notice all the atheists on this page can do is to misquote the bible and try to deceive the reader into thinking history to be false. They cannot deny that Dr Bahnsen's logic is impenetrable so they use cheap tactics like such
Basically, Greg Bahnsen goes on for four minutes while making completely unconnected statements, and George Smith's cognitive capacities (of memory) give out trying to keep track of it, and he loses focus.
Dr. Smith should have kept his reply brief: "Why have you suddenly changed the subject to the consistency of my morality? I can't keep track; should we forget about those first three minutes?" or "In answer to your 'God & only God accounts for your reason,' I reply: 'Why do you think that?'."
yah yah. no one can change your presupposition. well at least mines doesn't have the idea that all of those who do not follow my standpoint will go to hell. no matter how we try to explain the unexplainable by means of making blind assumptions we can never relinquish the fact that the presence of God is suffocating especially if it is derived by finite beings.
Now Bahnsen is imposing his belief into his accusation that God is not happy with George because George does not believe in a God. Still Bahnsen has given no evidence that a God exists. He might as well say the Pink Unicorn is not happy with George. Religion is a house of cards with god(s) at its foundation. You can attribute lots of things to god, but without any evidence of gods the house falls down. Realizing there are natural explanations makes belief in gods superfluous and awkward.
our worldview is based on evidence... logically and scientifically.. and to us life isnt meaningless.. life is meaningless when you think that there is a life after death..
by assuming to the idea itself is pointless... we can point out a lot of evidences... meaningful in art maybe as it is portrayed in the bible... how can life be so meaningful if its will become infinite...
how can one give meaning to an infinite life given the fact we are limited beings. do we really layed down the limits of being perfect? or it just satisfies our cravings.
You are either a very poor thinker or very young. The argument is that "evidence," "logic" and "science" r impossible without a Christian epistemology. A transcendental argument is an argument that proves itself from the impossibility of the contrary. We ask ourselves what are the epistemological preconditions necessary to have human experience as we know it. Stop arguing and read a basic philosophy textbook. -The universe began from nothing and is headed into nothing yet is meaningful between?
i wouldn't say that its originally christian. so morality manifests only in God.does god ,as an answer, stops us to make questions? and by ridiculing a metaphorical statement that i gave made you a wonderful christian my friend.
the logical outworkings of the atheistic worldview is suicide...to remain living to suffer seriously in this meaningless world is utter delusional to me. No, atheists do believe life is meaningful which they believe they play a significant part. How else can you explain their existence. Loved to hear your response without posting value or meaning to our existence,,,cause that's my worldview not yours remember
i think most ppl who even listen to Bahnsen come IN with 2 conclusions, God does exist, or doesn't. I think the main thing is, if you are truly seeking the truth of God's existence or not, is to seek your true self, who you really are, why you really do what you do, then to ask God, whether you believe Him or not, to reveal Himself. Try it, what you got to lose? But if you come IN to the conversation with your answer already... what are you seeking?
By the way, anyone who thinks Hitler was an atheist or the Nazi regime was atheist, is absolutely deluded. Hitler said this
Once appointed to the Chancellorship of Germany, Adolf Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an "anti-godless" movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: "We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
Hitler hated the mainframe of Christianity. He repeatedly asserted this again and again, yet claimed that he believed in God. He redefined Christianity based on what he desired it to be, namely Lenin's view of racial superiority. This is completely contrast to Christianity. In accordance with this and other documented evidence, it is safe to conclude that Hitler was neither atheist nor Christian, but either a pagan or cult leader.
Almost all the problems in the world today are of a religious nature - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the India-Pakistan conflict, the War on terror etc.
The communist regimes of Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin killed millions of people, but they didn't kill in the name of atheism, unlike theocracies who kill in the name of religion. Communism was an economic and social revolution, it was the masses protesting against the bourgeious. And when one party has all that power, they will do all they can to keep it in place. If you want to look at secular societies, look at the Scandinavian countries and see how they're doing.
Stalin himself said that he had the goal of erasing any idea of God from the minds of his people. He then tried to make himself head of the church, meaning he killed his people not just because he thought people were constantly turning against him, but also they were religious. What you claim is a double standard, JP.
No it is NOT a double standard as atheism is nothing like a religion. People define themselves by what they believe - not by what they DON'T believe. Stalin was a Marxist... not a NonRepublican. Hitler was a Nazi.. not a NonCommunist. Hitler hated and oppressed communists but this doesn't define a "worldview" for anti-communists since anti-communism like a-theism is NOT a worldview.
That assumes that atheist does not assert a "BELIEF that God does not exist", yet there are many atheists, though not the majority, who DO claim the absolute negative. Hence why BOTH definitions for atheism are given in most dictionaries. So you're incorrect templarat, for classifying all atheists under the category to which you have just affirmed.
So are you now saying that an atheist is like an anti-communist, being AGAINST the existence of God? If so, then you are in clear contradiction with yourself.
Templarat, whether you like it or not, it IS a double standard. There are atheists who believe that God does NOT exist, so saying that no person can kill in the name of atheism IS a hypocritical position on your part.
1) There ARE NO GODS! I have no trouble asserting that.
2) Atheism is NOT a philosophy, worldview or belief - it is an opinion on religion in the same way that anti-communism is an opinion on communism.
You can say that Hitler slaughtered communists in the name of Nazism but NOT anti-communism. If you say his anti-communism lead him to slaughter communists then you are incorrectly calling a disbelief a belief and creating a worldview that doesn't exist. You group by belief NOT disbelief.
Communism is a belief. Communism has a whole set of tenets, philosophies, ideas etc. anti-communism has no tenets, no philosophies, no ideas. This is because anti-communism like a-theism is not a worldview or belief system, it only tells you that person's opinion on a specific subject. An anti-communist could be nazi or taoist or catholic or hindu or whatever. An atheist could be communist or free-thinker or buddhist or nazi or objectivist or whatever. You group by belief not disbelief.
Ah, you dodged my question. 1st, I didn't ask you if you had any trouble asserting if "There are no gods", and you know that very well. 2nd, when a person says that "There are no gods", he/she is making a positive EPISTEMOLOGICAL argument on the existence of that something, not an opinion. You ought to know that. Therefore atheists who believe that God does not exist can kill in the name of atheism just like a religious person killing in the name of that specific religion. My point stands, temp.
I just can't let this one go... I've explained this numerous times with copious examples and many analogies. Saying that atheism is a belief is like saying that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. Stating that there are no gods no more creates a belief system than stating that "communism doesn't work" creates a belief system. It is your opinion on an existing belief, not a belief itself. Stalin no more killed in the name of a-theism then Hitler killed in the name of a-communism.
If there is no god, there is no way anything can be wrong. Atheism IS a belief. If God didn't give you rights, you don't have them, and they become privelages the state can take away from you. If Atheism is right, nothing can be wrong. Man exists, but if he is god, what can he do wrong? What case could you make against murder, theft, or anything else? Atheism is a belief. Man has to believe something, and the slogan of Atheistic society, the society we live in now is this: "Believe in yourself."
1) Atheism is no more a belief than NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. This is a basic mistake for Christians that see the world as religious AND THOSE OTHER GUYS! Being an atheist is like being an anti-communist - it says what you think about communism but nothing about your own beliefs. You could be a nazi or an objectivist or whatever... claiming that anti-communism is a belief would be the domain of an extremist communist who only sees the world as COMMUNISTS AND THOSE OTHER GUYS!
2) NO god gave us any rights. Especially the Christian God which denies us ALL our rights. "Rights" are what we as citizens demand from our govt in return for supporting that govt. If the govt tries to take our rights, atheists don't just give them up because they didn't come from a sky ghost we fight for them just as much as any Christian. The Bill of Rights is basically a contract we made with those who govern us and WHERE the rights come from is thoroughly irrelevent.
3) Morality is an evolved trait that allows all social animals to fit into their various social systems. Morality is very basic among all animals - "Don't harm the lives or property of your fellow group members." What would happen if hyenas or wolves "did whatever they wanted?" They wouldn't be able to cooperate and the group and species would die off.
Question: The Egyptians had a law of morality. Did Jehovah give it to them, did they get it from another god or did they make it themselves?
@templarart not even going to address the existence of God, but lets do some simple evolution math.
smallest quantified unit of time = length of time needed for a ray of light, traveling at the speed of light, to cross the smallest distance on the molecular level
It is theorized that the universe is only 20 billion years old. This is deduced by measuring the rate of the universe's expansion and calculating backwards to the big bang
@templarart the complexity of a single gene is determined by evolutionary theory to be the result of mutation.
Lets set aside the hugely complex requirements needed to bring about the existence of the first strand of DNA, just looking at the rate of mutation only...
There aren't enough "plank times" (smallest units of time) in the 20 billion years of existence to bring about the mutations required for a simple earth worm, at a rate of one mutation per plank time.
All of that information is interesting but meaningless. It just shows how unlikely DNA and even the single cell are - but... so what? None of Earth's gods are real and no other higher power is communicating with us so even if something, somewhere was responsible - it's not communicating and not answering prayer so it's basically no different than a natural event. It only matters if an actual, interactive god exists and none do.
@templarsworld Lol meaningless? So what? Saying that none of the information I gave you is important, and then following it up with the statement you gave is just as much an "irrational leap of faith" as any person could ever make.
@Hatemonger You're so immersed in 'Christianity or Big Bang' that you simply can't see the obvious. Not having all the answers to a question no more proves an ancient Hebrew tribal god than it proves Odin, Zeus, Ancient Aliens, Intelligent Mathematics, magic, psychics or Multi-dimensional insects. For example:
"I believe in Leprechauns."
"I'm sorry, I don't."
"Do you realize how improbable Quantum particles are?"
@templarsworld Lol... so in summation... you can't refute what I'm saying about how evolutionary theory is completely implausible when matched up with any kind of cosmology that isn't as ridiculous as the "6 days then rest" theory. Sooo... you insert a random unrelated "example" of reasoning to somehow try and make sense of it...
@templarsworld Btw, kudos on your immersion into the idea that because I'm critical of a botched theory that has essentially become a religious sect of Scientism that I'm one of those silly evangelical "Christianity or Big Bang" guys. Now we get to see if you can be intellectually honest and say "hmmm, if evolution is entirely improbable then maybe there's some other theory we can use as evidence that God doesn't exist."
Btw wasn't trying to prove a God, just that evolutionary theory is flawed
@templarsworld You see there is NO reason to believe in Jehovah or any of earth's other gods and in fact there are a LOT of very good reasons to believe that these are nothing but fairy tales. If there is something else out there... so what? It doesn't interact with us, doesn't answer prayer, doesn't care about our lives... it would be no different from a natural event. Chasing errors in evolution is therefore pointless.
@templarsworld Lol, dude... I'm not trying to prove gods existence which would be just as impossible to prove that he doesn't beyond the shadow of a doubt... I'm just showing how evolutionary theory doesn't make sense, and therefore needs to be re-evaluated. Your erecting a straw-man here friend.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "I'm just showing how evolutionary theory doesn't make sense"
Let's say that I too don't whole-heartedly believe in evolution the way it is currently presented. So what?! I'm still an atheist. I still would never believe in the silly fictions of Jehovah or Zeus or Brahma or Ra. So what do we do now? Neither of us is a biologist so our opinions are moot. My question is 'What's next'? Wait for an advancement in science, believe a pile of fairy tales or what?
@templarsworld Well I'm happy to hear that you don't whole-heartedly believe in evolutionary theory, this is very honest of you. And as for what we do now? We can either try and account for what we believe in or we can not. Understanding that the subject of god can neither be proven or disproven is the starting point. Knowing that its is a faith based issue as to whether we subscribe to the belief or other wise is the end point. If you are happy with your faith in the non-existence than kudos.
"Understanding that the subject of god can neither be proven or disproven"
First, you need to define the term 'god'. When used as a proper name - like 'I believe in God', 'god' is Jehovah of the Hebrews and Christians. This is a god that has been named 'God' by its adherents. This god can easily be disproven beyond reasonable doubt. Since nothing can be disproven 'beyond all doubt' , we never use this standard anywhere.
The noun 'god' is defined as a powerful, supernatural, worshiped being like Thor, Zeus, Marduk. Let's be honest - none of us believe in any of these gods... not because we've proven that they don't exist beyond all doubt. No, we don't believe in them because there is no reason to believe in them. It is irrational to believe in anything for which there is no evidence - Zeus, Batman, Dowsing Rods, Pet Psychics or Jehovah.
@templarsworld Lol, it truly is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence... But on that note, we must define what evidence is. Is it something that is seen, or touched or tasted? Or is it something that we arrive upon by a process of thought? In the broadest sense we can define evidence as anything that works to help establish the truth of an assertion. Evidence must be associated within the standards in which the assertion exists.
The rules of evidence are well established in our legal system and in scientific thought. Feelings certainly don't mean anything and anecdotes are treated with extreme suspicion - especially in cases of highly unusual events where anecdotes are discounted entirely.
Here is the standard you should use:
"What evidence would I accept from another religion? Evidence that would convince me that that religion is true and I should convert."
@templarsworld friend, I'm not asking you what "evidence" is, I'm asking you to add some support to your assertions... What you say here doesn't do it. So please, support your argument.
@templarsworld I.e. We will not use the fact that a man has gray hair as evidence that he committed murder, only that he may be old. Evidence in all things is not a matter of fact. It is a variable that is useful in establishing the things that we assume to be true. Everything can be said to be a faith based issue. We assume that the event or identity exists. This is impossible to escape due to the fact that we as humans are restricted to our local. We are limited in our observations.
@templarsworld For example. Everyday of your life you sit in a chair and every day it has held your weight. By virtue of this you assume that the next time you sit in this chair it will hold your weight. This is reasonable, but it does not completely mean it will. Your assumption is "faith" in the fact that the chair is strong enough.
You're confusing 'confidence' with 'faith'. Faith is the belief in insubstantiated ideas or dogma regardless of lack of evidence or even with evidence to the contrary. Confidence is a rational assumption in the behavior of known forces. You have confidence that your keys will start your car. You have faith that your car will fly into the sky . Confidence is created by experience, faith is not. Faith is simply believing what you're told without question.
@templarsworld The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?"
-- Charles Darwin
Faith by its broadest definition is "a strong belief" and can be applied to almost anything in a wide range of contexts.
For example: If your friend says that he will pick you up at ten o'clock it would be perfectly reasonable for you to say "I have faith he'll be here"
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "Faith by its broadest definition..." Is never what a Christian means by faith. When a Christian or Muslim uses the term faith - he means belief without evidence or as Augustine says "Faith is to believe what you do not see..." Belief with evidence requires no faith - as Christians use the term.
The Bible can be falsified in a variety of ways: It is historically inaccurate, scientifically mistaken, contains failed prophecies, massive contradictions, terrible philosophy, horrible laws and an evil, childish god capable of apparently unlimited brutality. The Bible has a primitive view of the universe with nothing inside that could not have been said by an iron-age shepherd.
@templarsworld The Bible cannot be falsified in any valid way that build on a solid foundation. It is accurate. All human science is based on the presupposition that God exists, denying that does not change anything. None of the real prophecies in the Bible has failed to date. It explains universal morality that does not contradict itself. It does NOT contain contradictions unless you willingly misinterpret it. The Bible is the word of God and is therefore true.
@Zupernova91 It's impossible to falsify a religion to a believer aince the believer simply makes up an absurd rationalization for every problem encountered. "In this passage Alric is killed in a plane while in this passage hei's killed in a bathtub." "He was taking a bath in a plane." I should've written, "an impartial observer would accept that the Bible is falsified in the following ways:"
You've made 6 assertions which I believe are false. Which 1 do you want to begin with?
@templarsworld "You've made 6 assertions which I believe are false."
You believing them to be false doesn't disprove them. Or are you perhaps saying that your belief is truth? If that's the case then there are as many truths in the world as there are people, which is obviously absurd. In fact you cannot prove or disprove anything as long as you use the atheistic world-view. Absolute truth exists.
@Zupernova91 Okay, let's start here: NT, Nativity - Luke's genealogy contradicts Matthew's genealogy and NO, it's NOT Mary's lineage. Matthew has Jesus born during King Herod's reign whereas Luke has Jesus born during the Quirinius census which occurs at least 8 years after Herod's death. Matthew says they fled from Bethlehem to Egypt. Luke writes nothing of Herod or infant slaughter but instead writes that they went directly from Bethlehem to Jerusalem LK 2:22. Rationalize away.....
@templarsworld I have neither the time nor the patience to explain every claimed contradiction. Instead, I'll refer to someone who DID take their time to do just that:
@Zupernova91 Just go back to my Alaric example and you can write all the apologetics yourself: "He was taking a bath in a plane."
Re: Egypt. "It doesn't say he didn't go to Egypt."
Yes it implicitly does. There's no mention of an infant massacre or an angry king, just a census that occurs at least 8 years after the death of Herod. Jesus is cicumcised in Bethlehem and they go to Jerusalem after the purification period is over. Only a Christian can't see this as a contradiction.
@Zupernova91 The excuse for the Mary lineage is all bald-faced assumption, assertion and guess work without even the slightest shred of evidence anywhere:
If it WAS Mary's lineage it would SAY it was Mary's lineage.
Lineage is NEVER through the mother.
The word between Joseph and Heli is the same as the word between David and Nathan.
Luke mentions Joseph's Davidic lineage twice 1:27, 2:24 while Mary's lineage is unmentioned BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER!
I couldn't find the contradiction of having Jesus born BOTH during Herod's reign and the Quirinius census but I know the excuses and they're pretty silly ranging from a fictitious earlier census to assertions that Quirinius sort of ruled in a similar place with a similar 'accounting'. Standard silly excuses that only a Christian would accept. A GREAT couple videos dispelling all the Quirinius excuses are "Quirinius where art thou 1& 2" by Prof MTH found here: watch?v=CmRd6OKwcR4
@templarsworld So yes, let us be completely honest. When working within this realm of thought and experience, submit your evidence. Support your assertion that "we don't believe in them because there is no reason to believe in them"... Inform me about the evidence you use to support your claim that "this god can easily be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt."
1) You don't believe in fairies. Other than "There is no reason to believe in fairies" why wouldn't you believe in fairies?
2) Jehovah only exists as a character in a pile of Fairy Tales called The Bible. This being exists nowhere else and attempting to seperate it from the Bible is as silly as saying "Star Wars" is fiction but "Darth Vader" now he's real.
It takes faith (in the atheist's context for the term) to say that "faith is irrational", because that statement is based on personal opinion, not on objective fact. Therefore if atheists objectively define faith as "belief without evidence" but subjectively argue that it is therefore irrational, they argue a self-defeating position. Care to disagree? Try me.
I fully disagree. Faith is gullibly believing important information without evidence and in fact with evidence to the contrary. Nothing REAL requires faith, only conmen, frauds, hoaxes need the "faith" (gullibility) of their adherents. In fact those wanting faith operate like conmen in EVERY way. The religion/con is hurt that it's not automatically trusted then promises horrible, nonconfirmable punishments on those that do not trust it without evidence. If it wants faith - it's a fraud.
Notice that in the beginning of my comment, I GRANTED the common definition you and other atheists use, not the definition that Christians use. If faith is gullibly believing something without evidence, with evidence to the contrary, then logically my point that it takes faith to claim that "faith is irrational" stands. That statement is gullibly believed without sufficient evidence yet has evidence to its negation. Do you honestly not see the self-defeating nature of your definition/statement?
It takes no "faith" to make my claim - just logic and evidence. Logically, nothing real needs faith. Nothing that isn't a con or a hoax recoils at being asked for proof. Evidence: The only users of "faith" are conmen like mediums, Jim Jones, JZ KNight, Rev Moon. They make plays for faith whereas no one speaking the truth EVER asks for faith. Has any scientist at any time demanded that you believe an assertion with zero evidence and then been hurt if you didn't? No. Scientists are not conmen.
"just logic and evidence." - Ah congratulations, you have now actually posited partial support of TRUE definition for faith, rather than the common atheist definition "belief w/out evidence". Even the Bible itself in 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." Jesus Himself even said to believe in Him based on the evidence of His miracles.
Under no circumstance does faith have ANYTHING to do with "facts and evidence". Faith is belief without facts or evidence and in fact with evidence to the contrary. This may not be a Biblical view but it is certainly a Christian view! How many times do we hear that the reason there are no miracles or appearances by Jehovah is because - then we wouldn't need faith. Check eastonsbibledictionary(.)com faith is an "act of the will" based on "divine testimony". No facts or evidence involved.
The mythologized Jesus authenticates himself with fictional miracles in the same way that every other mythological or mythologized hero does. (Example: Gautama Buddha walked on water by levitating over a stream in order to convert a brahman to Buddhism) Why do we not see these miracles today? Jesus said his followers would be able to perform miracles. If miracles authenticate Jesus' claims then the opposite is true and a lack of miracles should falsify his followers' claims. Ipso facto.
Think about it. The disciples truly believed that Jesus was resurrected and they were persecuted for that belief. One disciple was beheaded, three were murdered, and for what? Something that was completely false? Again, you need to reexamine your sources. The more you willingfully deny, the more you portray your fellow atheists as stubborn and close-minded when it comes to religion. I ask you, do not add on to that stereotype.
"The disciples truly believed that Jesus was resurrected and they were persecuted for that belief."
This is called "The Martyr Apologetic".
1) There is no independent proof that the original followers were persecuted. Persecutions begin way after the average lifespan of someone living at the time who would've followed Jesus.
2) All religions have their martyrs. In fact many include the deaths of their leaders including "Branch Davidian", "Jim Jones" and "Heaven's Gate".
You're point is well taken but you're forgetting an awful lot too. All three examples you have given were actually confirmed legally, to be mass suicides. The disciples' story was a completely different kind of martyrdom. They were actually killed by people outside of their group for what they believed. Comparing a mass suicide to an act of murder is not an honest comparison. It's actually quite close to being the fallacy of equivocation.
1) Branch Davidians didn't commit suicide. They were willing to go to their DEATHS protecting a reincarnated Jesus.
2) Suicide counts. It shows that the disciples were willing to die for the phony religion.
3) EVERY cult & religion has martyrs including the PBMA cult in the Phillipines where people have died for Ruben Ecleo, a cult leader who has claimed all of Jesus' miracles.
4) Apostle martyrdoms probably never happened. People didn't live that long back then.
- So you're telling me that religions are phony if their members committed mass suicides?
- Doesn't it logically follow that if these people claim to be the resurrected Jesus, there must have been some person named Jesus in the past who claimed that one day, he would return?
- If a person does not live as long as today's people do, does that necessarily mean that there could have not possibly been a point in time where he/she could tell people about his testimony from what he had seen?
1) YOU said that Christianity is truth because it's adherents died for it. This equation fails if I can show you adherents of a phony religion that died for their religion.
2) So if I claim to be a reborn Thor, Thor would therefore have to have existed?
3) It's MORE LIKELY that the apostles simply died peacefully as members of the Jerusalem Church shunning what Paul was making of the religion.
Roxxi, I believe you are greatly mistaken with the Biblical and Christian perspective of faith. I have provided biblical references for these passages and you're telling us that they do not describe faith whatsoever. This is not being biblically honest.
I accidentally posted as Roxxi. What I posted is the common Christian definition of Christian faith. Feel free to look it up just about anywhere - and I'm talking CHRISTIAN dictionaries. Faith is UNNECESSARY if you have evidence.
"Christian dictionaries??" How about actually sourcing a Christian dictionary for us, instead of blatantly asserting without presented evidence that the definition itself is found in such sources? Dictionaries say that it is defined as "belief or loyalty without proof", which is completely different from one "without evidence".
"belief...without proof" is different? That's ridiculous! That's exactly the same definition! I sourced the Christian Dictionary above: eastonsbibledictionary(.)com.
Let's say I type that there is a Unicorn in my room. You say... "Prove it." I say "I have no proof." In this case the word "proof" is exactly the same as the word "evidence" and this is how the dictionary is using it. It doesn't say "Belief with some or minimal evidence". Faith (from someone who has been through 3 years of Catholic School, 100 catechisms and 2 years of Bible College!) is belief without evidence (proof)!
That's the equivocation fallacy. Evidence does not equal proof at all.
Evidence by definition is what leads you to a conclusion, but not necessarily an absolute one. Example: You walk down an alley and you see a man lying dead and bloody, with multiple gunshots in in his body. Then you see a smoking gun beside him. Is that EVIDENCE that SOMEONE did the killing? Yes. Is it PROOF as to WHO did the killing? No. Evidence can be falsified, but proof is irrefutable. Did you not watch the video link?
I'm going to educate you ONCE on what faith is and then ignore your borderline insanity from now on!
From the time I was a small child going to catechism, Catholic School and Church until I became a young adult in Bible College going to chapel EVERY DAY.. FAITH always meant the same thing... belief without evidence and in fact with evidence to the contrary. Augustine said "Faith is to believe what you do not see.." GET IT? NO EVIDENCE!
Idiots like Christian philosopher Plantinga do their best to prove to us that belief without evidence is a good idea. This is faith. This is an idea I've been fighting for decades and I'm suddenly hit with someone who doesn't understand this, apparently has never read the basic tenets of Christian belief (like faith) and tries to carry on this insane crusade of differentiating proof from evidence which makes no sense in the context! Faith is belief without proof or evidence... same thing!
Let's look at your example: We can say that the gun can be used as evidence that someone did the killing or that it can be used as proof that someone did the killing - same, exact thing. They are synonyms in a thesaurus. Proof can be falsified. "He had PROOF that a missile hit the White House... oops, he was wrong." You HAVE to get over this! In the Catholic Encyclopedia an example of "Faith" is the "Holy Trinity". Since there is no evidence for this bizarre idea...
Faith and Trinity... "But there can be no evidence commensurate with such a mystery save the Divine testimony itself, and this constitutes the motive for our assent to the mystery, and is, in scholastic language, the objectum formale quo of our assent. If then, we are asked why we believe with Divine faith any Divine truth, the only adequate answer must be because God has revealed it."
Faith is Belief without evidence. It is simply the gullible act of believing what you're told.
Haha! I find it amusing how you continue to go off on a tangent and ramble like many of the other atheists I've with, even after I've showed you how dishonest you were in deliberately taking your own provided out of context. You have clearly proven yourself a antitheistic thinker who disregards anyone's remarks in favor of the supernatural.
You also are clearly classifying evidence as empirical only, yet you except so many truths in this universe that are not empirical. Might I suggest that you look up HumbleOrthodox's channel, even though you may still regard him as an idiot simply because he doesn't think the same way you do.
Watch his first video on the subject of evidence, and you will hopefully it's not just empirical, but also reason.
Haha! So ONE Catholic School, as opposed to some MILLION others Christian schools worldwide who differ on one point, defines the ENTIRE definition for faith. Your stance is equally valid as me testifying my going to a school which taught the opposite definition of faith.
Funny how you call me insane, yet I never deliberately called you by any degrading terms. How about debating like a MATURE individual on this? If you really are as old as your profile states, then act your age, bro.
It's funny how you finally reveal why you hate Christianity. You were forced to believe some heretical version of it when u were young. As a result of vowing not to let it control your life you do just that by closing your mind to all reasoning and evidence that supports it, to the extent u call Plantinga an idiot! Your really a sad cliche. Again, u insist on misrepresenting Christianity and then using a Christian worldview in criticizing your skewed idea of it!
you've been making lame, ignorant, and uninformed comments on this page for months. It's sad how unaware u r of how ridiculous you sound spending hours a day ranting almost incoherently against a God who according to u doesn't even exist!It really is astounding that someone who dedicates so much of his time trying to argue philosophy against Christianity, and below even history, could know so little about all three. Just more maniacal biography, prejudice, question dodging, and straw men.
a5dr3. Wow, a pile of unsupported insults? Why not? I destroyed all your arguments so what do you have left but insults and false accusations? Seriously, WHAT evidence have you provided? Anything? Anything? No. Just standard "God of the Gaps" crap.
I don't know about x.
I can answer x with Jehovah.
Jehovah must exist.
Replace Jehovah with fairies, leprechauns, Odin or Zeus and I can use the SAME argumemnt to prove they exist as well.
They're all the same thing: invisible, magic people you can stick in knowledge gaps.
"Nuh-uh" is not an argument - please provide a reason why I should put the tribal, mountain god of the ancient Hebrews above the lead god of the ancient Greek pantheon.
@lipoicacid jehovah and jove have two completely different and foreign root languages... sooo... the terms jehovah and zeus are completely unrelated mate :)
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Both were sky fathers or weather gods in the ''greek era''.Yahweh was originally a moon god of but advanced to weather and solar god much later...mate.
@lipoicacid Time period without location isn't any kind of foundation for your argument. The fact still remains that they have completely different origins "greek era" or not. When looking at the term "Yahweh" or any other variation of the tetragrammaton found in pre-israeli cultures it was a pretty pervasive name attributed to a divine source. Making the assertion that "Yahweh" in all its collective deffinitions was exclusively a "moon" god that advanced to some other standing is inaccurate.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ''Time period without location isn't any kind of foundation for your argument...''What location are interested in? ''they have completely different origins "greek era" or not'' Completely different? No.The same theology is recycled again and again.''... found in pre-israeli cultures it was a pretty pervasive name...'' Your point being???...
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ''...its collective deffinitions was exclusively a "moon" god that advanced to some other standing is inaccurate....'' Where did I assert it was exclusively a ''moon god''.Do not try to school me.You are wasting your time.What I really know I save for rofit.But if you would like to play we can go round and round if you like =/
@lipoicacid "Both were sky fathers or weather gods in the ''greek era''.Yahweh was originally a moon god of but advanced to weather and solar god much later...mate."
@lipoicacid Btw... the use of Yahweh and Jehovah as terms attributed to a "one true god" aren't even closely associated. Jehovah doesn't even come from the "greek" era. Think more along the lines of somewhere around the end of Antiquity and into the Middle ages.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ''...the use of Yahweh and Jehovah as terms attributed to a "one true god" aren't even closely associated...''The name is not what is imortant.The concept is the same.By the time of the greek era he was a ''sky'' god.This is attested by coins and synagogue illustrations.The Egyptians had a ''one true god'' long before the ''Jews''....
@lipoicacid Lol, if the name isn't important than why did you assert that Jove and Jehova where in any way philologicaly related? You made the assertion and now your claiming that that assertion doesn't matter? What?
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ''...Jove and Jehova where in any way philologicaly related?'' I believe I said Jove is Jehovah.Did I refer to philology?There are quite a few strawmen here.It seems you have a bit of knowledge and are eager to display it by manufacturing your own targets...
@lipoicacid Well I apologize if that assumption wasn't well based. It did however seem to me that you were asserting that the terms jove and jehova were some how related by alike implementation within a time period. In a way isn't that exactly referring to the historic progression of language?
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 The fact is that Israelite and Jewish priesthoods changed and amended thier god for every occasion and necessity.This includes indentifying it with Jove.
Haha! Look again at the definition that Easton's provided for the term. There it is posted at in the very first paragraph: "It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the EVIDENCE on which it rests."
Even Easton's defines faith as a loyalty based on EVIDENCE of performance. "Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust."
pioer- If you want to debate these things then toss me a message, but this youtube commenting is getting to be a little ridiculous. The 500 hundred letter limit is not too user friendly when discussing philosophical issues. We are not dealing with yes or no questions.
Thats not what "begging the question" means. I did not know that the debate couldn't be concluded. Had we switched to email then it can very well be concluded.
When I typed 'beg the question' I didn't refer to the logical fallacy with that name. What I meant was that I wondered why you kept on debating with me when I had already told you I wouldn't switch to email. Now it kinda feels like I've wasted my time here.
I didn't know you wouldn't want to switch to email. I'm not sure why you would rather sit here and have an attempted debate with 500 letter limits in each response, but whatever.
Like I said: scroll down a bit and you'll see that already a week ago I explained to you that I don't debate by mail, and why. Since you continued the debate after that, I presumed you were OK with that, and willing to keep debating here. But nevermind.
"Oh, so God DOES have the right to exterminate a people just for being a people?"
The Nazis exterminated a people just for being a people and no other reason. God does not chose persons and has a morally sufficient reason for all that He does.
"So what if the Nazis claim that God ordered them to exterminate the Jews..."
Saying something is so doesn't make it so. We now have the finished Word of God to distinguish truth from error.
"God does not chose persons and has a morally sufficient reason for all that He does."
So in fact your morality is based on the fact that you believe that whatever God does is good?
"Saying something is so doesn't make it so."
Exactly. So why don't you apply this to God? If He says he killed babies because the world was wicked, you take it for granted. Why exclude God from this statement?
On the other hand: how can you be sure that God DID't tell the Nazis to do what they did?
"We now have the finished Word of God to distinguish truth from error."
So, since Paul Hill's actions were inspired by the finished Word of God, they were good? He DID expect "a great reward in heaven", and he probably wouldn't have expected it if he thought he was in error.
If the universe only consists of matter in motion then why do atheists insists on arguing? If our brains are nothing but electro-chemical occurrences, subject to the laws of physics and chemistry then we have no ability to make choices. Just as weeds grow, the mind does what it does. Why do atheists argue as if they had the choice to be an atheist and affirm truth?
That's sort of true but your conclusion is wrong. Let's say a child steals a cookie and you do nothing. Chances are this will become a standard behavior pattern in the child. If however you punish him, you are entering new variables into his brain with the hope that he will change his thought pattern. Similarly atheists hope that by entering the variable of reasoned argument into the heads of Christians, a Christian may change his thought pattern and understand that his religion is an old hoax.
This kind of comment is really useless to the discourse. There are clear reasons why both atheists and theists need to debate these issues. Religions are the biggest threat to the survival of our species at the moment. To not talk about these issues is suicide.
". Religions are the biggest threat to the survival of our species at the moment."
Bahnsen doesn't defend religions; he defends Christianity. But even given your statement, is it really true? In the news I hear more about natural disasters, food crisis, lack of natural resources, and disease being an overall threat to survival.
Not to mention that the largest mass murders that have ever been committed have been done by secular regimes. (Russia, China, Germany, etc).
If you accept it for 1 you accept it for all. He says hes only defending christianity but he also says his god hasnt been refuted. IF he wants to say that then the onus is on him to also refute all the other gods. Thankfully science doesnt work this way and the onus is on the person making a claim to back it up, not for the people to refute it.
Also your bigoted final comment isnt based on atheism. The important word is "regime" and these regimes had religion as a core part of them
Nazi Germany was definitely not a secular regime. There was massive support for Hitler from the Roman Catholic Church, and Hitler endorsed the church. There was also a lot of support for Hitler from other european countries, even like England, because Christians had hated and had been persecuting Jews for centuries. Nazis had their own 25 points (like a constitution) where the 24th one was that they stood for a positive Christianity.
Ohhhh - Bahnsen is simply making a hyper-idiotic god of the gaps argument! It's better to make up a fairy tale to explain something than to say "I don't know." An atheist can't explain consciousness to your satisfaction? I guess it's better to say "Jangar the Eel god sneezed it into existence" than to say "I don't know."
Bahnsen shows that Smiths atheism refutes itself. Whats your explanation for the inductive principal, absolute standards of ethics, universal laws of logic, and free agency? u hate the fact that God is the necessary precondition for theintelligibility of human experience, so you would rather appeal to mysticism -nobody knows for sure but you know that Christians r wrong. What epistemology do u stand on when u challenge the Christian worldview,anyway? How do u know what u know?
Wow - so much ground to cover and it's all easily answered! Ethics is simply an evolutionary advancement for all pack/herd/hive animals allowing them to live and work in social structures. A non-cooperative herd will be outcompeted every time by a cooperative herd. Logic is the ability to identify and understand patterns. All higher animals have this ability at some level and we have it at the highest level. Pattern identification is necessary for survival and beating competitors.
Superstition is a failure at pattern recognition. People think that sacrificing a goat will bring the rain or dancing a certain way will impregnate women. Religion is when conartists/kings take superstition and turn it into money and power. One person will have a special revelation and off goes the religion! Often religions will include fables that will explain mysteries to the adherents like why snakes have no legs or women have pain in childbirth.
Christianity, specifically, is one of 10,000 religions no more or less special than the worship of Odin or Baal. It is scientifically inaccurate, historically mistaken, filled with contradictions, absurd mythology, terrible philosophy, atrocious law, failed prophecy, a bronze age view of the earth and a childish, jealous, brutal god who approved of massacres, slavery and the stoning of heretics.
Then why did the Christian apologists successfully the inferior concepts of gods such as Jupiter, Artemis, etc? You can't put them all on equal footing.
You want to limit proof to physical evidence. Yet, geometric proofs are something that is not physical. Are you prepared to give up geometry? Ideas about God are not equal. Logically God cannot be good and evil at the same time, yet some religions believe this. They are inferior. The early Christian apologists dealt with Zeus. Read them.
The "early Christian apologists" were idiots. Jehovah was one of the few gods that WAS both good and evil check Isaiah 45:7. It wasn't until the Jews began picking up the religion of the Zoroastrians that they changed Satan from an accusing angel into an evil supervillain. BTW: What the HELL are geometric proofs?
Waiting for you to say something meaningful. To say they were "idiots" is to make a value judgement. You are assuming an absolute authority. Be consistent. An inherently good God can determine light and dark, blessing for righteousness and punishment for sin. There is no contradiction in Isaiah.
Isaiah 45:8,9 doesn't help - verse 7 STILL says Jehovah does evil - so do MANY other verses. Ex 32:12-14,Job 2:10, Jos 23:25, Jud 9:23, 1Sa 16:14-15,23,18:10,19:9, 2 Sa 12:11, 17:14, 1 Ki 9:9, 14:10,21:21,21:9,22:23,2 Ki 21:12, 22:16,20, 1 Ch 21:15, 2 Ch 7:22. I like Ex 32:14 - after Moses talks Jehovah out of killing Israel (yet again) this god repents of the "EVIL" he was about to do. This isn't ridiculous to you?
Sure it does. You just don't want it to. Isaiah 45:8,9 gives the context of what the Hebrew word "ra'" which does not always mean moral evil. It is an unfavorable event or "calamity" in this case. Words do not carry inherent meaning.
I have a BETTER idea - YOU define evil. Imagine that an evil god has the throne of heaven - what could this evil god do that Jehovah would not do? Kill children, kill the innocent? Promote genocidal massacres? Authorize slavery? Command family members to murder heretics within their family? I honestly cannot conceive of a more evil god than Jehovah of the Hebrews.
By any definition of morality, Jehovah is a vile, contemptible, murderous monster and I gave you several examples proving his evil. All any Christian says is basically "might makes right". Whatever is in power can massacre people by the 10,000s and still not be called evil. If Satan had the throne of heaven you would worship him just as willingly!
You haven't even started to prove it because you haven't defined evil. I'm waiting for you to start your proof. Proof is not accomplished by painting a picture. It is done by definitions and syllogisms. Maybe you better go back to grade school and take geometry.
You began by saying that a god cannot be both good and evil. I showed you scriptures where Jehovah commits evil and promises to commit evil. You decide to redefine the word "evil" as written in the English Bible. Now you're saying that a god's actions can never be called evil - atrocities, slavery, infanticide, lies - all good if committed by a god. This means that none of the pagan gods are evil either making your original point moot.
In other words - your first point is that other religions believe that a god can be both good and evil making those religions inferior. You believe that nothing a god does can be interpreted as evil. Obviously you and the pagans have different definitions for evil. The pagan could say that a god could both
notice all the atheists on this page can do is to misquote the bible and try to deceive the reader into thinking history to be false. They cannot deny that Dr Bahnsen's logic is impenetrable so they use cheap tactics like such
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
@unprofessionalvids
Well said, if brief.
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@unprofessionalvids Notice how you just stereotyped every single atheist on here, whether or not they did these things.
frightenedsoul 8 months ago
Please do NOT flag opposing views as 'spam'.
templarsworld 1 year ago
i think greg is onto something here... i'll twist it a bit.. god is an idea, he believes this idea to be true... i don't. there - fixed it for him.
lukeism2 1 year ago
05:01 repent, for the kingdom of god is at hand'' LOL WTF!? this guy is trying to send us messages xD ( look at 05:01 ) hidedn message
JollSSteR 1 year ago
''Atheists know God but subconsciously'' Which god do we know?
Allah? Yahweh? the Spaghetti Monster? Thor? WHOOO!?
JollSSteR 1 year ago
Basically, Greg Bahnsen goes on for four minutes while making completely unconnected statements, and George Smith's cognitive capacities (of memory) give out trying to keep track of it, and he loses focus.
Dr. Smith should have kept his reply brief: "Why have you suddenly changed the subject to the consistency of my morality? I can't keep track; should we forget about those first three minutes?" or "In answer to your 'God & only God accounts for your reason,' I reply: 'Why do you think that?'."
H0R5H0E 2 years ago
Yeah it's just the same, well atheist might think this but they can't explain why they can think this..
medallish 2 years ago
yah yah. no one can change your presupposition. well at least mines doesn't have the idea that all of those who do not follow my standpoint will go to hell. no matter how we try to explain the unexplainable by means of making blind assumptions we can never relinquish the fact that the presence of God is suffocating especially if it is derived by finite beings.
sawsin69 2 years ago
Now Bahnsen is imposing his belief into his accusation that God is not happy with George because George does not believe in a God. Still Bahnsen has given no evidence that a God exists. He might as well say the Pink Unicorn is not happy with George. Religion is a house of cards with god(s) at its foundation. You can attribute lots of things to god, but without any evidence of gods the house falls down. Realizing there are natural explanations makes belief in gods superfluous and awkward.
dkw12002 2 years ago
agree... i think god wouldnt be happy with bahnsen wither by so judgemental in george's outlook
sawsin69 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i agree... i think God wouldn't also be happy with bahnsen being judgmental on george's outlook...
sawsin69 2 years ago
our worldview is based on evidence... logically and scientifically.. and to us life isnt meaningless.. life is meaningless when you think that there is a life after death..
sawsin69 2 years ago
Why isn't life meaningless?.And why is it meaningless if there is life after death?
Presup1973 2 years ago
by assuming to the idea itself is pointless... we can point out a lot of evidences... meaningful in art maybe as it is portrayed in the bible... how can life be so meaningful if its will become infinite...
sawsin69 2 years ago
how can one give meaning to an infinite life given the fact we are limited beings. do we really layed down the limits of being perfect? or it just satisfies our cravings.
sawsin69 2 years ago
You are either a very poor thinker or very young. The argument is that "evidence," "logic" and "science" r impossible without a Christian epistemology. A transcendental argument is an argument that proves itself from the impossibility of the contrary. We ask ourselves what are the epistemological preconditions necessary to have human experience as we know it. Stop arguing and read a basic philosophy textbook. -The universe began from nothing and is headed into nothing yet is meaningful between?
a5dr3 2 years ago
i wouldn't say that its originally christian. so morality manifests only in God.does god ,as an answer, stops us to make questions? and by ridiculing a metaphorical statement that i gave made you a wonderful christian my friend.
sawsin69 2 years ago
the logical outworkings of the atheistic worldview is suicide...to remain living to suffer seriously in this meaningless world is utter delusional to me. No, atheists do believe life is meaningful which they believe they play a significant part. How else can you explain their existence. Loved to hear your response without posting value or meaning to our existence,,,cause that's my worldview not yours remember
mtnspire 2 years ago
so atheists will go to hell?
sawsin69 2 years ago
submission to God? icant lie to myself bahnsen.. what a close-minded argument
sawsin69 2 years ago
Greg Bahnsen is no fool!
8675965 3 years ago
Is it just me or has Greg still not defined God?
AnnRKey 3 years ago 2
i think most ppl who even listen to Bahnsen come IN with 2 conclusions, God does exist, or doesn't. I think the main thing is, if you are truly seeking the truth of God's existence or not, is to seek your true self, who you really are, why you really do what you do, then to ask God, whether you believe Him or not, to reveal Himself. Try it, what you got to lose? But if you come IN to the conversation with your answer already... what are you seeking?
andeee77 3 years ago
Bahnsen is remarkably generous in this segment, while also radically challenging Smith's world-view.
Cool.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago 2
By the way, anyone who thinks Hitler was an atheist or the Nazi regime was atheist, is absolutely deluded. Hitler said this
Once appointed to the Chancellorship of Germany, Adolf Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an "anti-godless" movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: "We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
Thank you, Wikipedia.
jp2007ms 3 years ago
Hitler hated the mainframe of Christianity. He repeatedly asserted this again and again, yet claimed that he believed in God. He redefined Christianity based on what he desired it to be, namely Lenin's view of racial superiority. This is completely contrast to Christianity. In accordance with this and other documented evidence, it is safe to conclude that Hitler was neither atheist nor Christian, but either a pagan or cult leader.
BassP86 3 years ago
Almost all the problems in the world today are of a religious nature - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the India-Pakistan conflict, the War on terror etc.
jp2007ms 3 years ago
The communist regimes of Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin killed millions of people, but they didn't kill in the name of atheism, unlike theocracies who kill in the name of religion. Communism was an economic and social revolution, it was the masses protesting against the bourgeious. And when one party has all that power, they will do all they can to keep it in place. If you want to look at secular societies, look at the Scandinavian countries and see how they're doing.
jp2007ms 3 years ago
Stalin himself said that he had the goal of erasing any idea of God from the minds of his people. He then tried to make himself head of the church, meaning he killed his people not just because he thought people were constantly turning against him, but also they were religious. What you claim is a double standard, JP.
BassP86 3 years ago
No it is NOT a double standard as atheism is nothing like a religion. People define themselves by what they believe - not by what they DON'T believe. Stalin was a Marxist... not a NonRepublican. Hitler was a Nazi.. not a NonCommunist. Hitler hated and oppressed communists but this doesn't define a "worldview" for anti-communists since anti-communism like a-theism is NOT a worldview.
templarart 3 years ago
That assumes that atheist does not assert a "BELIEF that God does not exist", yet there are many atheists, though not the majority, who DO claim the absolute negative. Hence why BOTH definitions for atheism are given in most dictionaries. So you're incorrect templarat, for classifying all atheists under the category to which you have just affirmed.
BassP86 3 years ago
So are you now saying that an atheist is like an anti-communist, being AGAINST the existence of God? If so, then you are in clear contradiction with yourself.
Templarat, whether you like it or not, it IS a double standard. There are atheists who believe that God does NOT exist, so saying that no person can kill in the name of atheism IS a hypocritical position on your part.
BassP86 3 years ago
1) There ARE NO GODS! I have no trouble asserting that.
2) Atheism is NOT a philosophy, worldview or belief - it is an opinion on religion in the same way that anti-communism is an opinion on communism.
You can say that Hitler slaughtered communists in the name of Nazism but NOT anti-communism. If you say his anti-communism lead him to slaughter communists then you are incorrectly calling a disbelief a belief and creating a worldview that doesn't exist. You group by belief NOT disbelief.
templarart 3 years ago
Communism is a belief. Communism has a whole set of tenets, philosophies, ideas etc. anti-communism has no tenets, no philosophies, no ideas. This is because anti-communism like a-theism is not a worldview or belief system, it only tells you that person's opinion on a specific subject. An anti-communist could be nazi or taoist or catholic or hindu or whatever. An atheist could be communist or free-thinker or buddhist or nazi or objectivist or whatever. You group by belief not disbelief.
templarart 3 years ago
Ah, you dodged my question. 1st, I didn't ask you if you had any trouble asserting if "There are no gods", and you know that very well. 2nd, when a person says that "There are no gods", he/she is making a positive EPISTEMOLOGICAL argument on the existence of that something, not an opinion. You ought to know that. Therefore atheists who believe that God does not exist can kill in the name of atheism just like a religious person killing in the name of that specific religion. My point stands, temp.
BassP86 3 years ago
I just can't let this one go... I've explained this numerous times with copious examples and many analogies. Saying that atheism is a belief is like saying that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. Stating that there are no gods no more creates a belief system than stating that "communism doesn't work" creates a belief system. It is your opinion on an existing belief, not a belief itself. Stalin no more killed in the name of a-theism then Hitler killed in the name of a-communism.
templarart 3 years ago
If there is no god, there is no way anything can be wrong. Atheism IS a belief. If God didn't give you rights, you don't have them, and they become privelages the state can take away from you. If Atheism is right, nothing can be wrong. Man exists, but if he is god, what can he do wrong? What case could you make against murder, theft, or anything else? Atheism is a belief. Man has to believe something, and the slogan of Atheistic society, the society we live in now is this: "Believe in yourself."
TheMasterElite 3 years ago
1) Atheism is no more a belief than NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. This is a basic mistake for Christians that see the world as religious AND THOSE OTHER GUYS! Being an atheist is like being an anti-communist - it says what you think about communism but nothing about your own beliefs. You could be a nazi or an objectivist or whatever... claiming that anti-communism is a belief would be the domain of an extremist communist who only sees the world as COMMUNISTS AND THOSE OTHER GUYS!
templarart 3 years ago 2
2) NO god gave us any rights. Especially the Christian God which denies us ALL our rights. "Rights" are what we as citizens demand from our govt in return for supporting that govt. If the govt tries to take our rights, atheists don't just give them up because they didn't come from a sky ghost we fight for them just as much as any Christian. The Bill of Rights is basically a contract we made with those who govern us and WHERE the rights come from is thoroughly irrelevent.
templarart 3 years ago
3) Morality is an evolved trait that allows all social animals to fit into their various social systems. Morality is very basic among all animals - "Don't harm the lives or property of your fellow group members." What would happen if hyenas or wolves "did whatever they wanted?" They wouldn't be able to cooperate and the group and species would die off.
Question: The Egyptians had a law of morality. Did Jehovah give it to them, did they get it from another god or did they make it themselves?
templarart 3 years ago
@templarart not even going to address the existence of God, but lets do some simple evolution math.
smallest quantified unit of time = length of time needed for a ray of light, traveling at the speed of light, to cross the smallest distance on the molecular level
It is theorized that the universe is only 20 billion years old. This is deduced by measuring the rate of the universe's expansion and calculating backwards to the big bang
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@templarart the complexity of a single gene is determined by evolutionary theory to be the result of mutation.
Lets set aside the hugely complex requirements needed to bring about the existence of the first strand of DNA, just looking at the rate of mutation only...
There aren't enough "plank times" (smallest units of time) in the 20 billion years of existence to bring about the mutations required for a simple earth worm, at a rate of one mutation per plank time.
Mathamatically impossible.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
"There aren't enough plank times..."
All of that information is interesting but meaningless. It just shows how unlikely DNA and even the single cell are - but... so what? None of Earth's gods are real and no other higher power is communicating with us so even if something, somewhere was responsible - it's not communicating and not answering prayer so it's basically no different than a natural event. It only matters if an actual, interactive god exists and none do.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld Lol meaningless? So what? Saying that none of the information I gave you is important, and then following it up with the statement you gave is just as much an "irrational leap of faith" as any person could ever make.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@Hatemonger You're so immersed in 'Christianity or Big Bang' that you simply can't see the obvious. Not having all the answers to a question no more proves an ancient Hebrew tribal god than it proves Odin, Zeus, Ancient Aliens, Intelligent Mathematics, magic, psychics or Multi-dimensional insects. For example:
"I believe in Leprechauns."
"I'm sorry, I don't."
"Do you realize how improbable Quantum particles are?"
"Uh... yes."
"See - Leprechauns exist!"
This is a ridiculous line of reasoning.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld Lol... so in summation... you can't refute what I'm saying about how evolutionary theory is completely implausible when matched up with any kind of cosmology that isn't as ridiculous as the "6 days then rest" theory. Sooo... you insert a random unrelated "example" of reasoning to somehow try and make sense of it...
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@templarsworld Btw, kudos on your immersion into the idea that because I'm critical of a botched theory that has essentially become a religious sect of Scientism that I'm one of those silly evangelical "Christianity or Big Bang" guys. Now we get to see if you can be intellectually honest and say "hmmm, if evolution is entirely improbable then maybe there's some other theory we can use as evidence that God doesn't exist."
Btw wasn't trying to prove a God, just that evolutionary theory is flawed
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "hmmm, if evolution is entirely improbable then maybe there's some other theory we can use as evidence that God doesn't exist."
No, no, no, no... let's go back to the Leprechaun guy and try to understand that this is EXACTLY what you're saying.
"Your religion of thinking-ism cast out Leprechauns because you believe in Condensed Matter Physics - well let me point out..."
"Does it matter? Even if Condensed Matter Physics is wrong, I'm still not believing in Leprechauns."
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld You see there is NO reason to believe in Jehovah or any of earth's other gods and in fact there are a LOT of very good reasons to believe that these are nothing but fairy tales. If there is something else out there... so what? It doesn't interact with us, doesn't answer prayer, doesn't care about our lives... it would be no different from a natural event. Chasing errors in evolution is therefore pointless.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld Lol, dude... I'm not trying to prove gods existence which would be just as impossible to prove that he doesn't beyond the shadow of a doubt... I'm just showing how evolutionary theory doesn't make sense, and therefore needs to be re-evaluated. Your erecting a straw-man here friend.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "I'm just showing how evolutionary theory doesn't make sense"
Let's say that I too don't whole-heartedly believe in evolution the way it is currently presented. So what?! I'm still an atheist. I still would never believe in the silly fictions of Jehovah or Zeus or Brahma or Ra. So what do we do now? Neither of us is a biologist so our opinions are moot. My question is 'What's next'? Wait for an advancement in science, believe a pile of fairy tales or what?
RoxxiRaven 1 year ago
Comment removed
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 RoxxiRaven is my wife's account. I didn't notice that my computer was logged into her account. Sorry.
templarsworld 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@templarsworld Well I'm happy to hear that you don't whole-heartedly believe in evolutionary theory, this is very honest of you. And as for what we do now? We can either try and account for what we believe in or we can not. Understanding that the subject of god can neither be proven or disproven is the starting point. Knowing that its is a faith based issue as to whether we subscribe to the belief or other wise is the end point. If you are happy with your faith in the non-existence than kudos.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
"Understanding that the subject of god can neither be proven or disproven"
First, you need to define the term 'god'. When used as a proper name - like 'I believe in God', 'god' is Jehovah of the Hebrews and Christians. This is a god that has been named 'God' by its adherents. This god can easily be disproven beyond reasonable doubt. Since nothing can be disproven 'beyond all doubt' , we never use this standard anywhere.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
"god can neither be proven or disproven" cont
The noun 'god' is defined as a powerful, supernatural, worshiped being like Thor, Zeus, Marduk. Let's be honest - none of us believe in any of these gods... not because we've proven that they don't exist beyond all doubt. No, we don't believe in them because there is no reason to believe in them. It is irrational to believe in anything for which there is no evidence - Zeus, Batman, Dowsing Rods, Pet Psychics or Jehovah.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld Lol, it truly is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence... But on that note, we must define what evidence is. Is it something that is seen, or touched or tasted? Or is it something that we arrive upon by a process of thought? In the broadest sense we can define evidence as anything that works to help establish the truth of an assertion. Evidence must be associated within the standards in which the assertion exists.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129
"what evidence?"
The rules of evidence are well established in our legal system and in scientific thought. Feelings certainly don't mean anything and anecdotes are treated with extreme suspicion - especially in cases of highly unusual events where anecdotes are discounted entirely.
Here is the standard you should use:
"What evidence would I accept from another religion? Evidence that would convince me that that religion is true and I should convert."
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld friend, I'm not asking you what "evidence" is, I'm asking you to add some support to your assertions... What you say here doesn't do it. So please, support your argument.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@templarsworld I.e. We will not use the fact that a man has gray hair as evidence that he committed murder, only that he may be old. Evidence in all things is not a matter of fact. It is a variable that is useful in establishing the things that we assume to be true. Everything can be said to be a faith based issue. We assume that the event or identity exists. This is impossible to escape due to the fact that we as humans are restricted to our local. We are limited in our observations.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@templarsworld For example. Everyday of your life you sit in a chair and every day it has held your weight. By virtue of this you assume that the next time you sit in this chair it will hold your weight. This is reasonable, but it does not completely mean it will. Your assumption is "faith" in the fact that the chair is strong enough.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "Chair analogy"
You're confusing 'confidence' with 'faith'. Faith is the belief in insubstantiated ideas or dogma regardless of lack of evidence or even with evidence to the contrary. Confidence is a rational assumption in the behavior of known forces. You have confidence that your keys will start your car. You have faith that your car will fly into the sky . Confidence is created by experience, faith is not. Faith is simply believing what you're told without question.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?"
-- Charles Darwin
Faith by its broadest definition is "a strong belief" and can be applied to almost anything in a wide range of contexts.
For example: If your friend says that he will pick you up at ten o'clock it would be perfectly reasonable for you to say "I have faith he'll be here"
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "Faith by its broadest definition..." Is never what a Christian means by faith. When a Christian or Muslim uses the term faith - he means belief without evidence or as Augustine says "Faith is to believe what you do not see..." Belief with evidence requires no faith - as Christians use the term.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "...falsifying Jehovah"
The Bible can be falsified in a variety of ways: It is historically inaccurate, scientifically mistaken, contains failed prophecies, massive contradictions, terrible philosophy, horrible laws and an evil, childish god capable of apparently unlimited brutality. The Bible has a primitive view of the universe with nothing inside that could not have been said by an iron-age shepherd.
templarsworld 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@templarsworld You have no idea what you speak of
snaredstix 1 year ago
@templarsworld The Bible cannot be falsified in any valid way that build on a solid foundation. It is accurate. All human science is based on the presupposition that God exists, denying that does not change anything. None of the real prophecies in the Bible has failed to date. It explains universal morality that does not contradict itself. It does NOT contain contradictions unless you willingly misinterpret it. The Bible is the word of God and is therefore true.
Zupernova91 1 year ago
@Zupernova91 It's impossible to falsify a religion to a believer aince the believer simply makes up an absurd rationalization for every problem encountered. "In this passage Alric is killed in a plane while in this passage hei's killed in a bathtub." "He was taking a bath in a plane." I should've written, "an impartial observer would accept that the Bible is falsified in the following ways:"
You've made 6 assertions which I believe are false. Which 1 do you want to begin with?
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld "You've made 6 assertions which I believe are false."
You believing them to be false doesn't disprove them. Or are you perhaps saying that your belief is truth? If that's the case then there are as many truths in the world as there are people, which is obviously absurd. In fact you cannot prove or disprove anything as long as you use the atheistic world-view. Absolute truth exists.
Zupernova91 1 year ago
@Zupernova91 Okay, let's start here: NT, Nativity - Luke's genealogy contradicts Matthew's genealogy and NO, it's NOT Mary's lineage. Matthew has Jesus born during King Herod's reign whereas Luke has Jesus born during the Quirinius census which occurs at least 8 years after Herod's death. Matthew says they fled from Bethlehem to Egypt. Luke writes nothing of Herod or infant slaughter but instead writes that they went directly from Bethlehem to Jerusalem LK 2:22. Rationalize away.....
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld I have neither the time nor the patience to explain every claimed contradiction. Instead, I'll refer to someone who DID take their time to do just that:
philvaz(dot)com/apologetics/bible(dot)htm
Zupernova91 1 year ago
@Zupernova91 Just go back to my Alaric example and you can write all the apologetics yourself: "He was taking a bath in a plane."
Re: Egypt. "It doesn't say he didn't go to Egypt."
Yes it implicitly does. There's no mention of an infant massacre or an angry king, just a census that occurs at least 8 years after the death of Herod. Jesus is cicumcised in Bethlehem and they go to Jerusalem after the purification period is over. Only a Christian can't see this as a contradiction.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@Zupernova91 The excuse for the Mary lineage is all bald-faced assumption, assertion and guess work without even the slightest shred of evidence anywhere:
If it WAS Mary's lineage it would SAY it was Mary's lineage.
Lineage is NEVER through the mother.
The word between Joseph and Heli is the same as the word between David and Nathan.
Luke mentions Joseph's Davidic lineage twice 1:27, 2:24 while Mary's lineage is unmentioned BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Only a Christian would accept this excuse.
templarsworld 1 year ago
I couldn't find the contradiction of having Jesus born BOTH during Herod's reign and the Quirinius census but I know the excuses and they're pretty silly ranging from a fictitious earlier census to assertions that Quirinius sort of ruled in a similar place with a similar 'accounting'. Standard silly excuses that only a Christian would accept. A GREAT couple videos dispelling all the Quirinius excuses are "Quirinius where art thou 1& 2" by Prof MTH found here: watch?v=CmRd6OKwcR4
templarsworld 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ..."improved theory, is it then a science or faith?"
-- Charles Darwin"
Commonly attributed to Charles Darwin but was actually written by L.H Matthews in his introduction to "Origin of the Species" 1872.
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld So yes, let us be completely honest. When working within this realm of thought and experience, submit your evidence. Support your assertion that "we don't believe in them because there is no reason to believe in them"... Inform me about the evidence you use to support your claim that "this god can easily be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt."
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "...basically asking for a book."
1) You don't believe in fairies. Other than "There is no reason to believe in fairies" why wouldn't you believe in fairies?
2) Jehovah only exists as a character in a pile of Fairy Tales called The Bible. This being exists nowhere else and attempting to seperate it from the Bible is as silly as saying "Star Wars" is fiction but "Darth Vader" now he's real.
(Disputing Jehovah cont)
templarsworld 1 year ago
Bahnsen's argument is clearly flawed. Faith is irrational.
dunderdolt 3 years ago
Why is Bahnsen's argument flawed?
Victoruto 3 years ago
It takes faith (in the atheist's context for the term) to say that "faith is irrational", because that statement is based on personal opinion, not on objective fact. Therefore if atheists objectively define faith as "belief without evidence" but subjectively argue that it is therefore irrational, they argue a self-defeating position. Care to disagree? Try me.
BassP86 3 years ago
I fully disagree. Faith is gullibly believing important information without evidence and in fact with evidence to the contrary. Nothing REAL requires faith, only conmen, frauds, hoaxes need the "faith" (gullibility) of their adherents. In fact those wanting faith operate like conmen in EVERY way. The religion/con is hurt that it's not automatically trusted then promises horrible, nonconfirmable punishments on those that do not trust it without evidence. If it wants faith - it's a fraud.
templarart 3 years ago
Notice that in the beginning of my comment, I GRANTED the common definition you and other atheists use, not the definition that Christians use. If faith is gullibly believing something without evidence, with evidence to the contrary, then logically my point that it takes faith to claim that "faith is irrational" stands. That statement is gullibly believed without sufficient evidence yet has evidence to its negation. Do you honestly not see the self-defeating nature of your definition/statement?
BassP86 3 years ago
It takes no "faith" to make my claim - just logic and evidence. Logically, nothing real needs faith. Nothing that isn't a con or a hoax recoils at being asked for proof. Evidence: The only users of "faith" are conmen like mediums, Jim Jones, JZ KNight, Rev Moon. They make plays for faith whereas no one speaking the truth EVER asks for faith. Has any scientist at any time demanded that you believe an assertion with zero evidence and then been hurt if you didn't? No. Scientists are not conmen.
templarart 3 years ago
"just logic and evidence." - Ah congratulations, you have now actually posited partial support of TRUE definition for faith, rather than the common atheist definition "belief w/out evidence". Even the Bible itself in 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." Jesus Himself even said to believe in Him based on the evidence of His miracles.
BassP86 3 years ago
Under no circumstance does faith have ANYTHING to do with "facts and evidence". Faith is belief without facts or evidence and in fact with evidence to the contrary. This may not be a Biblical view but it is certainly a Christian view! How many times do we hear that the reason there are no miracles or appearances by Jehovah is because - then we wouldn't need faith. Check eastonsbibledictionary(.)com faith is an "act of the will" based on "divine testimony". No facts or evidence involved.
RoxxiRaven 3 years ago
The mythologized Jesus authenticates himself with fictional miracles in the same way that every other mythological or mythologized hero does. (Example: Gautama Buddha walked on water by levitating over a stream in order to convert a brahman to Buddhism) Why do we not see these miracles today? Jesus said his followers would be able to perform miracles. If miracles authenticate Jesus' claims then the opposite is true and a lack of miracles should falsify his followers' claims. Ipso facto.
templarart 3 years ago
Think about it. The disciples truly believed that Jesus was resurrected and they were persecuted for that belief. One disciple was beheaded, three were murdered, and for what? Something that was completely false? Again, you need to reexamine your sources. The more you willingfully deny, the more you portray your fellow atheists as stubborn and close-minded when it comes to religion. I ask you, do not add on to that stereotype.
BassP86 3 years ago
"The disciples truly believed that Jesus was resurrected and they were persecuted for that belief."
This is called "The Martyr Apologetic".
1) There is no independent proof that the original followers were persecuted. Persecutions begin way after the average lifespan of someone living at the time who would've followed Jesus.
2) All religions have their martyrs. In fact many include the deaths of their leaders including "Branch Davidian", "Jim Jones" and "Heaven's Gate".
templarart 3 years ago
You're point is well taken but you're forgetting an awful lot too. All three examples you have given were actually confirmed legally, to be mass suicides. The disciples' story was a completely different kind of martyrdom. They were actually killed by people outside of their group for what they believed. Comparing a mass suicide to an act of murder is not an honest comparison. It's actually quite close to being the fallacy of equivocation.
BassP86 3 years ago
1) Branch Davidians didn't commit suicide. They were willing to go to their DEATHS protecting a reincarnated Jesus.
2) Suicide counts. It shows that the disciples were willing to die for the phony religion.
3) EVERY cult & religion has martyrs including the PBMA cult in the Phillipines where people have died for Ruben Ecleo, a cult leader who has claimed all of Jesus' miracles.
4) Apostle martyrdoms probably never happened. People didn't live that long back then.
templarart 3 years ago
- So you're telling me that religions are phony if their members committed mass suicides?
- Doesn't it logically follow that if these people claim to be the resurrected Jesus, there must have been some person named Jesus in the past who claimed that one day, he would return?
- If a person does not live as long as today's people do, does that necessarily mean that there could have not possibly been a point in time where he/she could tell people about his testimony from what he had seen?
BassP86 3 years ago
1) YOU said that Christianity is truth because it's adherents died for it. This equation fails if I can show you adherents of a phony religion that died for their religion.
2) So if I claim to be a reborn Thor, Thor would therefore have to have existed?
3) It's MORE LIKELY that the apostles simply died peacefully as members of the Jerusalem Church shunning what Paul was making of the religion.
templarart 3 years ago
Roxxi, I believe you are greatly mistaken with the Biblical and Christian perspective of faith. I have provided biblical references for these passages and you're telling us that they do not describe faith whatsoever. This is not being biblically honest.
BassP86 3 years ago
I accidentally posted as Roxxi. What I posted is the common Christian definition of Christian faith. Feel free to look it up just about anywhere - and I'm talking CHRISTIAN dictionaries. Faith is UNNECESSARY if you have evidence.
templarart 3 years ago
"Christian dictionaries??" How about actually sourcing a Christian dictionary for us, instead of blatantly asserting without presented evidence that the definition itself is found in such sources? Dictionaries say that it is defined as "belief or loyalty without proof", which is completely different from one "without evidence".
BassP86 3 years ago
"belief...without proof" is different? That's ridiculous! That's exactly the same definition! I sourced the Christian Dictionary above: eastonsbibledictionary(.)com.
templarart 3 years ago
Let's say I type that there is a Unicorn in my room. You say... "Prove it." I say "I have no proof." In this case the word "proof" is exactly the same as the word "evidence" and this is how the dictionary is using it. It doesn't say "Belief with some or minimal evidence". Faith (from someone who has been through 3 years of Catholic School, 100 catechisms and 2 years of Bible College!) is belief without evidence (proof)!
templarart 3 years ago
That's the equivocation fallacy. Evidence does not equal proof at all.
Evidence by definition is what leads you to a conclusion, but not necessarily an absolute one. Example: You walk down an alley and you see a man lying dead and bloody, with multiple gunshots in in his body. Then you see a smoking gun beside him. Is that EVIDENCE that SOMEONE did the killing? Yes. Is it PROOF as to WHO did the killing? No. Evidence can be falsified, but proof is irrefutable. Did you not watch the video link?
BassP86 3 years ago
I'm going to educate you ONCE on what faith is and then ignore your borderline insanity from now on!
From the time I was a small child going to catechism, Catholic School and Church until I became a young adult in Bible College going to chapel EVERY DAY.. FAITH always meant the same thing... belief without evidence and in fact with evidence to the contrary. Augustine said "Faith is to believe what you do not see.." GET IT? NO EVIDENCE!
templarart 3 years ago
Idiots like Christian philosopher Plantinga do their best to prove to us that belief without evidence is a good idea. This is faith. This is an idea I've been fighting for decades and I'm suddenly hit with someone who doesn't understand this, apparently has never read the basic tenets of Christian belief (like faith) and tries to carry on this insane crusade of differentiating proof from evidence which makes no sense in the context! Faith is belief without proof or evidence... same thing!
templarart 3 years ago
Let's look at your example: We can say that the gun can be used as evidence that someone did the killing or that it can be used as proof that someone did the killing - same, exact thing. They are synonyms in a thesaurus. Proof can be falsified. "He had PROOF that a missile hit the White House... oops, he was wrong." You HAVE to get over this! In the Catholic Encyclopedia an example of "Faith" is the "Holy Trinity". Since there is no evidence for this bizarre idea...
templarart 3 years ago
Faith and Trinity... "But there can be no evidence commensurate with such a mystery save the Divine testimony itself, and this constitutes the motive for our assent to the mystery, and is, in scholastic language, the objectum formale quo of our assent. If then, we are asked why we believe with Divine faith any Divine truth, the only adequate answer must be because God has revealed it."
Faith is Belief without evidence. It is simply the gullible act of believing what you're told.
templarart 3 years ago
Haha! I find it amusing how you continue to go off on a tangent and ramble like many of the other atheists I've with, even after I've showed you how dishonest you were in deliberately taking your own provided out of context. You have clearly proven yourself a antitheistic thinker who disregards anyone's remarks in favor of the supernatural.
BassP86 3 years ago
You also are clearly classifying evidence as empirical only, yet you except so many truths in this universe that are not empirical. Might I suggest that you look up HumbleOrthodox's channel, even though you may still regard him as an idiot simply because he doesn't think the same way you do.
Watch his first video on the subject of evidence, and you will hopefully it's not just empirical, but also reason.
BassP86 3 years ago
Haha! So ONE Catholic School, as opposed to some MILLION others Christian schools worldwide who differ on one point, defines the ENTIRE definition for faith. Your stance is equally valid as me testifying my going to a school which taught the opposite definition of faith.
Funny how you call me insane, yet I never deliberately called you by any degrading terms. How about debating like a MATURE individual on this? If you really are as old as your profile states, then act your age, bro.
BassP86 3 years ago
It's funny how you finally reveal why you hate Christianity. You were forced to believe some heretical version of it when u were young. As a result of vowing not to let it control your life you do just that by closing your mind to all reasoning and evidence that supports it, to the extent u call Plantinga an idiot! Your really a sad cliche. Again, u insist on misrepresenting Christianity and then using a Christian worldview in criticizing your skewed idea of it!
a5dr3 3 years ago
you've been making lame, ignorant, and uninformed comments on this page for months. It's sad how unaware u r of how ridiculous you sound spending hours a day ranting almost incoherently against a God who according to u doesn't even exist!It really is astounding that someone who dedicates so much of his time trying to argue philosophy against Christianity, and below even history, could know so little about all three. Just more maniacal biography, prejudice, question dodging, and straw men.
a5dr3 3 years ago
Bass: Done with you.
a5dr3. Wow, a pile of unsupported insults? Why not? I destroyed all your arguments so what do you have left but insults and false accusations? Seriously, WHAT evidence have you provided? Anything? Anything? No. Just standard "God of the Gaps" crap.
I don't know about x.
I can answer x with Jehovah.
Jehovah must exist.
Replace Jehovah with fairies, leprechauns, Odin or Zeus and I can use the SAME argumemnt to prove they exist as well.
templarart 3 years ago
"Replace Jehovah with fairies, leprechauns, Odin or Zeus and I can use the SAME argumemnt to prove they exist as well."
Not even close.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
They're all the same thing: invisible, magic people you can stick in knowledge gaps.
"Nuh-uh" is not an argument - please provide a reason why I should put the tribal, mountain god of the ancient Hebrews above the lead god of the ancient Greek pantheon.
templarart 3 years ago
jehovah is zeus.
lipoicacid 3 years ago
@lipoicacid jehovah and jove have two completely different and foreign root languages... sooo... the terms jehovah and zeus are completely unrelated mate :)
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Both were sky fathers or weather gods in the ''greek era''.Yahweh was originally a moon god of but advanced to weather and solar god much later...mate.
lipoicacid 1 year ago
@lipoicacid Time period without location isn't any kind of foundation for your argument. The fact still remains that they have completely different origins "greek era" or not. When looking at the term "Yahweh" or any other variation of the tetragrammaton found in pre-israeli cultures it was a pretty pervasive name attributed to a divine source. Making the assertion that "Yahweh" in all its collective deffinitions was exclusively a "moon" god that advanced to some other standing is inaccurate.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ''Time period without location isn't any kind of foundation for your argument...''What location are interested in? ''they have completely different origins "greek era" or not'' Completely different? No.The same theology is recycled again and again.''... found in pre-israeli cultures it was a pretty pervasive name...'' Your point being???...
lipoicacid 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ''...its collective deffinitions was exclusively a "moon" god that advanced to some other standing is inaccurate....'' Where did I assert it was exclusively a ''moon god''.Do not try to school me.You are wasting your time.What I really know I save for rofit.But if you would like to play we can go round and round if you like =/
lipoicacid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lipoicacid "Both were sky fathers or weather gods in the ''greek era''.Yahweh was originally a moon god of but advanced to weather and solar god much later...mate."
You have a bad short term memory
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@lipoicacid Btw... the use of Yahweh and Jehovah as terms attributed to a "one true god" aren't even closely associated. Jehovah doesn't even come from the "greek" era. Think more along the lines of somewhere around the end of Antiquity and into the Middle ages.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ''...the use of Yahweh and Jehovah as terms attributed to a "one true god" aren't even closely associated...''The name is not what is imortant.The concept is the same.By the time of the greek era he was a ''sky'' god.This is attested by coins and synagogue illustrations.The Egyptians had a ''one true god'' long before the ''Jews''....
lipoicacid 1 year ago
@lipoicacid Lol, if the name isn't important than why did you assert that Jove and Jehova where in any way philologicaly related? You made the assertion and now your claiming that that assertion doesn't matter? What?
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 ''...Jove and Jehova where in any way philologicaly related?'' I believe I said Jove is Jehovah.Did I refer to philology?There are quite a few strawmen here.It seems you have a bit of knowledge and are eager to display it by manufacturing your own targets...
lipoicacid 1 year ago
@lipoicacid Well I apologize if that assumption wasn't well based. It did however seem to me that you were asserting that the terms jove and jehova were some how related by alike implementation within a time period. In a way isn't that exactly referring to the historic progression of language?
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 The fact is that Israelite and Jewish priesthoods changed and amended thier god for every occasion and necessity.This includes indentifying it with Jove.
lipoicacid 1 year ago
@lipoicacid dude... like i said, the supposed relationship to jove, didn't happen until antiquity... two totally different points of reference
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
Comment removed
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
jehovah=jove=jupiter=zeus
lipoicacid 3 years ago
Haha! Look again at the definition that Easton's provided for the term. There it is posted at in the very first paragraph: "It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the EVIDENCE on which it rests."
Even Easton's defines faith as a loyalty based on EVIDENCE of performance. "Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust."
You're being completely dishonest, Templarat.
BassP86 3 years ago
Might I suggest that you reexamine your sources and watch the following video:
watch?v=YvcLmmWatwY
No offense, of course.
BassP86 3 years ago
pioer- If you want to debate these things then toss me a message, but this youtube commenting is getting to be a little ridiculous. The 500 hundred letter limit is not too user friendly when discussing philosophical issues. We are not dealing with yes or no questions.
Victoruto 4 years ago
Victor,
Thanks for the offer, but I've already explained why I no longer debate by PM. Just scroll down a bit.
It begs the question though: why even engage in debate here if you know you can't conclude it?
pioerghaozprhgorueir 4 years ago
Very well.
Thats not what "begging the question" means. I did not know that the debate couldn't be concluded. Had we switched to email then it can very well be concluded.
Victoruto 4 years ago
When I typed 'beg the question' I didn't refer to the logical fallacy with that name. What I meant was that I wondered why you kept on debating with me when I had already told you I wouldn't switch to email. Now it kinda feels like I've wasted my time here.
But anyway.
pioerghaozprhgorueir 4 years ago
I didn't know you wouldn't want to switch to email. I'm not sure why you would rather sit here and have an attempted debate with 500 letter limits in each response, but whatever.
Victoruto 4 years ago
Like I said: scroll down a bit and you'll see that already a week ago I explained to you that I don't debate by mail, and why. Since you continued the debate after that, I presumed you were OK with that, and willing to keep debating here. But nevermind.
pioerghaozprhgorueir 4 years ago
Sorry man, never saw that comment.
Victoruto 4 years ago
"Oh, so God DOES have the right to exterminate a people just for being a people?"
The Nazis exterminated a people just for being a people and no other reason. God does not chose persons and has a morally sufficient reason for all that He does.
"So what if the Nazis claim that God ordered them to exterminate the Jews..."
Saying something is so doesn't make it so. We now have the finished Word of God to distinguish truth from error.
Victoruto 4 years ago
"God does not chose persons and has a morally sufficient reason for all that He does."
So in fact your morality is based on the fact that you believe that whatever God does is good?
"Saying something is so doesn't make it so."
Exactly. So why don't you apply this to God? If He says he killed babies because the world was wicked, you take it for granted. Why exclude God from this statement?
On the other hand: how can you be sure that God DID't tell the Nazis to do what they did?
pioerghaozprhgorueir 4 years ago
"We now have the finished Word of God to distinguish truth from error."
So, since Paul Hill's actions were inspired by the finished Word of God, they were good? He DID expect "a great reward in heaven", and he probably wouldn't have expected it if he thought he was in error.
pioerghaozprhgorueir 4 years ago
If the universe only consists of matter in motion then why do atheists insists on arguing? If our brains are nothing but electro-chemical occurrences, subject to the laws of physics and chemistry then we have no ability to make choices. Just as weeds grow, the mind does what it does. Why do atheists argue as if they had the choice to be an atheist and affirm truth?
Victoruto 4 years ago
That's sort of true but your conclusion is wrong. Let's say a child steals a cookie and you do nothing. Chances are this will become a standard behavior pattern in the child. If however you punish him, you are entering new variables into his brain with the hope that he will change his thought pattern. Similarly atheists hope that by entering the variable of reasoned argument into the heads of Christians, a Christian may change his thought pattern and understand that his religion is an old hoax.
templarart 4 years ago
This kind of comment is really useless to the discourse. There are clear reasons why both atheists and theists need to debate these issues. Religions are the biggest threat to the survival of our species at the moment. To not talk about these issues is suicide.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
". Religions are the biggest threat to the survival of our species at the moment."
Bahnsen doesn't defend religions; he defends Christianity. But even given your statement, is it really true? In the news I hear more about natural disasters, food crisis, lack of natural resources, and disease being an overall threat to survival.
Not to mention that the largest mass murders that have ever been committed have been done by secular regimes. (Russia, China, Germany, etc).
Victoruto 3 years ago
If you accept it for 1 you accept it for all. He says hes only defending christianity but he also says his god hasnt been refuted. IF he wants to say that then the onus is on him to also refute all the other gods. Thankfully science doesnt work this way and the onus is on the person making a claim to back it up, not for the people to refute it.
Also your bigoted final comment isnt based on atheism. The important word is "regime" and these regimes had religion as a core part of them
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Nazi Germany was definitely not a secular regime. There was massive support for Hitler from the Roman Catholic Church, and Hitler endorsed the church. There was also a lot of support for Hitler from other european countries, even like England, because Christians had hated and had been persecuting Jews for centuries. Nazis had their own 25 points (like a constitution) where the 24th one was that they stood for a positive Christianity.
jp2007ms 3 years ago
Smith did not answer why not destroying life is important, maybe in the next one.
1980PintoMan 4 years ago
Ohhhh - Bahnsen is simply making a hyper-idiotic god of the gaps argument! It's better to make up a fairy tale to explain something than to say "I don't know." An atheist can't explain consciousness to your satisfaction? I guess it's better to say "Jangar the Eel god sneezed it into existence" than to say "I don't know."
templarart 4 years ago
Bahnsen shows that Smiths atheism refutes itself. Whats your explanation for the inductive principal, absolute standards of ethics, universal laws of logic, and free agency? u hate the fact that God is the necessary precondition for theintelligibility of human experience, so you would rather appeal to mysticism -nobody knows for sure but you know that Christians r wrong. What epistemology do u stand on when u challenge the Christian worldview,anyway? How do u know what u know?
a5dr3 4 years ago
Wow - so much ground to cover and it's all easily answered! Ethics is simply an evolutionary advancement for all pack/herd/hive animals allowing them to live and work in social structures. A non-cooperative herd will be outcompeted every time by a cooperative herd. Logic is the ability to identify and understand patterns. All higher animals have this ability at some level and we have it at the highest level. Pattern identification is necessary for survival and beating competitors.
templarart 4 years ago
Superstition is a failure at pattern recognition. People think that sacrificing a goat will bring the rain or dancing a certain way will impregnate women. Religion is when conartists/kings take superstition and turn it into money and power. One person will have a special revelation and off goes the religion! Often religions will include fables that will explain mysteries to the adherents like why snakes have no legs or women have pain in childbirth.
templarart 4 years ago
Christianity, specifically, is one of 10,000 religions no more or less special than the worship of Odin or Baal. It is scientifically inaccurate, historically mistaken, filled with contradictions, absurd mythology, terrible philosophy, atrocious law, failed prophecy, a bronze age view of the earth and a childish, jealous, brutal god who approved of massacres, slavery and the stoning of heretics.
templarart 4 years ago
Then why did the Christian apologists successfully the inferior concepts of gods such as Jupiter, Artemis, etc? You can't put them all on equal footing.
pbcinla 4 years ago
What? All gods are pretty much the same. No proof. No evidence. Magic stories. Creation myths. How is Zeus inferior to Jehovah?
templarart 4 years ago
You want to limit proof to physical evidence. Yet, geometric proofs are something that is not physical. Are you prepared to give up geometry? Ideas about God are not equal. Logically God cannot be good and evil at the same time, yet some religions believe this. They are inferior. The early Christian apologists dealt with Zeus. Read them.
pbcinla 4 years ago
The "early Christian apologists" were idiots. Jehovah was one of the few gods that WAS both good and evil check Isaiah 45:7. It wasn't until the Jews began picking up the religion of the Zoroastrians that they changed Satan from an accusing angel into an evil supervillain. BTW: What the HELL are geometric proofs?
templarart 4 years ago
Waiting for you to say something meaningful. To say they were "idiots" is to make a value judgement. You are assuming an absolute authority. Be consistent. An inherently good God can determine light and dark, blessing for righteousness and punishment for sin. There is no contradiction in Isaiah.
pbcinla 4 years ago
Isaiah 45:8,9 will explain, if you have the mental ability to read two more verses.
pbcinla 4 years ago
Isaiah 45:8,9 doesn't help - verse 7 STILL says Jehovah does evil - so do MANY other verses. Ex 32:12-14,Job 2:10, Jos 23:25, Jud 9:23, 1Sa 16:14-15,23,18:10,19:9, 2 Sa 12:11, 17:14, 1 Ki 9:9, 14:10,21:21,21:9,22:23,2 Ki 21:12, 22:16,20, 1 Ch 21:15, 2 Ch 7:22. I like Ex 32:14 - after Moses talks Jehovah out of killing Israel (yet again) this god repents of the "EVIL" he was about to do. This isn't ridiculous to you?
templarart 4 years ago
Sure it does. You just don't want it to. Isaiah 45:8,9 gives the context of what the Hebrew word "ra'" which does not always mean moral evil. It is an unfavorable event or "calamity" in this case. Words do not carry inherent meaning.
pbcinla 4 years ago
What I find ridiculous is someone who rejects geometric proofs and basic language comprehension. You demonstrate yourself an idiot.
Since you think words are so concrete, please define this "EVIL" you speak of.
pbcinla 4 years ago
I have a BETTER idea - YOU define evil. Imagine that an evil god has the throne of heaven - what could this evil god do that Jehovah would not do? Kill children, kill the innocent? Promote genocidal massacres? Authorize slavery? Command family members to murder heretics within their family? I honestly cannot conceive of a more evil god than Jehovah of the Hebrews.
templarart 4 years ago
Sorry, YOU are making the accusation that God is evil. The burden of proof is on YOU.
You cannot call the author of a book evil because he ends the story.
And I cannot conceive the idea of an evil God. That would be contradictory.
pbcinla 4 years ago
By any definition of morality, Jehovah is a vile, contemptible, murderous monster and I gave you several examples proving his evil. All any Christian says is basically "might makes right". Whatever is in power can massacre people by the 10,000s and still not be called evil. If Satan had the throne of heaven you would worship him just as willingly!
templarart 4 years ago
You haven't even started to prove it because you haven't defined evil. I'm waiting for you to start your proof. Proof is not accomplished by painting a picture. It is done by definitions and syllogisms. Maybe you better go back to grade school and take geometry.
pbcinla 4 years ago
You began by saying that a god cannot be both good and evil. I showed you scriptures where Jehovah commits evil and promises to commit evil. You decide to redefine the word "evil" as written in the English Bible. Now you're saying that a god's actions can never be called evil - atrocities, slavery, infanticide, lies - all good if committed by a god. This means that none of the pagan gods are evil either making your original point moot.
templarart 4 years ago
In other words - your first point is that other religions believe that a god can be both good and evil making those religions inferior. You believe that nothing a god does can be interpreted as evil. Obviously you and the pagans have different definitions for evil. The pagan could say that a god could both