|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2006 : 17:33:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
There were no inconsistencies with the 10 commandments
The first commandment is to worship God. So which one was that again? And did you provide any proof for said deity, or any attributes - you know like Geemack and other have asked for over and over and over again?
And there obviously are inconsitencies in the bible. Your hand wave is noted.
Scientists and people in this forum talk of the Big Bang. Show me proof it happened. Both require faith, but as I said before, I believe the Big Bang requires more faith.
And off we go on another red herring. 'S ok. Others mind, but I don't; besides, this one heads back toward the beginning.
From what I have read, you know nothing about the so called "Big Bang." Here's a link that will give you some understanding: quote:
Before beginning the examination of the evidence surrounding current cosmology, it is important to understand what Big Bang Theory (BBT) is and is not. Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution. Over the last several decades the basic picture of cosmology given by BBT has been generally accepted by astronomers, physicists and the wider scientific community. However, no similar consensus has been reached on ideas about the ultimate origin of the universe. This remains an area of active research and some of idea current ideas are discussed below. That said, BBT is nevertheless about origins -- the origin of matter, the origin of the elements, the origin of large scale structure, the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, etc. All of this will be discussed in detail below.
Read up on it and know what you are talking about before you try and discuss it.
Oh, and the BB is cosmology, not evolution...
Edit: I am an atheist, and who really cares? Not I....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 09/27/2006 17:46:54 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 09:31:16 [Permalink]
|
One of the things that frustrates me about creationists is the idea that evolution and God are not compatible. Many, like GK Paul view evolution and therefore science as an atheistic attack on their cherished view that the bible must be taken literally, word for word, and is historically accurate. (With exception to the parts that they say are not meant to be taken literally.) Sigh…
Science says nothing about God because it can't. Science is about the natural world. The one we live in. God is about other than the natural world. One that is not falsifiable and is therefore not in a realm that science can confirm or deny.
Creationists set up this false dichotomy, this either or thing and run with it to the most unlikely of places. They deny as a legitimate human pursuit the quest for knowledge about the workings of our world. Well, at least if that quest is in conflict with a very narrow interpretation of the bible. In doing so they place God in a box. As though their omnipotent God couldn't have gotten us here in anyway he chose to. And it gets worse. If you follow their reasoning, God, in his infinite wisdom left us clues to how we got here that are totally false.
Bring on the dark ages again. A time when people were imprisoned or burned at the stake for making the mistake of making observations that were not consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. The earth is flat, the center of our galaxy as well as the universe, and Eve was made from dust and Adams rib and she made the mistake of listening to an evil talking snake who suggested that knowledge is a good thing. God, in his infinite wisdom, gave us the tools to gain knowledge but did not really want us to use them. A literal take…
And that take makes more sense to them then the evidence for evolution. Go figure.
Thank goodness there are plenty of people of faith who do not take this narrow view of God. Christians included.
GK Paul's request that we tell him how we come down on the God question is just a way for him to place us in the same kind of box he has placed his God in. (Like all creationists, he likes thing tidy.) As though his survey on a skeptic site means anything. Should he go to a university biology department and ask the same question, he would find plenty of Christians who accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Anyhow, I know this is just another one of my rants and a display of my grasp of the obvious and as far as GK Paul goes, it will fall on deaf ears.
Edited...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 10:26:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Also, I would like everyone who addresses me to first tell me how they believe the world was created, and any religion or belief system you have. If you believe in the Big Bang, than please tell me so. If your a Satanist or an agnostic or an atheist or a Scientolgist please tell me first. If you don't want to do that, than one has to wonder why.
You have several "tell me firsts" which one takes precidence?
Religion: Wiccan (no, not Satanist, Wiccan. They are markedly different)
How was the earth formed: Most likely the way that is proposed for the mechanism of planet formation. This would take place some 5+ billion years ago.
Big Bang: This is the best and most supportable cosmological origin for this universe. I find strong evidence to believe this is accurate. This is, of course, not related to evolution.
Now that we have that out of the way, will you answer the questions and address the issues brought up to you? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 12:42:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
One of the things that frustrates me about creationists is the idea that evolution and God are not compatible. Many, like GK Paul view evolution and therefore science as an atheistic attack on their cherished view that the bible must be taken literally, word for word, and is historically accurate. (With exception to the parts that they say are not meant to be taken literally.) Sigh…
Science says nothing about God because it can't. Science is about the natural world. The one we live in. God is about other than the natural world. One that is not falsifiable and is therefore not in a realm that science can confirm or deny.
But Kil, the Bible is their God. Their faith is tied to the Bible. It records the actions of their God. If it is false, then their God is false. While science does not have any bearing on the broad idea of a God, it does directly contradict the recorded actions of the Christian God as written in the Bible. Science is directly at odds with many of the things recorded there.
The Bible indicates that God created the Earth about 6000 years ago, but science shows that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old. The Bible says that God created life on Earth fully formed, science shows that life evolved slowly over billions of years. The Bible says that the Earth was covered by a world-wide flood, science shows that this never happened. The list, as you know, goes on.
So, for their God to be true, science must be shown to be false. It's a battle they can't win, so they are forced to be intellectually dishonest, to themselves and to others.
At least thats my take. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 12:45:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Also, I would like everyone who addresses me to first tell me how they believe the world was created, and any religion or belief system you have. If you believe in the Big Bang, than please tell me so. If your a Satanist or an agnostic or an atheist or a Scientolgist please tell me first. If you don't want to do that, than one has to wonder why.
If you could rephrase your requests without being so rude, perhaps more people would respond. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 12:48:25 [Permalink]
|
| Pre moon-creation 4.6BYA the earth was smaller and may have indeed been covered by an ocean/flood. However no 900 year old humans were available for boat travel at the time. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 14:43:36 [Permalink]
|
GK Paul: I have answered your questions and provided you with the evidence for the big bang, now it is your turn to answer the questions asked of you. Put up or shut up, as they say.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 02:13:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Antigone
GK Paul, I was reading all the previous posts while you wrote that last post asking for all that info. This is my first time posting anything in this thread, so I don't really see how the post/request you asked of everyone else pertains to me asking you for the evidence you based your belief in the Christian God on. (sorry for the run-on sentence there..).
All I want is an answer.
Here is the info you requested.
Your questions were: A. tell me how they believe the world was created, B. and any religion or belief system you have. C. If you believe in the Big Bang, than please tell me so. D. If your a Satanist or an agnostic or an atheist or a Scientolgist please tell me first. If you don't want to do that, than one has to wonder why.
A. By world I assume you mean the earth. I think the world was created ever a very long time, after our sun started its nuclear reaction and the material around it collided together to make the planets we see now. (this is over simplifying it). I also think the molecules and codons have a predictable behavior and will come together to make 'life happen' anywhere conditions are right ... history tells us earth's conditions where right for life.
B. In my intro a few days ago I explained my religious background and Faith. But I will elaborate a little more here. I have faith that there is a god, though there is no way to prove this or use the scientific method. I am not a christian, a jew, a muslim, pagan, etc. I do not try to get others to believe in what I have faith in and I do not claim this god is real, tangible, or fact. It is something very personal for me.
C. I think the Big Bang Theory is a sound theory. Do I think this universe came into being this way? I think it is highly possible.
D. I am neither of these things. I do not label my faith, and if I HAD to label it none of these terms would come close to describing it ... except perhaps agnostic if you take it to mean "it cannot be known." I have ideas, but thats all.
Now, please answer my question. If you want to comment on the answers I have given you please be sure to not forget to answer my original question in your post. Here it is again just in case you forgot:
can you please list all the evidence you said you based your belief of God on?
intellectual evidence + empiricle evidence + historical evidence
Well thank you for the info. I have a lot of evidence, so the answer will take a lot of time, and may be spread out over several posts so be patient. Also I said + gut feeling + faith. Which are also important. Give me some time, because I've got a life outside of this web site.
Historical Evidence 1) Christ was a historical figure. Josephus, a Jewish Historian, not only made reference to Christ but he also made seperate reference to John the Baptist... 2) Nero, the Roman empereror, blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome about 64 -66 AD. Only 31 years after the Crucifiction, there was Christian groups in Rome. 3) Our Calender Year is based on the birth of Christ. 4)We have historical evidence of Christians being fed to the lions, for their faith. 5)Paul is a historical figure. Even the author of the book Caesar's Messiah which we aren't even talking about anymore because it was shown to be impossible because of its faulty timeframe (see part 1) said Paul is an historical figure.
6) The Bible said Peter (which the historic Catholic Church says was the first Pope) denied Christ 3 times to a girl at a campfire. What could have possibly happened for Peter to have gone from a coward denying Christ to a girl to a bold sold out leader who ended up saying according to Catholic tradition that he wanted to be crucified upside down (in Rome) because he wasn't worthy to die the same way as Christ. I maintain that the only thing that explains Peter's incredible change, and the Church's tremendous historical growth was that many people in fact did see Christ raised from the grave. Paul said 500 people saw the risen Christ. This also explains the incredible historical growth.
Current History has 3 US president's who claim to be born again Christians: Carter, Reagan, Bush. And Billy Graham, arguably America's best known Christian, was friends or advisor to 11 US presidents.
All this historical activitiy and social influence just doesn't spring up out of thin air. There has to be some truth driving it for the past 2000 years.
I will give intellectual and empiricle evidence as time permits. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 09/29/2006 02:32:07 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 03:35:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Historical Evidence 1) Christ was a historical figure. Josephus, a Jewish Historian, not only made reference to Christ but he also made seperate reference to John the Baptist...
There is no certain evidence of the historicity of Jesus.
Josephus works mentions Jesus twice but these mentions have obviously been at least tampered with by christians. Some say that they are complete forgeries. It is difficult to say what the original passages said.quote:
2) Nero, the Roman empereror, blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome about 64 -66 AD. Only 31 years after the Crucifiction, there was Christian groups in Rome.
Nobody doubts that there are/were christians in Rome.
31 years ? Bullshit! You have no historical evidence for when the supposed crucifixion happened.
Nero left a very bad legacy entirely composed by his enemies. quote:
3) Our Calender Year is based on the birth of Christ.
No, that is just wrong.
Our calender is based on the Julian calender introduced 46 BCE and begin, with January named by ther roman god Janus how watches over beginning and ends. The only refernece to Jesus is that we say that now is 2006 years since the year that people used to believe that he was born.
With a small modification (by Aloysius Lilius decreed by Pope Gregory XIII) the Julian calender is still usedquote:
4)We have historical evidence of Christians being fed to the lions, for their faith.
I never heard anyone doubt that ther are and were christians, does not prove that there was a christ though. quote:
5)Paul is a historical figure.
Does not prove that there was a historical christ. Paul never met him.quote:
Paul said 500 people saw the risen Christ. This also explains the incredible historical growth.
None of those 500 have ever written anything about that supposed event.
We had quite a few threads about the historicity of christ, enjoy:
Did Jesus Really Exist?
Did Jesus Exist? Revisited...
Did Jesus Really Exist? (Part 2)
Did Jesus Really Exist? (Part 3)
Did Jesus Really Exist? (Part 4)
Did Jesus Really Exist? (Part 5)
And remember even if there was a historic Jesus, that does not prove that christianity is the true religion. Muhamed is definitely a historic person, that does not make Islam true either.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 05:01:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Well thank you for the info. I have a lot of evidence, so the answer will take a lot of time, and may be spread out over several posts so be patient. Also I said + gut feeling + faith. Which are also important. Give me some time, because I've got a life outside of this web site.
And as Starman has already pointed out you are even wrong about your evidence. Re-reading your post you clearly have no idea what constitutes evidence. Presidents believing something is evidence only of presidents believing something. Testimonials and faith are not evidence.
In light of what you have said previously, I can't believe that you are still using the Bible as evidence especially since it was written by imperfect humans. And now being interpreted by imperfect humans.
The only thing you have presented is faith, and faith only requires a firm belief, it exist without evidence and often exist in spite of evidence to the contrary.
My gut feeling tells me that you don't have evidence because you do not understand what evidence is. Go back to the definition of empirical and try again. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 05:18:35 [Permalink]
|
Also note that Josephus was probably born in the year 37, after both Jesus and John the Baptist were supposed to be dead.
He was in other words not contemporary with either of them.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 12:31:48 [Permalink]
|
OK getting to the empiricle evidence.
Christ said in Luke chapter 17 verse 21 that the Kingdom of God does not come thru observation but is within you. Everybody in this forum wants something seen. If I was a drug addict and had other serious problems and walked outside and saw (with my own eyes) a 100 story tall God with a long white beard and had lightning coming from his hands and than went home and still had the same problems, than that God would not mean much.
But if I had a born again experience and felt the presence of God within me like Luke 17:21 talks about than it would actually be worth something. I've said before that I've heard testimonies from at least 150 people that Christianity has totally changed their lives. I'll just list a few of the more well known people.
Effram Zimbalist Jr.
Diane Cannon
Dion Sanders
Ted DiBiase (aka Million Dollar Man)
Smokey Robinson
George W Bush
Gavin McCleod
Rosey Grier
M C Hammer
There's also the hundreds of doctor verified healings of the Benny Hinn Ministry which have no medical explanation. This is empiricle evidence of the "power and truth" of the Gospel of Christ.
Now that we have historical(earlier post) and empirical evidence of the power and truth of the Gospel, let's look a little at the intellectual evidence. Lets look at Christ's claim that we can attain eternal life.
Many atheists believe there is no life after death. But those same atheists believe life began when non-living chemicals somehow miraculously came to life. Their belief is kind of like a tornado going thru a junkyard and creating a fully operational space shuttle that's ready to lift off. There is one difference though. A space shuttle that's ready to lift off is many times simpler then a single one celled organism. Man can create a space shuttle that's ready to lift off but he has never been able to create a single cell living organism.
I will continue this argument later.
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 12:45:41 [Permalink]
|
As discussed before, there are plenty of people from all types of religions and beliefs (and non-beleifs) that can give "spirtual" testimonials. Chrisitianity does not offer anything special here. And as for what you felt, you don't know if it was god, the devil, or (most likely) just chemicals in your brain. So nothing empirical there.
quote:
There's also the hundreds of doctor verified healings of the Benny Hinn Ministry which have no medical explanation. This is empiricle evidence of the "power and truth" of the Gospel of Christ.
Ah, good ol' Benny Hinn. That just wraps this discussion up.
As suggested before, you really need to know what words mean before you use them (i.e. your use of the word empirical). Words are like loaded guns; if you don't know how to use them, you can really hurt yourself and others.
quote:
Many atheists believe there is no life after death.
No, that would be ALL - by definition. But I digress...
quote:
But those same atheists believe life began when non-living chemicals somehow miraculously came to life.
The word "miraculously" is not used by any atheist I've ever met. You are projecting. But I digress again...
quote:
Their belief is kind of like a tornado going thru a junkyard and creating a fully operational space shuttle that's ready to lift off. There is one difference though. A space shuttle that's ready to lift off is many times simpler then a single one celled organism. Man can create a space shuttle that's ready to lift off but he has never been able to create a single cell living organism.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. BTW, that particular "argument" has been around for a lot longer than you have. I would refer you to logical fallacies, but you don't look at links and would probably think that was "rude". In other words, that analogy fails on many different levels.
For more info (I know you won't read this, but..):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance
You have provided no evidence of anything yet. Instead of posting whatever "intellectual evidence" you think you have, why don't you go back and acutally post historical and empircal evidence for god.
Edited for spelling and added link |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 09/29/2006 12:56:29 |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 13:03:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Also note that Josephus was probably born in the year 37, after both Jesus and John the Baptist were supposed to be dead.
He was in other words not contemporary with either of them.
So all college history textbooks should be thrown away if the author talked about people who died before he was born.
|
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 09/29/2006 13:11:22 |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 13:37:31 [Permalink]
|
To Mr. Pleco,
You criticize my use of the word empirical. My dictionary says empirical evidence is evidence obtained thru experience. Are you saying the 150 people I mentioned (including the celebrities) didn't experience anything. Are you saying the hundreds of people who had verified healings that doctors couldn't medically explain did not experience anything.
|
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
