape incident involving Lot as proof that the Bible condones sex with children. There are many problems with this assumption. First off you seem to have the story backwards. Lot didn't rape his daughters, Lots daughters raped him. Also, just because it happened in the bible doesn't mean the Bible condoned it, in fact, incest is specifically prohibited in Leviticus 18. The fact that they had to get him blackout drunk to pull it off is an indicator that they were aware that what they were doing wasn't approved of. There are several examples in the bible of people doing things that the Bible prohibits. Just because it happens in a Bible story doesn't mean the Bible doesn't have a problem with it. Acknowledging the existence of some evil doesn't mean you are condoning it.

    Coveny said:

    Yahweh does NOT give life it’s inherent value. You need to look up the definition of “inherent”, and then think about how you can give someone something that is inherent. (spoiler alert… you can’t)



    The definition of inherent is according to Mirriam-Webster: Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. The fact that our value is given to us by another being wouldn't make it any less permanent, essential, or characteristic, and therefore wouldn't make it any less inherent.
    Coveny said:

    Yahweh did not “let” the world fall away from him, yahweh CREATE evil. (I’ll happily explain this to you if you wish) Let me repeat that, an all knowing, all powerful entity created evil. 

    Yes, the problem of evil. It doesn't really matter if he let it happen or if he made it happen, it was necessary for his ultimate plan which was to create a perfect world without taking away free will.

    God could have made the world 4 different ways. All Good with free will, Flawed, with free will, or both of those options, but without free will. In order to have actual people and not just robots free will was necessary. However, with free will, God can't make you do right, as that would violate free will. So he tested his creation in a world where evil did exist to see who would choose good (evil doesn't stop to exist until the heavens and earth melt away, which takes place AFTER the final judgement). God's ultimate plan is a world where no evil or death occurs but temporarily giving evil a foothold on people was necessary to avoid violating our free will, as God wants us to be like his children, not robots. Without us having lived in an evil world, what would stop someone in the next world from deciding "you know, I don't see why we should have to obey God." But after living in a world separated from God and then being in his presence nobody would ever want to return to the old ways. You can know something, but you can't understand until you've experienced it. God doesn't want us to simply know why evil is a problem, he wants us to fully understand.

    Coveny said:

    Yes resurrection and witness of that resurrection are popular with many religions that you don’t believe in as well most of what you are saying here.


    First off, most of these resurrections took place with a deity which did not have human flesh, as opposed to Christ who did have human flesh. Also, the witnesses to resurrections in other religions weren't so adamant that they were spreading their message in an environment where it was commonplace for them to be killed for doing so. Also the writers of these mythologies do not themselves claim to be eyewitnesses, but merely that there were eyewitness. This is in contrast to Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul all of whom claim to have seen the risen Christ. Several of Paul's writings are recognized as authentic by even the strongest believers that the Bible is a myth. Also, they didn't just say these things. They were so adamant that they had seen the risen Christ that even death did not deter than from spreading their message. They literally transformed some backwoods teacher's message into a world-changing phenomenon at the risk of both death and torture, based on these claims and some of these people such as Paul can be definitively proven to have existed and written books of the Bible.

    Coveny said:

    Natural death started occurring after Yahweh took eternal life from man when he cast them out of the garden of Eden. Again, you seem to lack a knowledge of your religious book.


    How does this go against anything I said? I stated myself that when natural death occurs its because God lets it occur. I said that its not because God is unable to prevent death. The fact that natural death didn't start until after they were kicked out of the garden favors my point, it doesn't oppose it. My point is that since natural death is a result of Yahweh letting you die, how is a killing that he commands any different morally than a natural death, and you seem to miss that part of the point completely.
    Coveny said:

    Ok so let me get this straight. You concede that yahweh can to earth not to create peace but to create strife which is violence, but that the Christians who follow him are seeking peace? You’re doing some serious mental gymnastics there…

    First off strife is not violence, Strife can lead to violence but its not the same thing. Strife mean very strong disagreement, violence means using physical force. Also, I am not doing mental gymnastics, you seem to not understand what an exception is. Just because something is usually wrong, doesn't mean its always wrong. For instance its usually wrong to kill someone but if they break into your house in the middle of the night with a gun, you have a moral duty to protect your family and that could mean killing the bad guy. Exceptions are not the same thing as contradictions.

    The idea that something is ok for one person, but not another isn't unheard of at all. For a grown adult to drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana isn't really bad, but for a 3 year old to do these things is an entirely different story. Also, for a Private to issue a retreat order is pretty problematic, but for a Sargent to do so is usually entirely acceptable. The idea that different rules might apply to different people in different situations shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

    Most importantly however, there is a huge difference in acknowledging something will happen and condoning it. My claim is that Christ's point was to warn them that he wasn't bringing peace on Earth YET, and that strife would be what his believers would be facing in the near future. Not that strife is his long term goal. Warning people of what they are going to face is completely different than advocating the behaviors mentioned. Saying the effects of his message would bring strife, while advising his followers to refrain from violence is not mental gymnastics, its two entirely different statements with different meanings that you have conflated.

    Coveny said:

    Could you show me the part where christ clearly condemned, following the bible’s command, to kill people if it’s against the law please? I missed that part.


    Jesus doesn't specifically speak of killing when its against the law, but he does condemn it through his actions. On the occasion in John 8, the Pharisees tried to trap him by getting him to condone stoning a woman who was guilty of death under Roman law, while it would be illegal under Roman law. They assumed Jesus would tell them to follow God's law over Roman law, but he didn't. They thought he would do the same on the tax issue, but he said obey Roman law. Peter tells Christians to submit to governing authorities, which would be a command to avoid vigilante justice. Also, if vigilante justice were ok I don't see why Christ would have a problem with Peter cutting that guys ear off, seeing as how they were trying to wrongfully seize Jesus.

    Coveny said:

    Look I get it. You seem peaceful, you feel like the only way to worship yahweh is peacefully, BUT your bible says nothing of the sort. You sir are a cherry picker, and you enable theist around the world to commit horrible acts because you have spread the bible to them.

    I never said the only way to worship Yahweh was peacefully. I said that the general lifestyle Christians should live should be peacefully. There are however room for exceptions. Ecclesiastes chapter 3 talks about how everything has its time and place and even says "a time to love, and a time to hate, a time of war and a time of peace." Peaceful living at all times is not required for worshipping Yahweh, however, refraining from violence UNLESS ITS NECESSARY is.

    The truth is you are cherry picking. The Old and New Testaments alike say to "love your neighbor", and in the New Testament Jesus even goes as far as to say "love your enemies." there and every now and then when exceptions are made that is the part you latch on to. The reality is the commands for violence are always situational in nature, and worded in ways where its only allowed for those circumstances. However, commands to live peacefully are not only much more common, but are also typically worded in a general, non-situation specific way. If you can read verse like 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Corinthians 14:16, 1 John 4:8, 1 Peter 4:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, or the sermon on the mount and claim that the "Bible says nothing of the sort" in regards to Christians living peacefully, then how are you not cherry picking? You can live a generally peaceful lifestyle without being so naïve as to refuse violence in form to the point that you just let anyone and everyone take advantage of you in any situation in which they want to do so. There are exceptions to the Biblical requirement that Christians live peacefully, but there are a whole lot more places where peaceful living is emphasized than there are exceptions listed.







    Evidence
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Coveny
    Also, the claim that spreading the Bible enables violence is fallacious and absurd. The nature of causality is such that a cause MUST precede its effect. Since the violence in the world today predates the Bible, the Bible CANNOT logically be construed as the cause of the violence in the world today.

    You can speculate all day about how much better things would be without Christianity, but the reality is the only example we have to compare it too was far worse. Every society except Israel had a formal class system where certain people were considered fundamentally superior to others. The idea that racism or discrimination in any form is bad came from Christianized societies, in fact in east Asia, where Christianity hasn't permeated, its still the norm to consider your race superior to all others. In India, another place where Christianity has gained little foothold, they still have a Caste system and people can be beaten alive if they are a lower Caste person and they let their shadow touch an upper caste person. The Romans had very brutal punishments, it was the Romans, not the Jews, whose system of slavery was mimicked by the South (I'd be happily to elaborate on this if you would like). The idea that "because I can," isn't adequate justification to invade a country, comes from a Christianized culture. The emphasis on giving to charity comes from a Christianized culture. There was far more violence in the pre-Christian world than there is today, and there is far more violence in places where Christianity hasn't heavily permeated the culture, such as Asia, than there is in parts where Christianity has had a massive cultural influence, such as America and western Europe. So not only does your claim that the Bible is what enables violence not only defies the nature of causality, but also defies the observational evidence as well.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Evidence
    Evidence said

    Well, infinity and Infinite cannot be the same thing, something, actually 'all things' can only exist in Infinite, and then something can go on in infinity, like the ratio of circumference to diameter is the value of Pi. Pi is an irrational number—you can't write it down as a non-infinite decimal, it would go on infinitely, but would never become Infinite, do you see and agree with that? Or am I missing something?


    Your mistake is that you are "pi" to refer to two different things. The NUMERIC VALUE of pi is distinct from the number of digits needed to express that value in decimal form. The first is finite and does not go into infinity, the other is infinite and does go into infinity. However, infinity is merely a conjugation of infinite which is the root word.

    Evidence said:

    Well, infinity and Infinite cannot be the same thing, something, actually 'all things' can only exist in Infinite, and then something can go on in infinity, like the ratio of circumference to diameter is the value of Pi. Pi is an irrational number—you can't write it down as a non-infinite decimal, it would go on infinitely, , the dome the stars and all the earth in?

    In Infinite:
    1. limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
    "the infinite mercy of God"
    synonyms:boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, never-ending, borderless

    some five years ago as I studied all the different definitions of Infinite, and how our Creator in the Bible is described, .. His Infinite qualities, and when Moses asked as to who He was, His answer "I Am who I Am" suddenly made sense. It all came together, and it is so simple, yet so awesome which we can see an example of in ourselves, in us humans who were created in His image.

    It was this, that Infinite is not just a quality of God, but Infinite IS God, and Infinite is conscious, because He said it right there to Moses: "tell them " Am" has sent me to you".

    Infinite by definition, using logic is Eternal, can be nothing less. And if Infinite is conscious, Her must be intelligent. If He is intelligent, He can create. If He can create, everything that He creates has to be finite m(obviously since it was created) and reside nowhere else, but IN Infinite, or God, and this is also Biblical.

    Please let me know what you think so far, because the Bible reveals everything else as to how God created things by, and what was the first thing that He created.

    Thank you.

    I'll agree with God's infinite nature being important to understanding his name and his "I am what I am" statement. I also agree that Infinite is God, but this would suggest that the world is finite(neither infinite nor infinity), as it is separated from God by sin. In fact the use of the statement by anyone else was considered blasphemous (the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus when he said it) indicating that God alone is inherently infinite. The world he created is separated from him by sin, and is finite, although God will eventually grant us more infinite properties at the resurrection. Also Infinite doesn't exactly mean the same thing as Eternal, although they are related. Eternal means Infinite specifically in regards to time. Eternity is a time reference, we wouldn't refer to space and matter as eternal unless we were referencing how long it had been around, not how much of it there is. (the rest of this paragraph I agree with).

    God may have created some things infinite, but those things exist outside of the confines where the laws of physics apply (this boundary is probably the dome, but that is speculation). However, time exists within that boundary, as I've observed it myself, as have you and everyone else whose ever been alive. My claim then is that time itself is finite and has a beginning, which creates the paradoxes which disprove atheism. (I'm aware you aren't atheist, I was debating your premise, not your conclusion).
    Evidence said:

    Since you are a FE'r also we can throw a lot of fiction out of the way and help each other figure where, who and how we exist. I believe that my faith should be built by seeking, and knocking for evidence with substance Hebrews 11:1 amd that God want's us to seek Him to come to know Him as He is.


    I agree whole-heartedly, which is why you will never here me say things like" you just got to have faith" or "He may not exist but it comforts me to believe he does." The Bible teaches faith, not BLIND faith. There is nothing wrong with seeking evidence and looking for answers. The idea that there is something wrong with this is one of many examples of how Satan has infiltrated the modern church, in order to make Christians come off as closed-minded, or anti-intellectual. Such ideas are taught in the church, not the Bible and that an important difference.


  • THEDENIERTHEDENIER 78 Pts   -  
    @RollTide420 Your arguments are full of examples that don't portray the whole picture. First of all you seem to think that India has a caste system because it is not full of western religions. Let me remind you, Indians are mostly religious. Also, I don't know where your idea that Israel had no caste system comes from, it is totally untrue. I would like to refer you to this https://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=Overview_of_Jewish_American_Research#Castes. Specifically, it says "The Jewish religion has a significant caste system that sometimes helps in tracing ancestry. It is a hereditary, paternal caste passed down from father to sons."  We are arguing about religion period, not just western religion. All of your arguments are against other religions, not atheism. Moreover, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Let me use your logic of if A and B exist in a society then A must cause B (this is bad logic by the way). According to this all of the atrocities committed by early societies were religious because almost all pre-christian societies were religious. 
    Coveny1Hacker0
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @RollTide420 If you believe morally that no one should accept the responsibility for the actions of others, then you do NOT get your morals from the bible. You might want to look up this thing in the bible called original sin and the human sacrifice that was required by yahweh to absolve it. I believe most of the worshippers carry around small symbols of the murder weapon on their person.

    You sure sound like you just changed your tune. You’ve went from “we come back” to “spirit bodies”.  No I don’t define people by their physical chemistry, but when you say the dead will “come back”, that means physical, but that’s not what happens is it? (because you didn’t read your bible) Now to make a finer point on the matter, by your religion your spirit never “leaves”, so you don’t come back as a spirit body, your spirit body is freed from its mortal coil. Again, you really don’t seem that knowledgeable on your religion, it’s ok though I’ve taught muslims, christians, and others about their religion many times, pull up a chair. (for the record, you scripture supports exactly what I’m saying) On that same vein what’s your explanation of Ecclesiastes 12:7 if as you claim spirits exist eternal?

    It’s wrong to murder. It’s wrong to make a choice for another person. I would not like anyone to kill me even if they could bring me back exactly as I am now. This harms me. I get you have no morals because of the bible, but if you wish to die there are many ways that you can “meet your maker” without committing suicide. All you need do, is put yourself in harm’s way protecting innocents, and you get your golden ticket to your afterlife reward. But you won’t do it, for the same reason that you stop at red lights, and go to the doctor. You don’t believe in god when your life is on the line. Only the seriously fundamentalist plow that row, and you aren’t one of those, are you? So don’t act you don’t understand why I do NOT want to be killed.

    I could go into murders on death row going to heaven while good people who’ve never heard of your god get thrown in a lake of fire, but I’m going to skip that. I also don’t care why you get thrown in a lake a fire for all eternity either. I’m just going to focus on the eternal torment part, and ask you again how you believe yahweh wants peace. Would you burn someone alive for hours as they died? Do you think that would be the moral thing to do? I mean really pick Hitler or the worst person you can think of, imagine yourself locking them in a room of liquid fire, imagine them screaming and begging for you to end their suffering, and you… you keep that door shut…  for all ETERNITY! All this is because of what they did in the span of less than 100 years. That’s the morals your bible promotes. The morals of vengeance, and punishments that FAR outweigh the crime.

    And I quote “doesn't condone slavery” and “tells believer to accept their circumstances”. So the bible tells slaves to accept being slaves, even though it’s morally WRONG. And he didn’t just say accept being slaves as you seem to want to sugarcoat it. It equates yahweh to a slave owner, in that you should treat yahweh and a slave owner the same. I actually agree with that, and do view them the same. Oh look you went off on a red herring. Do you somehow think it’s ok because the child is the one who initiated it? Again your morals… Sex with children is acceptable Numbers 31:17-18. 

    A permanent of life is that it has value. If yahweh gives value to life then it wasn’t always that way was it? So not permanent, not essential, and not a characteristic. If it had to be given, then that’s not intrinsic or inherent to life. This is what the word means. 

    Ok let me get this straight. You believe that yahweh is all powerful, and all knowing, but you believe couldn’t do anything about evil? You seem to be getting hung up in free will, rather than evil. You know there is a creature that’s sole purpose is life is to burrow into the eyes of other creatures lay eggs of more of them to repeat the cycle. I look around at all the evil, and you say it is “necessary”? You say an all power god couldn’t find another way other than torture? Either you don’t understand what all powerful means, or you think I don’t. Not buying the bulls*** you’re selling.

    First off yes it was a deity made human flesh. Secondly all religions have dealt with other religions killing them for spreading the word of their religion, yahweh’s followers won that bloodbath. So now they fight amongst themselves. Third the writers of your gospels were from oral recounts of people who were not there written many years after everything was supposed to have happened. They were not written by the disciples themselves. I assume you are not aware of this by the way you are speaking.

    Natural death is because yahweh lets it occur, or it’s because yahweh made it happen as punishment? Yes it goes against what you are saying. If I shoot you, I didn’t let a bullet hit you. We had eternal life, and no natural death and yahweh created it, and applied it to us where it didn’t exist before. Maybe you just don’t want to see yahweh in a negative light, but I have no issue with that, we die because of yahweh, not because he doesn’t prevent it. 

    You are walking a very thin line there with the strife not being violence. You do understand that words didn’t mean exactly what they mean today back then when it was written right? Regardless the rule is peace, and strife. (even if it isn’t physical) isn’t peace. (or an exception to peace) Again you show yahweh as lacking power to achieve something, and it being necessary to have torture before the reward. There seems to be a lot of torture from your peace god.

    So you recant that it clearly condemns then? Because you just gave me a lecture about how it’s expect to treat people differently, then you indicate that we are expected to emulate others. 

    Ok then you admit violence is coming from “true” Christians? (you can’t have it both ways)

    You cherry pick the good, I have to cherry pick the contradictions, that’s just the nature of a debate. You present your god as peace, I present your god as evil, and we are both using the same book. So tell me again about these “true” Christians of which you speak…
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Coveny
    Also, the claim that spreading the Bible enables violence is fallacious and absurd. The nature of causality is such that a cause MUST precede its effect. Since the violence in the world today predates the Bible, the Bible CANNOT logically be construed as the cause of the violence in the world today.
    But I can, and it does. Most children aren't born violent are they? Also there have always been religions and gods, yours is just the newest flavor.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @THEDENIER
    THEDENIER said:
    @RollTide420 Your arguments are full of examples that don't portray the whole picture. First of all you seem to think that India has a caste system because it is not full of western religions. Let me remind you, Indians are mostly religious.
    What does Indians being mostly religious have to do with Western religion? You literally just dropped the word Western from your second mention of religion, making it seem like you were talking about one thing when you were talking about two different things. Indian religion and Western religion are fundamentally different. Indians being religious has nothing to do with WESTERN religion, and made no sense used in conjunction with it in that manner.

    THEDENIER said:
    Also, I don't know where your idea that Israel had no caste system comes from, it is totally untrue. I would like to refer you to this https://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=Overview_of_Jewish_American_Research#Castes. Specifically, it says "The Jewish religion has a significant caste system that sometimes helps in tracing ancestry. It is a hereditary, paternal caste passed down from father to sons."  

    This article doesn't describe a true caste system at all. They may use the word caste, but it does not meet the definitional criteria for being a caste. A caste system, unlike a class system has different sets of rules and consequences for its different rankings. In a true caste society, such as what virtually all of the ancient world had, people would often get away with murdering a person of lower caste with minimal if any punishment. While murdering a person of equal or higher caste could be punished quite severely. The norm in the ancient world for any given crime was to base the punishment on both the caste of the victim and the perpetrator. The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing. Even foreigners were to be treated equally. Lev 24:22. There may have been distinctions made, but the descendants of Levi held no political power whatsoever over the rest of the Israelites.

    THEDENIER said:
    We are arguing about religion period, not just western religion. All of your arguments are against other religions, not atheism.

    I am arguing specifically against you claim that religion is bad. You didn't say some religion was bad, you simply said religion was bad. My point in criticizing other religions was to show that your conflation of all religion into one was fallacious. Christianity has had a very different effect on the world than other religions. I could go on about how all attempts at formally atheistic states have not only resulted in atrocities but either failed miserably (USSR, post-revolutionary France), are failing (Communist Cuba, North Korea), or have backed off the atheism and begun allowing state sanctioned religious groups (China). However, I didn't want to commit the fallacy you commit when you attribute problems within religion to religion in general while ignoring the other factors involved, such as competition for resources, which is what scholars who study war actually consider to be the cause of man's earliest wars.

    Also I did make an argument against atheism and you ignored it. At the bottom of my post is a quote of mine from a previous quote highlighting the evidence in favor of God's existence, however, you failed to address a single point from that quote. Since you seemed to have missed it here it is again.

    Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.


    THEDENIER said:
    Moreover, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Let me use your logic of if A and B exist in a society then A must cause B (this is bad logic by the way). According to this all of the atrocities committed by early societies were religious because almost all pre-christian societies were religious. 

    What exactly then is your basis for claiming religion is bad? Also, I don't claim that the changes in culture were caused by Christianity because they happened at the same time, but also because the changes are demonstrably liked to Biblical teachings. The fact that the social hierarchy began to drastically shift towards equality at the exact same time a book heavily criticizing social hierarchies began to be published in several languages for the first time in Europe is probably more than a coincidence. The fact that helping the needy suddenly became an emphasized thing in society at the same time a religion which promoted this started to gain popularity is more than a coincidence. If it were only the time factor than maybe it would be a coincidence. But the fact that the changes actually have a clear relation to Biblical principles suggests otherwise.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @THEDENIER If God is real
    .....
    .....
    Greetings @RollTide420 I like what you wrote here, especially the subject of Religion vs. religious (the same distinction must be made of the words Infinite vs infinity, or into infinity)

    RollTide420 Said: From a biblical perspective man-made religions are harmful as they are in defiance to God's religion. In fact the Bible only uses the term religion in 5 places and 4 of them are in a negative context. Only in James 1:26 where James associates good religion with helping widows and orphans is it mentioned in a positive context, as opposed to most peoples idea of religion which involves a lot of meaningless rituals.

    Yes, yes and yes, .. finally I found someone who took notice of that too!

    So I will even further that, that not only is 'man-made religion harmful' but that the Bible is actually against "organized Religion", yes true and I can prove it from Scripture both OT and New.
    But, .. who with a sincere heart could not be 'religious' about spreading Christ's message' to the whole world, to the point of even giving up his life for it!?

    Jesus literally mocked organized Religion that established itself over the nation of Israel starting with their leaders; the Pharisees, Scribes and the Teachers of the Law! Mathew 23:14 calling them all kinds of names starting with: "hypocrites!"

    I would love to debate this further with Believers AND atheists here, and with Gods help start a new Debate Topic labeled: "The difference between organized Religion, and being religious".

    Then you said something else that is also a very critical to understand Topic, .. what you said here;

    RollTide said: "Religion needs no scientific grounding as science is one topic and religion is another. Science is defined as the study of the observable universe, and religion makes claims as to what exists beyond the observable universe, or in other words, outside of the realm studied by science. With that being said principles used in science do actually suggest a creator who exists outside of the observable universe. Said evidence was explained in the following post that I've made previously."

    Now look what you said above about organized religion, then you say this, which comes from an "organized Religious" standpoint. Please hear me out?
    (I will from now use a capitalized R for organized Religion, to distinguish it from the word "religious" like "being religious about something", just like @Erfisflat is about the Flat Earth reality for example.)

    I would like to pointy out that being religious does not have to include God or gods, we can be religious about taking a walk for an hour every morning, and not believe or worship any God/gods, or as you quoted the Bible as to what true religion is: visiting the widows and the orphans!
    Spreading the Truth/Christ:
    John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

    Spreading the TRUTH like @Erfisflat doing, like what you and I are doing, and if Erfisflat didn't have evidence of what he is revealing here, who would listen to it?
    The same with Jesus, he shown signs and wonders, he healed the sick, raised the dead to show 'evidence' of who he was. The EVIDENCE of God is right there in the Bible, starting with Exodus Moses, and the next is in John 1 starting with verse 1. and the rest is throughout the Bible, and what we observe through science.

    Now back to what you just said about science and religion, you are correct in saying: "Religion needs no scientific grounding", and I'll even add to that, that Religion (capital R as in organized Religion) is actually 'against science'! That the greatest enemy of ANY Religion is scientific evidence! The Constantine/Catholic created Christian Religion has even gone as far as to take over science and succeeded, one evidence of that is the "Pontifical Academy of Science" a Jesuit takeover of all sciences and placed the two largest, most funded pseudoscience organizations in charge: snake tongued NASA, and 666CERN which has corrupted real science beyond recognition. For example it was the Catholic Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre that invented the Big-Bang theory, and if you are following the Catholic News:



    you can see that the so called "Church" is very much into science, it was the Jesuits that started putting globes into every classroom! And not too far from me near Tucson AZ lies one of the Vatican's biggest and most powerful Telescopes called LUCIFER operated by the Jesuits.

    You went on to say: ".. as science is one topic and religion is another. Science is defined as the study of the observable universe, and religion makes claims as to what exists beyond the observable universe, or in other words, outside of the realm studied by science."

    This is EXACTLY what the Vatican (Organized Religion) want's us to think, that you don't need any evidence of God, He is way beyond you little pitiful evolving creatures lost in the vastness of our sci-fi space we created just for you. So kick back, enjoy the CGI, fake photographs and artist rendered pictures, and the senseless rhetoric that comes from CERN which is way over your little evolving animal ape head, and just take our word for it! Yep, we'll tell you exactly who God is, and we'll even handle science for you:



    So no, no and no, God is NOT outside the realm of science, we have the tools both our physical eyes and our spiritual ones. We need evidence to build our faith by, starting with who God is! Otherwise we could end up (as you can see in that video) worshipping Lucifer as God, or the Muslim Allah, or any of the tens of thousands of Religion created gods/goddesses and not even know it. Without evidence we will just blindly accept whatever is presented to us, which is exactly what EVERY Religion requires of their shleeep, to sleep and blindly follow!

    Look:
    Hebrews 11:1
    1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    and what have we been taught? Ask yourself or any other Christian? They will tell you that; "you only need faith, and not evidence to believe in God. Why? "Oh because He is just way beyond your human understanding"  is what they told us.

    Matter of fact I remember in my younger rebellious days (or so I was labeled) being warned for even thinking to ask evidence of God! That this insolence showed lack of faith on my part, and I was to just "listen to the preaching, and God (not what the preacher was telling me every Sunday), but God will reveal Himself to me!" .. and oh yeah, just pray, .. yep keep praying, a hundred hail Maries or at least five times bow your head between your legs facing Mecca etc.

    Just ask yourself? "Has the endless prayers brought any of the poor Catholics any closer to our One True Creator God "I Am"? Or the 2 billion Muslims, Hindus?

    Yeah right, .. what my Religion was telling me is to trust THEM. Here is how they interpreted Hebrews 11:1 to us, and is exactly how Christians understand it today:

    "1 Now faith is of things hoped for, the things not seen."  completely leaving out the most critical parts: "evidence with substance"

     Now ask yourselves my friends, what better place to start looking for evidence of God than an object, a being, a living, reasoning, creating soul who was created in Gods Image?

    WE are the greatest evidence of God, this is why God doesn't come down like He did with Moses, He is here, in you and me, through our souls yelling and screaming, only we cannot hear Him because we have been heavily indoctrinated which is like a heavy wool over our eyes, too busy with the world, with Religions listening to the same "Old Time Religion".

    1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
    20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

    We have 2 things, two ways to seek God and find Him: One, with our physical senses, with our body, and Two with our spirit, with our "mind". We are NOT just physical as we been taught, but we have a mind/spirit within us as quoted above. So HOW do we seek God? Both ways, observing the world around us which includes reading anything and everything like good little scientists, especially books relating to God, observing the things we didn't create, and most importantly we search with our spirit/mind: Actually this is what God considers "worship", this searching and seeking, this desire to KNOW!

    John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
    24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence
    Evidence said

    Well, infinity and Infinite cannot be the same thing, something, actually 'all things' can only exist in Infinite, and then something can go on in infinity, like the ratio of circumference to diameter is the value of Pi. Pi is an irrational number—you can't write it down as a non-infinite decimal, it would go on infinitely, but would never become Infinite, do you see and agree with that? Or am I missing something?


    Your mistake is that you are "pi" to refer to two different things. The NUMERIC VALUE of pi is distinct from the number of digits needed to express that value in decimal form. The first is finite and does not go into infinity, the other is infinite and does go into infinity. However, infinity is merely a conjugation of infinite which is the root word.

    Evidence said:

    Well, infinity and Infinite cannot be the same thing, something, actually 'all things' can only exist in Infinite, and then something can go on in infinity, like the ratio of circumference to diameter is the value of Pi. Pi is an irrational number—you can't write it down as a non-infinite decimal, it would go on infinitely, , the dome the stars and all the earth in?

    In Infinite:
    1. limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
    "the infinite mercy of God"
    synonyms:boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, never-ending, borderless

    some five years ago as I studied all the different definitions of Infinite, and how our Creator in the Bible is described, .. His Infinite qualities, and when Moses asked as to who He was, His answer "I Am who I Am" suddenly made sense. It all came together, and it is so simple, yet so awesome which we can see an example of in ourselves, in us humans who were created in His image.

    It was this, that Infinite is not just a quality of God, but Infinite IS God, and Infinite is conscious, because He said it right there to Moses: "tell them " Am" has sent me to you".

    Infinite by definition, using logic is Eternal, can be nothing less. And if Infinite is conscious, Her must be intelligent. If He is intelligent, He can create. If He can create, everything that He creates has to be finite m(obviously since it was created) and reside nowhere else, but IN Infinite, or God, and this is also Biblical.

    Please let me know what you think so far, because the Bible reveals everything else as to how God created things by, and what was the first thing that He created.

    Thank you.

    Evidence said:

    Since you are a FE'r also we can throw a lot of fiction out of the way and help each other figure where, who and how we exist. I believe that my faith should be built by seeking, and knocking for evidence with substance Hebrews 11:1 amd that God want's us to seek Him to come to know Him as He is.


    I agree whole-heartedly, which is why you will never here me say things like" you just got to have faith" or "He may not exist but it comforts me to believe he does." The Bible teaches faith, not BLIND faith. There is nothing wrong with seeking evidence and looking for answers. The idea that there is something wrong with this is one of many examples of how Satan has infiltrated the modern church, in order to make Christians come off as closed-minded, or anti-intellectual. Such ideas are taught in the church, not the Bible and that an important difference.


    YOU, ... my friend give me goosebumps, you do understand, and I agree, .. only I didn't make myself very clear (which is most likely my fault, not yours) so please let me explain a little better, with Gods help of course, because I'm too ignorant to explain this on my own.

    OK, never mind the Pi, I was simply referring to something going into infinity, like if we count from 1, and on; 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, going on through eternity (again, not Eternal, but throughout eternity) Simple, I don't want to complicate things and confuse myself.

    Another example (and please don't go into the complicated side of this like someone once mentioned about that the "light" will eventually die out" and so on) so, like if we take a mirror and look behind us into another mirror, with the right angle tilt, we see our head going to infinity, we understand that this does not mean we become infinite, but "going on to infinity", do you see what I'm getting at?
    I am hoping to establish the big difference between Infinite (God) and some-"thing" going on to infinity. The point I am trying to make is that a finite thing going into infinity is not "Infinite", and never can be, just as Infinite/God can never be finite. (I think we already agree on this!?)

    Also, to establish that, in order to have any "thing" going on to infinity, we need Infinite. Do we agree on this (I think you did that too, just making sure?)

    @RollTide420 said: I'll agree with God's infinite nature being important to understanding his name and his "I am what I am" statement. I also agree that Infinite is God, but this would suggest that the world is finite(neither infinite nor infinity), as it is separated from God by sin. In fact the use of the statement by anyone else was considered blasphemous (the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus when he said it) indicating that God alone is inherently infinite.

    Exactly! There can be Only One Infinite since "Infinite" is borderless, two Infinites cannot exist or one would not be Infinite.

    We also have supporting evidence that Infinite is God;

    Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
    6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

    Yes again, as you said the world, and everything that has ever been created is finite, but since only God is Infinite, and that there is no one besides Him, all things created are In Him.

    RollTide420  "Also Infinite doesn't exactly mean the same thing as Eternal, although they are related. Eternal means Infinite specifically in regards to time. Eternity is a time reference, we wouldn't refer to space and matter as eternal unless we were referencing how long it had been around, not how much of it there is. (the rest of this paragraph I agree with)."

    Agreed, what I was pointing out is not that the word Infinite means Eternal, but since we established that Infinite is God, then God must be Eternal also.
    I'm sure you agree that God doesn't live throughout eternity, or that He stretches to infinity, but that He IS both Infinite and Eternal, right?

    In other words; it would be improper to ask: "How big is Infinite, or how much time is in Eternal" because both Infinite and Eternal is outside of time and space. There is nothing, or no "thing" to measure, there is no boarders, so there is nothing to even start measuring.

    This is critical, because this establishes Infinite/God as the Only Possible One.

    RollTide420 "God may have created some things infinite, but those things exist outside of the confines where the laws of physics apply (this boundary is probably the dome, but that is speculation). However, time exists within that boundary, as I've observed it myself, as have you and everyone else whose ever been alive. My claim then is that time itself is finite and has a beginning, which creates the paradoxes which disprove atheism. (I'm aware you aren't atheist, I was debating your premise, not your conclusion).

    Yes again, we agree, but not that God "may have created somethings Infinite and Eternal" because that would be God, and He cannot create another Himself, or another Infinite/Eternal. One is all that is possible.

    What God can and did create is Angels, and Spirits that do live eternally, the First of this was His Only Begotten Son Word. And as you said, man was created to live forever too, only he fell, sinned, brought time upon himself, a countdown to his death.

    Only God 'IS' Infinite and Eternal, the rest of His creation can only "live forever" according to Gods will. In other words, everything, and everyone outside of God can be subject to time, like Adam and Eve were to live forever in eternity, but because they sinned, they were sentenced to death, this is when time counts, and man oh man I feel it clicking.

    Otherwise, like when we're in Heaven with God, why count time since we are assured to live forever, tight? We could I guess, but why? I don't believe time is some entity, or something real. In Heaven, if we chose we all could invent our own time I guess, like a clock that clicks one digit every thousand years. The thing is, since there will be no more sun, nor moon, how would you know what length a thousand year is? Hmm, .. it would be almost senseless to make a timepiece, what would we set it to? What would it keep?

    God bless you, love to hear more for sure!
    THEDENIER
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @THEDENIER
    THEDENIER said:
    @RollTide420 Your arguments are full of examples that don't portray the whole picture. First of all you seem to think that India has a caste system because it is not full of western religions. Let me remind you, Indians are mostly religious.
    What does Indians being mostly religious have to do with Western religion? You literally just dropped the word Western from your second mention of religion, making it seem like you were talking about one thing when you were talking about two different things. Indian religion and Western religion are fundamentally different. Indians being religious has nothing to do with WESTERN religion, and made no sense used in conjunction with it in that manner.

    THEDENIER said:
    Also, I don't know where your idea that Israel had no caste system comes from, it is totally untrue. I would like to refer you to this https://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=Overview_of_Jewish_American_Research#Castes. Specifically, it says "The Jewish religion has a significant caste system that sometimes helps in tracing ancestry. It is a hereditary, paternal caste passed down from father to sons."  

    This article doesn't describe a true caste system at all. They may use the word caste, but it does not meet the definitional criteria for being a caste. A caste system, unlike a class system has different sets of rules and consequences for its different rankings. In a true caste society, such as what virtually all of the ancient world had, people would often get away with murdering a person of lower caste with minimal if any punishment. While murdering a person of equal or higher caste could be punished quite severely. The norm in the ancient world for any given crime was to base the punishment on both the caste of the victim and the perpetrator. The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing. Even foreigners were to be treated equally. Lev 24:22. There may have been distinctions made, but the descendants of Levi held no political power whatsoever over the rest of the Israelites.

    THEDENIER said:
    We are arguing about religion period, not just western religion. All of your arguments are against other religions, not atheism.

    I am arguing specifically against you claim that religion is bad. You didn't say some religion was bad, you simply said religion was bad. My point in criticizing other religions was to show that your conflation of all religion into one was fallacious. Christianity has had a very different effect on the world than other religions. I could go on about how all attempts at formally atheistic states have not only resulted in atrocities but either failed miserably (USSR, post-revolutionary France), are failing (Communist Cuba, North Korea), or have backed off the atheism and begun allowing state sanctioned religious groups (China). However, I didn't want to commit the fallacy you commit when you attribute problems within religion to religion in general while ignoring the other factors involved, such as competition for resources, which is what scholars who study war actually consider to be the cause of man's earliest wars.

    Also I did make an argument against atheism and you ignored it. At the bottom of my post is a quote of mine from a previous quote highlighting the evidence in favor of God's existence, however, you failed to address a single point from that quote. Since you seemed to have missed it here it is again.

    Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.


    THEDENIER said:
    Moreover, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Let me use your logic of if A and B exist in a society then A must cause B (this is bad logic by the way). According to this all of the atrocities committed by early societies were religious because almost all pre-christian societies were religious. 

    What exactly then is your basis for claiming religion is bad? Also, I don't claim that the changes in culture were caused by Christianity because they happened at the same time, but also because the changes are demonstrably liked to Biblical teachings. The fact that the social hierarchy began to drastically shift towards equality at the exact same time a book heavily criticizing social hierarchies began to be published in several languages for the first time in Europe is probably more than a coincidence. The fact that helping the needy suddenly became an emphasized thing in society at the same time a religion which promoted this started to gain popularity is more than a coincidence. If it were only the time factor than maybe it would be a coincidence. But the fact that the changes actually have a clear relation to Biblical principles strongly suggests otherwise.
    THEDENIER
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @THEDENIER
    THEDENIER said:
    @RollTide420 Your arguments are full of examples that don't portray the whole picture. First of all you seem to think that India has a caste system because it is not full of western religions. Let me remind you, Indians are mostly religious.
    What does Indians being mostly religious have to do with Western religion? You literally just dropped the word Western from your second mention of religion, making it seem like you were talking about one thing when you were talking about two different things. Indian religion and Western religion are fundamentally different. Indians being religious has nothing to do with WESTERN religion, and made no sense used in conjunction with it in that manner.

    THEDENIER said:
    Also, I don't know where your idea that Israel had no caste system comes from, it is totally untrue. I would like to refer you to this https://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=Overview_of_Jewish_American_Research#Castes. Specifically, it says "The Jewish religion has a significant caste system that sometimes helps in tracing ancestry. It is a hereditary, paternal caste passed down from father to sons."  

    This article doesn't describe a true caste system at all. They may use the word caste, but it does not meet the definitional criteria for being a caste. A caste system, unlike a class system has different sets of rules and consequences for its different rankings. In a true caste society, such as what virtually all of the ancient world had, people would often get away with murdering a person of lower caste with minimal if any punishment. While murdering a person of equal or higher caste could be punished quite severely. The norm in the ancient world for any given crime was to base the punishment on both the caste of the victim and the perpetrator. The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing. Even foreigners were to be treated equally. Lev 24:22. There may have been distinctions made, but the descendants of Levi held no political power whatsoever over the rest of the Israelites.

    THEDENIER said:
    We are arguing about religion period, not just western religion. All of your arguments are against other religions, not atheism.

    I am arguing specifically against you claim that religion is bad. You didn't say some religion was bad, you simply said religion was bad. My point in criticizing other religions was to show that your conflation of all religion into one was fallacious. Christianity has had a very different effect on the world than other religions. I could go on about how all attempts at formally atheistic states have not only resulted in atrocities but either failed miserably (USSR, post-revolutionary France), are failing (Communist Cuba, North Korea), or have backed off the atheism and begun allowing state sanctioned religious groups (China). However, I didn't want to commit the fallacy you commit when you attribute problems within religion to religion in general while ignoring the other factors involved, such as competition for resources, which is what scholars who study war actually consider to be the cause of man's earliest wars.

    Also I did make an argument against atheism and you ignored it. At the bottom of my post is a quote of mine from a previous quote highlighting the evidence in favor of God's existence, however, you failed to address a single point from that quote. Since you seemed to have missed it here it is again.

    Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.


    THEDENIER said:
    Moreover, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Let me use your logic of if A and B exist in a society then A must cause B (this is bad logic by the way). According to this all of the atrocities committed by early societies were religious because almost all pre-christian societies were religious. 

    What exactly then is your basis for claiming religion is bad? Also, I don't claim that the changes in culture were caused by Christianity because they happened at the same time, but also because the changes are demonstrably liked to Biblical teachings. The fact that the social hierarchy began to drastically shift towards equality at the exact same time a book heavily criticizing social hierarchies began to be published in several languages for the first time in Europe is probably more than a coincidence. The fact that helping the needy suddenly became an emphasized thing in society at the same time a religion which promoted this started to gain popularity is more than a coincidence. If it were only the time factor than maybe it would be a coincidence. But the fact that the changes actually have a clear relation to Biblical principles strongly suggests otherwise.
  • THEDENIERTHEDENIER 78 Pts   -  
    @Evidence not everything is about FE theory, and also LAY IT TO THE MAN! @RollTide420 you didn't to post the argument twice. 
    @THEDENIER
    THEDENIER said:
    @RollTide420 Your arguments are full of examples that don't portray the whole picture. First of all you seem to think that India has a caste system because it is not full of western religions. Let me remind you, Indians are mostly religious.
    What does Indians being mostly religious have to do with Western religion? You literally just dropped the word Western from your second mention of religion, making it seem like you were talking about one thing when you were talking about two different things. Indian religion and Western religion are fundamentally different. Indians being religious has nothing to do with WESTERN religion, and made no sense used in conjunction with it in that manner.

    THEDENIER said:
    Also, I don't know where your idea that Israel had no caste system comes from, it is totally untrue. I would like to refer you to this https://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=Overview_of_Jewish_American_Research#Castes. Specifically, it says "The Jewish religion has a significant caste system that sometimes helps in tracing ancestry. It is a hereditary, paternal caste passed down from father to sons."  

    This article doesn't describe a true caste system at all. They may use the word caste, but it does not meet the definitional criteria for being a caste. A caste system, unlike a class system has different sets of rules and consequences for its different rankings. In a true caste society, such as what virtually all of the ancient world had, people would often get away with murdering a person of lower caste with minimal if any punishment. While murdering a person of equal or higher caste could be punished quite severely. The norm in the ancient world for any given crime was to base the punishment on both the caste of the victim and the perpetrator. The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing. Even foreigners were to be treated equally. Lev 24:22. There may have been distinctions made, but the descendants of Levi held no political power whatsoever over the rest of the Israelites.
    "The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing." ????? I think you mean the opposite. Distinctions were made. It's called a caste system. Maybe it doesn't fit your definition, but here is the best one on the internet: any class or group of people who inherit exclusive privileges or are perceived as socially distinct. Israel had castes. 
    THEDENIER said:
    We are arguing about religion period, not just western religion. All of your arguments are against other religions, not atheism.

    I am arguing specifically against you claim that religion is bad. You didn't say some religion was bad, you simply said religion was bad. My point in criticizing other religions was to show that your conflation of all religion into one was fallacious. Christianity has had a very different effect on the world than other religions. I could go on about how all attempts at formally atheistic states have not only resulted in atrocities but either failed miserably (USSR, post-revolutionary France), are failing (Communist Cuba, North Korea), or have backed off the atheism and begun allowing state sanctioned religious groups (China). However, I didn't want to commit the fallacy you commit when you attribute problems within religion to religion in general while ignoring the other factors involved, such as competition for resources, which is what scholars who study war actually consider to be the cause of man's earliest wars.

    No I never said all religions were bad (even if I meant it). I meant that as an actor upon the modern world and history religion has made a bad net contribution. Let's not name call bad organizations do you really want to bring up the kkk, crusades etc. And if you are thinking "the KKK? That's not true Christianity", then none of the countries you chose are true Atheism. 
    THEDENIER said:
    Moreover, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Let me use your logic of if A and B exist in a society then A must cause B (this is bad logic by the way). According to this all of the atrocities committed by early societies were religious because almost all pre-christian societies were religious. 

    What exactly then is your basis for claiming religion is bad? Also, I don't claim that the changes in culture were caused by Christianity because they happened at the same time, but also because the changes are demonstrably liked to Biblical teachings. The fact that the social hierarchy began to drastically shift towards equality at the exact same time a book heavily criticizing social hierarchies began to be published in several languages for the first time in Europe is probably more than a coincidence. The fact that helping the needy suddenly became an emphasized thing in society at the same time a religion which promoted this started to gain popularity is more than a coincidence. If it were only the time factor than maybe it would be a coincidence. But the fact that the changes actually have a clear relation to Biblical principles strongly suggests otherwise.
    My basis is that it results in misinformed decisions, and it needlessly draws manpower and money. Huh, ironic isn't. You know that the bible criticizes social hierarchy and the needy, but if those who followed it (specifically Catholics) just sold their 8 billion dollars worth of church assets, and then gave that money to the UN, we would be almost 1/3 closer to the end of world hunger. Or maybe the UN would just use the money to make better photoshopped images of earth.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Coveny
    Coveny said:
    @RollTide420 If you believe morally that no one should accept the responsibility for the actions of others, then you do NOT get your morals from the bible. You might want to look up this thing in the bible called original sin and the human sacrifice that was required by yahweh to absolve it. I believe most of the worshippers carry around small symbols of the murder weapon on their person.

    You know, growing up going to various church denominations I heard quite a lot about this original sin, and how we were all just the victims of what Adam and Eve did. Then I actually did read the Bible, cover to cover and couldn't find a thing about it. I then read it cover to cover 4 more times making a total of 5 times and I'm currently going through number six and I still haven't found it. I've read verses such as Romans 3:23 which say that everyone has sinned, not just Adam and Eve. I've even seen where it says they introduced sin by being the first to commit it. But nowhere does it say that people are guilty of sin before they ever do something wrong of their own accord, which is what "doctrine of original sin" claims. Just because most churches teach something doesn't make it Biblical. There are many examples of things churches teach which are unbiblical, such as the Sabbath being on Sunday, Christmas, Easter, and original sin.

    With that being said I do recall reading the human sacrifice you refer to, which was needed to cover OUR OWN sins, not someone else's original sin. I also remember reading about how Yahweh himself took on the ugly task of being the victim of said sacrifice ( You yourself equated Christ to Yahweh), instead of forcing someone else to be the victim, and how he forbids human sacrifice in all other situations except for that single exception. You seem to not be understanding the nature of exceptions, and the exception he made regarding human sacrifice that you mentioned is easily justified by the fact that he himself chose to be the victim. Also you refer to a murder weapon, could you please clarify who the victim and who the perpetrator of this murder was?

    Coveny said:

    You sure sound like you just changed your tune. You’ve went from “we come back” to “spirit bodies”.  No I don’t define people by their physical chemistry, but when you say the dead will “come back”, that means physical, but that’s not what happens is it? (because you didn’t read your bible) Now to make a finer point on the matter, by your religion your spirit never “leaves”, so you don’t come back as a spirit body, your spirit body is freed from its mortal coil. Again, you really don’t seem that knowledgeable on your religion, it’s ok though I’ve taught muslims, christians, and others about their religion many times, pull up a chair. (for the record, you scripture supports exactly what I’m saying) On that same vein what’s your explanation of Ecclesiastes 12:7 if as you claim spirits exist eternal?


    Actually I haven't changed my tune at all and there is nothing contradictory about "spirit bodies" and "coming back." Coming back refers to the location we will be in while spirit bodies refers to the bodies we will have. In saying we will come back I'm stating that eternity will take place where we are now, not some far away land or other dimension. The fact that we'll have bodies which can defy the laws of physics and are in that sense be not physical doesn't contradict the idea that it will all come back to the place we are at now.

    Also, you say "by my religion your spirit never leaves." And how do you know that that is what my religion teaches. Could you please state my what my religion is and where you got your information regarding what we believe? The bible doesn't say your body never leaves and that your spirit body just leaves its mortal coil, nor does the church I attend teach that so your statement that my religion teaches that was made out of pure IGNORANCE. Some churches may teach it but it can't be found in the Bible and developed out of Greek ideas that influenced early Christians. I'm starting to wonder whether or not you've actually read the Bible or are just attributing ideas to it based on 2nd hand accounts from people you know that have read it.

    My explanation for Ecclesiastes 12:7 is that spirits are not immortal, but that we die, fully lose consciousness, and our spirits are brought back at a later time by God.

    Coveny said:

    It’s wrong to murder. It’s wrong to make a choice for another person. I would not like anyone to kill me even if they could bring me back exactly as I am now. This harms me. I get you have no morals because of the bible, but if you wish to die there are many ways that you can “meet your maker” without committing suicide. All you need do, is put yourself in harm’s way protecting innocents, and you get your golden ticket to your afterlife reward. But you won’t do it, for the same reason that you stop at red lights, and go to the doctor. You don’t believe in god when your life is on the line. Only the seriously fundamentalist plow that row, and you aren’t one of those, are you? So don’t act you don’t understand why I do NOT want to be killed.



    How exactly are you harmed if your brought back exactly as you are now? Doesn't harmed mean that you're worse off than you are now? Also you say I have no morals because of the Bible. Could we please stick to intelligent arguments and avoid fallacies such as ad hominem? You also claim I wouldn't put my self in harms way to protect innocents. Could we please stick to facts instead of assumptions made on pure speculation, as you have never met me and have absolutely know way of knowing how I would react in such a situation. You don't know what you are talking about, and by pretending you know a person you met online yesterday that intimately is ignorance in its finest form.

    I stop at red lights and go to the doctor because I have value given by god and therefore it is wrong for me to kill anyone including myself without just cause. There is nothing wrong with self-preservation to an extent and I never said I couldn't understand why you wouldn't want to die. What I said was your belief that death is unjustifiable rests on an a priori assumption that there is no afterlife.

    Coveny said:

    I could go into murders on death row going to heaven while good people who’ve never heard of your god get thrown in a lake of fire, but I’m going to skip that. I also don’t care why you get thrown in a lake a fire for all eternity either. I’m just going to focus on the eternal torment part, and ask you again how you believe yahweh wants peace. Would you burn someone alive for hours as they died? Do you think that would be the moral thing to do? I mean really pick Hitler or the worst person you can think of, imagine yourself locking them in a room of liquid fire, imagine them screaming and begging for you to end their suffering, and you… you keep that door shut…  for all ETERNITY! All this is because of what they did in the span of less than 100 years. That’s the morals your bible promotes. The morals of vengeance, and punishments that FAR outweigh the crime.


    Actually its not for what you did in the span of a hundred years. You seem to have missed the part where I stated that their ultimate choice of right and wrong didn't come until after the resurrection, and how only believer are judged for this lifetime. Here it is for reference
    The bible speaks of two resurrections. The first is for people who are saved, the second is for everyone else. But when God talks in Daniel about the last resurrection he doesn't say everyone will be condemned, he says some will raise to life and others to condemnation. Given this alongside other prophecies regarding the holy spirit being poured out on ALL flesh, the Bible seems to indicate that everyone in the 2nd resurrection (the people who weren't saved) will be given the holy spirit at the resurrection, and will then be judged. Judgement doesn't begin until you receive the holy spirit and God sees what you do with it, as we are all sinful by our nature and without the holy spirit we are hopeless. After God has raised everyone from the dead, revealed himself to everyone, and given them a piece of his spirit, anyone who at that point still refuses to do what is right DESERVE to be thrown into a lake of fire. What the Bible teaches is that people will be cast into the lake of fire for rejecting God outright, not failing to understand his existence or nature. When Christ says that those who blasphemes the holy spirit will receive no forgiveness in this life or the world to come. Why would someone need separate forgiveness in the world to come if all wrongdoing is handled in this life with judgment being nothing more than an analysis of this life? The answer is they wouldn't.


    Its not just what they did ,but the level understanding they had when they did it that merits the punishment. My claim was not until after someone has the holy spirit and fully understands who God is and understands the consequences of sin chooses to still be evil, then they will be punished, not people who did bad things when they lacked understanding in this lifetime.

    Coveny said:

    And I quote “doesn't condone slavery” and “tells believer to accept their circumstances”. So the bible tells slaves to accept being slaves, even though it’s morally WRONG. And he didn’t just say accept being slaves as you seem to want to sugarcoat it. It equates yahweh to a slave owner, in that you should treat yahweh and a slave owner the same. I actually agree with that, and do view them the same. Oh look you went off on a red herring. Do you somehow think it’s ok because the child is the one who initiated it? Again your morals… Sex with children is acceptable Numbers 31:17-18. 

    It's not morally wrong to be a slave. The institution itself is morally wrong, not the victims of it. Also everyone is a slave, either to sin or to righteousness. By serving God, you can escape to crueler bondage of sin. 

    Furthermore, I never said the incestual rape incident was ok, in fact my exact words were
    @Coveny ;

    just because it happened in the bible doesn't mean the Bible condoned it, in fact, incest is specifically prohibited in Leviticus 18. The fact that they had to get him blackout drunk to pull it off is an indicator that they were aware that what they were doing wasn't approved of. There are several examples in the bible of people doing things that the Bible prohibits. Just because it happens in a Bible story doesn't mean the Bible doesn't have a problem with it. Acknowledging the existence of some evil doesn't mean you are condoning it.

    Also the verse you reference uses the term young girl in some translations and virgins un other, as the Hebrew word can mean either. Also, even if the girls mentioned were young it doesn't say you can immediately have sex with them when if they're pre-pubescent. It just permits them to marry women from nations they war with as long as those women are virgins.

    Coveny said:

    A permanent of life is that it has value. If yahweh gives value to life then it wasn’t always that way was it? So not permanent, not essential, and not a characteristic. If it had to be given, then that’s not intrinsic or inherent to life. This is what the word means. 

    Actually life didn't always exist at all, and it had no value whatsoever prior to its existence, as value requires existence. When God created humans, he created them with value, and since life has had that value since it was created, it is inherent or intrinsic, as it never existed without value, the only time it lacked value was prior to its existence.

    Coveny said:

    Ok let me get this straight. You believe that yahweh is all powerful, and all knowing, but you believe couldn’t do anything about evil? You seem to be getting hung up in free will, rather than evil. You know there is a creature that’s sole purpose is life is to burrow into the eyes of other creatures lay eggs of more of them to repeat the cycle. I look around at all the evil, and you say it is “necessary”? You say an all power god couldn’t find another way other than torture? Either you don’t understand what all powerful means, or you think I don’t. Not buying the bulls*** you’re selling.

    First off I never said he COULDN'T do anything about it, I said he CHOSE NOT TO, because he wanted us to be truly free agents, not robots. As I stated, he allowed this world to become an evil world after mankind did evil, and the evils you refer to are part of living in an evil world. Its all temporary and necessary for an adequate understanding of what evil is, so that we do not reintroduce it in the world to come. I know what all powerful means, and never said he couldn't stop evil. Temporarily allowing evil to give us full understanding of the nature of evil was a logical way of creating free will agents who choose to do good. Atheists love to complain about how God shouldn't force his way on them or shouldn't expect them to just accept what he says, but when he gives them the free will to disobey and introduces evil into the world to show them, instead of simply telling them, what the problem is, and you complain about that too? So should God have forced us to accept his way without any reason why, or should he have shown us why before allowing us into his eternal kingdom?

    Coveny said:

    First off yes it was a deity made human flesh. Secondly all religions have dealt with other religions killing them for spreading the word of their religion, yahweh’s followers won that bloodbath. So now they fight amongst themselves. Third the writers of your gospels were from oral recounts of people who were not there written many years after everything was supposed to have happened. They were not written by the disciples themselves. I assume you are not aware of this by the way you are speaking.

    First, the dieties may have been part human but not fully. Most ancient polytheist viewed the God's as a separate race from mankind, and so a diety could be part human and part diety, but not fully human and fully diety, as Christ is described in the Bible.

    Second, not all religions have dealt with persecution for spreading their religion. In the ancient world the norm was that when a nation conquered another nation, they adopted the pantheon of the conquered nation into their own. With the exception of the Jews, whose religion prohibited them from worshiping other Gods, the religions of the ancient world were pretty compatible with each other. Many of the dieties on different pantheons were fused. Nobody cared if you worshipped your own God's, as long as you worshipped theirs too. So if all religions have dealt with persecution, what time period was this for polytheistic religions of ancient Babylon?

    Third, have you actually done research into this topic, or did NatGeo tell you that the Gospels were oral accounts written many years after and so now you know its true? I wrote a 10 page paper regarding the authorship, relationship and dating of the synoptic Gospel in college so I spent quite some time researching this topic, so I'm well aware that many scholars believe them to be oral accounts written after, but there main reason for believing. This is that the destruction of the temple is mentioned, which didn't happen until 70AD, which is when the scholars in whom you have blindly placed your faith in, date Mark, as the destruction couldn't have been known of before it happened. The problem with this is it COULD have been known of before it happened, and the idea that it couldn't is based on throwing out the Bible a priori, as the Bible states claims its ability to predict the future.

    Furthermore, the reason I specifically mentioned Paul's letter's being authenticated is because 7 of them have been confirmed beyond any question to have been written by Paul. So we do have at least one person who claimed to have seen the risen Christ, and who was willing to die for a cause that he once persecuted, whose letters have been undeniably confirmed by scholars.

    Coveny said:

    Natural death is because yahweh lets it occur, or it’s because yahweh made it happen as punishment? Yes it goes against what you are saying. If I shoot you, I didn’t let a bullet hit you. We had eternal life, and no natural death and yahweh created it, and applied it to us where it didn’t exist before. Maybe you just don’t want to see yahweh in a negative light, but I have no issue with that, we die because of yahweh, not because he doesn’t prevent it. 

    You seem to misunderstand what death is. De is to life, what cold is to heat. Cold is not really its own thing, its merely the lack of heat. Likewise, death is not its own thing, it is merely the lack of life. Since God is the source of life, separation from God naturally leads to death. Since sin separates us from God, sin leads to death. Getting mad at God for death is like if someone gives you a jug of water, you refuse to drink, but then blame the water for the fact that you are going to thirst to death.

    Coveny said:

    You are walking a very thin line there with the strife not being violence. You do understand that words didn’t mean exactly what they mean today back then when it was written right? Regardless the rule is peace, and strife. (even if it isn’t physical) isn’t peace. (or an exception to peace) Again you show yahweh as lacking power to achieve something, and it being necessary to have torture before the reward. There seems to be a lot of torture from your peace god.

    Yes I'm well aware that words mean something different, have you bothered to look this verses meaning up in Greek? You don't have to answer that because I know you haven't. The reason I know you haven't is because there is no verb found in that verse which would possibly be construed as a reference to any form of violence or contention. The word translated as strife in some translations is "a sword" which is a noun that could metaphorically refer to these things, and a sword is the wording I addressed previously, since its the actual wording used.

    Strife isn't an exception to peace? May I invite to look the word exception up in a dictionary?

    The things we must undergo before receiving our reward are to show us what we don't want in the world to come. Instead of just saying "evil sucks, don't introduce it," he let us see for ourselves how bad it sucks. I like to be shown why I should believe something, but if you would prefer to blindly accept things, that's your business.

    Coveny said:

    So you recant that it clearly condemns then? Because you just gave me a lecture about how it’s expect to treat people differently, then you indicate that we are expected to emulate others. 

    Clearly condemns what? I said some things are ok for people in certain positions but not others, and are you seriously going to tell me there is no difference in a private giving an order, versus a sergeant giving one? And when did I indicate that we should emulate others?

    Coveny said:

    Ok then you admit violence is coming from “true” Christians? (you can’t have it both ways)


    Yes, because violence is the use of physical force. The use of physical force is sometimes justified. Can you really not see the difference between killing in self-defense and killing out of anger? Killing in self-defense is still violence but it is justified violence. Its wrong to kill someone WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, but it is not wrong to kill someone in any circumstances. You really seem to not understand what an exception is. The Hebrew had separate words for killing (takin life) and murder (taking life wrongfully). The commandments in the Bible use the Hebrew word for murder, not killing. The American legal system today, as well as most legal systems around the world make this same distinction, and it amazes me that you can't seem too. Violence may come from true Christians because violence is not ALWAYS wrong, but unjustified violence should not be coming from true Christian.

    Coveny said:

    You cherry pick the good, I have to cherry pick the contradictions, that’s just the nature of a debate. You present your god as peace, I present your god as evil, and we are both using the same book. So tell me again about these “true” Christians of which you speak…
    Actually I acknowledge the things you consider bad, I just don't consider them bad. Sometimes part of maintaining peace is getting rid of those who refuse to be peaceful. If violence is never justified, then how do we prevent the rule-breakers from engaging in violence? If everyone were peaceful, peace would always work. But everyone is not peaceful, so peace doesn't always work. God wants a world where it will, so as a general practice he promotes peace among his people, but he made exceptions because in an unpeaceful world, your ability to maintain existence might depend on you acting unpeacefully as a temporary means of survival (as a culture or as an individual).



  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Coveny
    Coveny said:
    @Coveny
    Also, the claim that spreading the Bible enables violence is fallacious and absurd. The nature of causality is such that a cause MUST precede its effect. Since the violence in the world today predates the Bible, the Bible CANNOT logically be construed as the cause of the violence in the world today.
    But I can, and it does. Most children aren't born violent are they? Also there have always been religions and gods, yours is just the newest flavor.

    Actually children are born violent tendencies, they simply lack the strength to do anything with them. However, as they grow they have to be taught not to hit, not to be selfish and to play nice. In fact one of the parents not being present when a child is raised can be demonstrably shown to have a clear correlation to violent tendencies through data gathered by criminologists.

    Religions however cannot be shown to play anywhere near as large of a role. When the Bible started to be produced in many languages during the 1600's, what followed was an increase in political equality, charity became more popular, rape came to be viewed in a far more negative light than it had prior, and slavery finally came to an end for the first time in recorded history, all in Christianized societies.

    How have attempts at atheistic societies gone? PPeople marching around France with heads on sticks, people starving to death in North Korea and the Soviet Union, and overwhelming numbers of Cubans fleeing to America to escape. China came out the best, although they still have a terrible human rights record, and also the Chinese government operates churches so they can't really be said to be atheistic any more like they were in the Cold War era.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @THEDENIER
    THEDENIER said:
    @RollTide420 you didn't to post the argument twice.
    I was by accident, I was having technical difficulties.

    THEDENIER said:

    "The Torah contains virtually the only penal code of its time which did make differentiations based on social standing." ????? I think you mean the opposite. Distinctions were made. It's called a caste system. Maybe it doesn't fit your definition, but here is the best one on the internet: any class or group of people who inherit exclusive privileges or are perceived as socially distinct. Israel had castes. 



    A penal code to the system of crimes and their respective punishment. Within the list of crimes and their respective punishments in the Bible, no distinction is made based on social class. Please point me to the place in the Bible where you found a different punishment listed for a crime if its committed by a Levi'im as opposed to an Israelites. There are several groups of people in the United States who are perceived as socially distinct. Is the United States a caste system?

    THEDENIER said:

    THEDENIER said:
    We are arguing about religion period, not just western religion. All of your arguments are against other religions, not atheism.

    I am arguing specifically against you claim that religion is bad. You didn't say some religion was bad, you simply said religion was bad. My point in criticizing other religions was to show that your conflation of all religion into one was fallacious. Christianity has had a very different effect on the world than other religions. I could go on about how all attempts at formally atheistic states have not only resulted in atrocities but either failed miserably (USSR, post-revolutionary France), are failing (Communist Cuba, North Korea), or have backed off the atheism and begun allowing state sanctioned religious groups (China). However, I didn't want to commit the fallacy you commit when you attribute problems within religion to religion in general while ignoring the other factors involved, such as competition for resources, which is what scholars who study war actually consider to be the cause of man's earliest wars.

    No I never said all religions were bad (even if I meant it). I meant that as an actor upon the modern world and history religion has made a bad net contribution. Let's not name call bad organizations do you really want to bring up the kkk, crusades etc. And if you are thinking "the KKK? That's not true Christianity", then none of the countries you chose are true Atheism. 
    So do you mean it or not? You could probably make your point better if your stance wasn't ambiguous.

    Also, I acknowledged that those examples were not proof that all atheists are bad and brought them up to address your points that I hadn't said anything against atheism, while also claiming that religion is bad based on your observation that religious societies to bad things. I made that argument to compare to the argument that you were making to show that it was fallacious, and if you agree that that is a bad argument, then what is it that proves religion is what causes the problems in society?

    THEDENIER said:
    THEDENIER said:
    Moreover, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Let me use your logic of if A and B exist in a society then A must cause B (this is bad logic by the way). According to this all of the atrocities committed by early societies were religious because almost all pre-christian societies were religious. 

    What exactly then is your basis for claiming religion is bad? Also, I don't claim that the changes in culture were caused by Christianity because they happened at the same time, but also because the changes are demonstrably liked to Biblical teachings. The fact that the social hierarchy began to drastically shift towards equality at the exact same time a book heavily criticizing social hierarchies began to be published in several languages for the first time in Europe is probably more than a coincidence. The fact that helping the needy suddenly became an emphasized thing in society at the same time a religion which promoted this started to gain popularity is more than a coincidence. If it were only the time factor than maybe it would be a coincidence. But the fact that the changes actually have a clear relation to Biblical principles strongly suggests otherwise.
    My basis is that it results in misinformed decisions, and it needlessly draws manpower and money. Huh, ironic isn't. You know that the bible criticizes social hierarchy and the needy, but if those who followed it (specifically Catholics) just sold their 8 billion dollars worth of church assets, and then gave that money to the UN, we would be almost 1/3 closer to the end of world hunger. Or maybe the UN would just use the money to make better photoshopped images of earth.

    I have admitted that some religion is bad and am the first to admit that the Catholic Church as an institution is corrupt. But some religion has a net positive effect. Religion is not a single entity that can just be jumbled together to have a single effect.

    Also, what good is giving money to the UN going to do? What have they done to solve our problems. Between violating counties' national sovereignty and forcing treaties on warring countries that don't address the underlying issues that resulted in war, resulting in years of an artificial peace where tensions built and built until war eventually broke out, only to be ended by another treaty that doesn't address the underlying issues. What great peace the UN has brought to the Middle East. Israel and Palestine haven't been at war since the  early 90's. What a great job the UN did keeping that peace and addressing those issues! Israel is such a peaceful place, right? (sarcasm intended)

    Also, the UN wouldn't need to photoshop pictures of Earth because they don't claim to take them, NASA does.

    You keep saying religious people are "misinformed, yet you have yet to address a single piece of my argument regarding the proof that God exists. So are you going to tell me why I'm wrong? Or are you just going to keep saying religious people are misinformed, and not backing it up? Here it is for the 3rd time.
    Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.







  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Evidence My point in sayin God is outside of science is not to claim that there is not scientific evidence for him, but that his existence goes beyond what science covers I consider "true science", or "hard science," to be things which can be reproduced in a lab God cannot be reproduced in a lab. Things in science are bound by the laws of physics, God is not. Science is the study of God's creation. God is not the creation but the Creator. He exists beyond the natural realm covered by science. This is not to say there is no say that science doesn't demonstrate his existence, but that he himself, his true essence, exists beyond what we can the observable universe covered by the study of science.

    Also, in regard to your point about infinity, I understand the difference between "infinite" and "going into infinity", but I don't see the difference in infinite and infinity themselves except one is an adjective and the other is a noun. Also, I wouldn't say infinite and God are the same in meaning, although I will agree that God is the only being which is infinite, or in other words he is the only being which possesses that quality.

    In fact this is an important point I've made. If there were two beings of infinite power, then one could limit the others power. If you said he can't that would be a limit and therefore he isn't infinite. But if you say he can, then the other isn't infinite. We have a paradox, and so there can only be one infinite.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @RollTide420 Genesis 3 sure seems like we are all being punished for Adam and Eve’s transgressions. Otherwise I would have thought the garden of eden would have been a lot nicer than this. Like at least I could have no sinus problems living in the garden of eden and all that. Or wait do not consider it a punishment for humans to be thrown out of the garden of eden? I mean it sounded like a nice place to stay. You want to try that again?

    Well that’s similar to your whole “being killed isn’t a bad” thing theme. So human sacrifice isn’t a problem so long as yahweh is the human? So yahweh sacrificed his human form for 3 days to appease yahweh, but that didn’t break the rule of no human sacrifice? That’s how that works in your mind? 

    The murder victim was yahweh in his human form, the perpetrator would be the soilder from John 19:32-34. From doing a bit of research it looks like the Gospel of Nicodemus (Chapter 7) names him as Longinus, and he is sometimes called Gaius Cassius Longinus. Why am I always telling theists about parts of their religion they don’t know? You would think you guys would be more knowledgeable about what you worship.

    Coming back from the dead, does NOT mean coming back to your location. Peddle that somewhere else. We also don’t gain spirit bodies at death per the bible, we always have them, so they don’t “come back” either. Yehwah breaths the spirit of life into you at birth (not conception because people 2,000 years ago didn’t understand fetus’s) this is when you get your spirit form/body. (if we are going to get technical I don’t think “spirit body” is the correct naming, I think spirit form is, but meh) Or admit you don’t follow the bible, but thus far you have been quoting the bible, so yes there is your religion, and that is where I get that information. Like the 20k or so other cults that follow Yahweh which have meniscal differences between them. You want to talk, show me the passage that contradicts me, and stop with all this “you don’t know me, you don’t know”. Make a statement and prove it. (thus far you’ve been doing badly)

    You do not think the spirit is immortal? Interesting like me do a 10 second google search to get some passages. Psalm 22:26; 23:6; 49:7-9; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Daniel 12:2-3; Matthew 25:46; and 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. Daniel 12:2. You claim to have read the bible… how did you put it… was one of those 2nd hand accounts of which you spoke?

    The act of killing someone is harmful. If I killed you and brought you back a thousand time you would consider that pleasant? No you wouldn’t. Even assuming there is no pain, and in the best possible situation, killing someone is causing harm. That I have to explain this to you shows why you have no morals. When you claim the bible to be your moral compass you bring the discussion of your morals into the debate. Don’t cry foul when I prove the bible, and therefore your morals to be horrible. So no ad hominem fallacy or attack. Put yourself forth as the example, expect that example to be contested.

    As you are here on the internet responding to me, it’s not an assumption or speculation is it? I don’t need to meet you, I need only see that you are still here to “prove” you haven’t died defending innocents. So yes, I know what I’m talking about. I know you lack true “faith”, and I applaud you for it, but don’t talk like you are the “true” theist, because you have not earned that right now have you? You do not trust in Yahweh when your life is on the line, you trust in science. The bible tells you to go to a priest with oil, not a doctor, you are the faithful. (the passage kills 100s if not 1,000s of children every year on this planet)

    Like I said you seem to believe true worship is peacefully, kudos, but that’s not what the bible says.

    It is morally wrong to tell a slave to accept a morally wrong condition: slavery. I get that you are trying to split the s*** out of that hair, but the mental gymnastics do not work. I’m not a slave to sin, I have no master, and the fact that you romanticize the idea of being a slave to Yahweh is pretty telling about your attitudes on slavery in general. So admit you think that yahweh is wrong for wanting you to accept slavery or admit that you see slavery as a morally right thing. 

    It says you can take them for yourselves. And again, with the gymnastics on the “young girls” vs “virgins”. How old do you think virgin meant back then? And you forgot maidens which some translations use as well.  And it said NOTHING about marrying them, they are taken as slaves as was the custom at the time. (the mental gymnastics are strong with this one)

    Actually it doesn’t matter if it always existed, any more than killing a child because it hasn’t always existed isn’t an excuse. When life exists it has value inherently. Now you are playing to say he gave life, and didn’t give value to life. And I quote “What gives life any inherent value whatsoever?” So it backtracking time it seems.

    So he doesn’t have the power to make us “free agents”, and not create evil? Look pick whatever words, and whatever scenario you want to play with, the same question will continue to follow you through all your gymnastics. He CREATED evil as per the bible. He didn’t allow it because it was necessary. He chose to have it, even though it was not needed. Or he not all powerful, and he couldn’t get to where he wanted to go without torturing the s*** out of billions of people.

    Christ as a demigod, that’s a rare spin, and by claiming it you fall into the yahweh and christ being separate, as well as a polytheist. Interesting.

    So, this is the part where you tell me that religions use to live together in harmony back before we had records of it? I can look back at all recorded history and see that not to be the case regardless of their propaganda. Rome was a huge empire that everyone was happy to join, and just loved being a part of.

    Your aware most biblical scholars believe it was an oral account, but you don’t believe your biblical scholars. I guess they aren’t “true christians”. No I have not watch anything on national geographic on the topic, but I have read on the topic. On this you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the commonly held belief by the majority of biblical scholars. I’m an atheist, this may shock you but I don’t care.

    Beyond question? I think there is a part in there it says “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand” indicating he didn’t write the other parts of letters. 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians Also Romans has a greetings from the writer of the letter. So tell me that again… with feeling this time.

    You know this is long I’m gonna stop reading here. There is so much , and I don’t want to spend hours going through all of it.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Coveny I'll respond to the rest later, but this is honestly the following exchange is among the largest displays of ignorance and arrogance combined that it merits its own post.

    @Coveny



    Coveny said:

    It’s wrong to murder. It’s wrong to make a choice for another person. I would not like anyone to kill me even if they could bring me back exactly as I am now. This harms me. I get you have no morals because of the bible, but if you wish to die there are many ways that you can “meet your maker” without committing suicide. All you need do, is put yourself in harm’s way protecting innocents, and you get your golden ticket to your afterlife reward. But you won’t do it, for the same reason that you stop at red lights, and go to the doctor. You don’t believe in god when your life is on the line. Only the seriously fundamentalist plow that row, and you aren’t one of those, are you? So don’t act you don’t understand why I do NOT want to be killed.



    you say I have no morals because of the Bible. Could we please stick to intelligent arguments and avoid fallacies such as ad hominem? You also claim I wouldn't put my self in harms way to protect innocents. Could we please stick to facts instead of assumptions made on pure speculation, as you have never met me and have absolutely know way of knowing how I would react in such a situation. You don't know what you are talking about, and by pretending you know a person you met online yesterday that intimately is ignorance in its finest form.

    I stop at red lights and go to the doctor because I have value given by god and therefore it is wrong for me to kill anyone including myself without just cause. There is nothing wrong with self-preservation to an extent and I never said I couldn't understand why you wouldn't want to die. What I said was your belief that death is unjustifiable rests on an a priori assumption that there is no afterlife.



    Coveny said:
    and stop with all this “you don’t know me, you don’t know”. Make a statement and prove it. (thus far you’ve been doing badly).....

    As you are here on the internet responding to me, it’s not an assumption or speculation is it? I don’t need to meet you, I need only see that you are still here to “prove” you haven’t died defending innocents. So yes, I know what I’m talking about. I know you lack true “faith”, and I applaud you for it, but don’t talk like you are the “true” theist, because you have not earned that right now have you? You do not trust in Yahweh when your life is on the line, you trust in science.

    I don't need to prove anything, as I made no statement regarding what I would do, you did. I haven't died saving children because I've never been in a situation where children were being killed  Also, I've made no statements regarding what I you would do, so I've made no statement that needs defending here. You however have.  You made the comment, so the burden of evidence here is on you. If you honestly believe you know what I would do, having not met me then you are displaying a level of ignorance that doesn't belong in any sort of an intelligent debate. If you can't stick to facts and evidence, then your point is wrong. You cannot prove your statement, therefore you have no proof whatsoever of any point you were trying to get across with it. You statements regarding what I would do in any given situation is pure speculation and in the world of logic, pure speculation is the equivalent to bulls***. By assuming that much without anything to back it up you showcase your ignorance.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Coveny I'll respond to the rest later, but this is honestly the following exchange is among the largest displays of ignorance and arrogance combined that it merits its own post

    I don't need to prove anything, as I made no statement regarding what I would do, you did. I haven't died saving children because I've never been in a situation where children were being killed  Also, I've made no statements regarding what I you would do, so I've made no statement that needs defending here. You however have.  You made the comment, so the burden of evidence here is on you. If you honestly believe you know what I would do, having not met me then you are displaying a level of ignorance that doesn't belong in any sort of an intelligent debate. If you can't stick to facts and evidence, then your point is wrong. You cannot prove your statement, therefore you have no proof whatsoever of any point you were trying to get across with it. You statements regarding what I would do in any given situation is pure speculation and in the world of logic, pure speculation is the equivalent to bulls***. By assuming that much without anything to back it up you showcase your ignorance.

    I have made a statement on what you didn't do, and shown proof that you haven't done it. Saving children is just the example I used, it really doesn't matter what you use to die, you have been (like all adults) in or around situations where you could have attempted to protect people, and you didn't. You've admitted you don't trust yahweh, but instead go to the doctor. This is evidence to back up of your lack of faith. If you had intelligence you could see this, but all you have is ignorance. But hey I'd rather have an ignorant theist, than a fundamentalist any day of the week. The further you distance yourself from your religion the better of a person you become, so good job.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    Coveny said: I have made a statement on what you didn't do, and shown proof that you haven't done it. Saving children is just the example I used, it really doesn't matter what you use to die, you have been (like all adults) in or around situations where you could have attempted to protect people, and you didn't. You made a statement about something I've never been a situation where I could do? Actually the only time I have ever seen a person die was my cancerous grandmother, so no I haven't been around situations where I could have attempted to protect someone in my adult life, which I'm only 5 year into.
    Coveny said:

    If you had intelligence you could see this, but all you have is ignorance. But hey I'd rather have an ignorant theist, than a fundamentalist any day of the week. The further you distance yourself from your religion the better of a person you become, so good job.
    Here we have ad hominem in its finest form. No substance, pure dogs***. You seriously need to take a learners course on basic logic or something, if you can't do better than this.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    this is honestly the following exchange is among the largest displays of ignorance and arrogance combined that it merits its own post.

    ... you are displaying a level of ignorance that doesn't belong in any sort of an intelligent debate.

    ... By assuming that much without anything to back it up you showcase your ignorance.

    RollTide420 said:

    Here we have ad hominem in its finest form. No substance, pure dogs***. You seriously need to take a learners course on basic logic or something, if you can't do better than this.

    Again if you talk s*** don't cry when I retire fire. Go have a look at how I made @Erfisflat cry after he started in with the insults and ridicule. So here is your false dichotomy for the sake of smack talk. Either you stop with the ad hominem then you have a case to say something about my ad hominem, OR you continue with the ad hominem and don't cry when I make you look like a fool. Any questions?

  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    Ignorant and dogsh*** were in reference to you statements not you personally. "If you had intelligence," is clearly directly at me personally, not my statement. You don't seem to know what ad hominem is. At no point have I commented on your character, level of intelligence, or any other characteristic that you have, besides ignorance on the topics of which you were speaking. Ignorance means lack of knowledge, or information, and doesn't constitute an attack of a person unless someone says you are an ignorant person, which implies that they lack any knowledge whatsoever, as opposed to "your statement displays ignorance," which implies that what you said shows that you do not have adequate info on your topic. You however are guilty of ad hominem multiple times pretty much every post you've made.
    Coveny said:
    Any questions?


    How old are you?


  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Ignorant and dogsh*** were in reference to you statements not you personally. "If you had intelligence," is clearly directly at me personally, not my statement. You don't seem to know what ad hominem is. At no point have I commented on your character, level of intelligence, or any other characteristic that you have, besides ignorance on the topics of which you were speaking. Ignorance means lack of knowledge, or information, and doesn't constitute an attack of a person unless someone says you are an ignorant person, which implies that they lack any knowledge whatsoever, as opposed to "your statement displays ignorance," which implies that what you said shows that you do not have adequate info on your topic. You however are guilty of ad hominem multiple times pretty much every post you've made.

    Ah the ad hominem by proxy isn't ad hominem angle. I don't see that very often. Sound really complicated. I name call your statement, rather than you then I don't have to take responsibility for attacking your character... man that's a super difficult thing to figure out. Let me try it. Your statements sound like they come from a 3 year old. ooo I like it, and by doing it this way it's not ad hominem? Why isn't everyone doing this, you can be as mean as you like and never take any blame for it? /sarcasm off

    Look , you lie to yourself all you like, I mean theist eat and breath that s***, but don't peddle it to me, and expect me to buy it. You aren't fooling anyone with the ad hominem by proxy. 

    I'm 45. There is a picture of my by my last name, had you spent have a second thinking you could have gotten a close answer yourself, but you don't think so good do you? It's not an ad hominem to say that though because you've show that you do not have adequate intelligence... like I do. (you know the by proxy stuff is SO tough to do...) Look logic and intelligence aren't your strong suit, that's why you're a theist, but of course because of the dunning-kruger effect you don't see it yourself. (you know because you've show you don't have adequate intelligence)

    Smack talk all you want, I can make you look like a fool if with facts, or like this. Pick your poison. 
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    I can make you look like a fool if with facts, or like this. Pick your poison. 
    I choose facts. Prove me Wrong
     
    There is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.


  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch