Re: Why do Christians Still Exist

[sigmata0]

What would you accept as evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years old?

Would such evidence make any difference to what you believe?

Is there anything that would make a difference (that you know of) to your belief?

What if you had been brought up a Jew or Muslim? Do you think you would ever convert? Have you ever successfully converted another person of faith to your religion?

You look Anglo-saxon. I am sure you have ancestors that believed in Woden. Were they wrong? How do you know?

[sigmata0]

Have you ever believed anything that you later discovered wasn't true?

What did you notice about the way belief affected your view of the world?

How close is the nearest galaxy? How is it we can see it?

What atoms are you made of? Where were they created? How long do you think that took?

Do you know what happens in the heart of the sun (or any star)? How long does it take the light to reach the surface?

Why does the DNA in your body indicate that you are related to every other life form?

[vryc]

Little late to the party but I thought I just inject a bit of knowledge here. Actually, the Bible does claim the earth is flat, many times. It talks about "4 corners" and "the Ends of the Earth" (both fuguritively and literally). If nothing else, at least the Quran doesn't make this old-world apparently common sense error.

[dehountinge]

Then what is supposes to be taken literally from the bible? whatever you find suitable and in accordance to YOUR beliefs. That is not a way of arguing, an argument must hold, and not be if and buts. Th earth is 4 billion yo. and fossils are not the only way to measure this, physics can, astronomy can. We also know the earth is not the center of the universe. So if the bible is not to be taken literally then no body should believe it. period, because to believe something it has to be literal.

[scotzbhoy]

I believe that every word of the bible should be taken literally. I have shown in another video (Biblical "Contradictions" #5) that the Bible does NOT teach geocentrism. I also believe it is disputable as to whether the earth has been shown to be 4.5 bn years old, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest a young earth.

[dehountinge]

Yes but 10, 000 yo is not true. Seriously. Human records are older than that, geographical data has proven a much older earth as well. There has been pole shifts, etc, etc. Do research. It feels like we are very important creatures in this planet but in the scope of things. W e are tiny, read on astronomy, and you'll get how we are insignificant.

[scotzbhoy]

No. Human records go back about 4000-6000 years. Geographical data has proved no such thing. These 'pole shifts' are actually results of earth's magnetic field weakening. This shows a young earth. I have done research. It has lead me to believe that the Bible is true. We may seem small in the grand scheme of things, but we are more than significant. We are the most important creatures on the only planet in the universe to support life. That seems pretty important.

[dehountinge]

No you are wrong. For instance Lascaux, is 16,000 y,o. Neolithic Mesopotamia is recorded from 7,000 bc, so that's 9,000 years from now. So you are wrong, Humans never coexisted with dinosaurs so Dinosaurs preceded humans, etc, etc. Your research is not sufficient. Clearly if science heard people like you we would not have the inventions you enjoy today.

[dehountinge]

You have to disproof math and physics which as a consequence will disprove astronomy so you can prove your points. Good luck with that.

[StL33T]

@scotzbhoy

"Human records go back about 4000-6000 years" That's the record of human civilization. Not humans.

[Davin404]

@scotzbhoy Your research is incorrect. If you're looking on websites that try to prove the Bible, you're looking in the wrong places. No self-respecting scientist would believe the earth is any younger than 4 billion years old.

The proper place to look is research that makes absolutely no mention of the bible, for or against. If they are not trying to prove or disprove the bible's accounts, they have no personal stake in the outcome and are looking for the truth. Period.

[TheHomelessCripple]

Uranium 238 has a half life of about 4.5 billion years. The final stable byproduct of this decay is Lead 206. If the Earth is only 6000 years old as you claim, there wold be absolutely NO Pb 206 in the Earth's crust. However, about 24% of all Lead is Pb 206 (as show by studies using mass spectrometers) therefore our planet is at least 4.5 billion years old, otherwise there would be absolutely NO Pb 206.

And "God felt like doing it" is not a sufficient nor rational answer

[meloveanna]

@TheHomelessCripple your simple answer proved him wrong, funny he didn't respond.

[TheHomelessCripple]

@meloveanna I didn't expect him to. Only an idiot would try and deny such things after having their argument so total obliterated.

[dimbulb23]

@scotzbhoy "I believe that every word of the bible should be taken literally."

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth... (Isaiah 40:22) The word in original Hebrew is the word for "plate" like a dinner plate not the word for "ball" which appears in Isaiah 22:18. Clearly they had a word for spherical. The bible clearly indicates that the Earth is like a plate. That's clearly wrong.

[sjwallace767]

who do u think u are? have u heard urself? away and behave, and stop embarassing urself.

[shanesmith20m]

So anything that has been proven wrong is not to be taken literally, but everything that has not been proven is to be taken literally? Its your religion that says the bible is true, but when we find errors you turn on the excuse saying that the bible is not to be taken literally. This is the problem with religious claims.

[shanesmith20m]

Also with the age of the earth, bones of Neanderthals (that can be carbon dated) have been dated to around 40,000 years ago.

[scotzbhoy]

What I said about errors is all hypothetical. There are no errors in the bible.

[shanesmith20m]

No errors except for scientific and historic errors that are verifiable. I see how it is.

[scotzbhoy]

No, there are no errors whatsoever in the bible. It does not contradict science, it does not contradict history, it does not contradict other parts of the bible.

[alianchild]

Then you have not read the bible.

[scotzbhoy]

Yes I have. I have also read websites which give explainations of all the so called 'contradictions' in the bible. Give me any one, and I guarantee it has been refuted.

[alianchild]

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

There are hundreds more.

[scotzbhoy]

War or peace?

This "contradiction" is premised on equivocation, where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antonym of war, when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of peace in a subjective, existential sense -- a relationship with God brings a sense of peace. In Corinthians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church congregations -- they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and contention. No contradiction here.

[alianchild]

If the bible can be interpreted in different ways then it cant be inerrant, if it cant be inherent then it cant be the word of an inherent god , if god is fallible then he cant be god. You destroy your own argument. The bible has been proven wrong in its history its geology its cosmology its astronomy in all manor of things and the biggest fault is in its morality. Would you kill your own child for disobeying you in a small way, like not cleaning his room. The bible orders it,so would you do it?

[scotzbhoy]

God good to all, or just a few?

The first verse says nothing about God being cruel (this is a subjective call). They deal simply and bluntly with God's judgment. Thus, we have a both/and situation here. Yes, God is merciful and full of compassion. Yet, those who reject his mercy and compassion will find that His judgment in unrelenting and ferocious -- that is His nature.

[shanesmith20m]

Ok. Lets have a list shall we?

Evolution,

the fact that god tells us Adultry is wrong, then allows his followers to rape women and children of conquored cities (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18 \ Numbers 31:18 )

the two, or so, accounts out of Four of Jesuses bith that even attemt to mention the Virgin Birth?

Sorry but the bible wasn't even written by first hand accounts of Jesus like they claim to be.

[shanesmith20m]

There has even been some very compelling evidence that the exodus never even happened.

[shanesmith20m]

Also, look up this vidoe. potholder puts up a very good argument. Noah's Flood - debunked

[scotzbhoy]

Evolution is false.

First, rape and adultery are two completely different things. Second, 'keep alive for yourselves' doesn't mean rape. They would likely be kept as slaves because they were part of a sinful community but hadn't commited the sin for which other women were being executed.

So? Only 2 accounts mention Jesus' birth. The other two concentrate more on his ministry.

Prove it.

[shanesmith20m]

I'm sorry man but I have piles of evidence and studies the backup Evolution. These are independently verifiable and will hold up on their own. What do you have aside from the bible, (that is not historically, or scientifically reliable) that proves your god? And what evidence do you have that you think proves Evolution wrong? Atheist will not respond to idle assumptions and statements. Please provide references and proof.

[scotzbhoy]

All the evidence for evolution has been debunked.

Evidence for God: Kalam cosmological argument.

Evidence against evolution: human artifacts in ancient rock strata.

[shanesmith20m]

So God Condones rape? Come on dude. What do you think "take for yourselves" means? He is either saying, go ahead and rape them or make them slaves. In my eyes, either one is bad. Though I will give you this, it is not quite a contradiction. It is just allowing primal behavior.

[scotzbhoy]

Take for yourselves likely means keep as slaves. It has nothing to do with rape. And in biblical times, slavery was a good thing. Slave masters were required to treat their slaves well, and the girls would be kept as slaves as a punishment for their sins.

[shanesmith20m]

So yes, Your God Allowed slavery. With this statement I have come to two conclusions. Either your God does not hold the "superior morals" that you say he does,(therefore he should not be looked up to or worshiped) or the bible was in fact written by men of the time. Either way you spin it that is how it ends up.

[scotzbhoy]

A third option, which you would have thought of if you'd bothered to read my comment: Slavery in biblical times was not the dreadful, oppresive slavery that blacks were subjected to and slave masters in biblical times were required to treat their slaves well, as members of the family.

[shanesmith20m]

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.

[shanesmith20m]

Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Deut. Chapter 21 Verse 18-21

Is this really the way to punish a rebellious son? So God is telling us to treat your slaves like your family and your family like slaves. Anyways Im really not interested in debating "teachings" in the bible. I just want to know what evidence you have that tells you there is a god and why the bible is his word?

[Epydemic2020]

I think "take for yourselves" more likely means have as a wife. I will do some more research on it and get back to you.

[alianchild]

What have you been smoking?

[laxguy22655]

Actually, i have seen plenty of fundies that still believe the world is flat, and the world is 6 thousand years old; andre may not have the best oral skills, but his heart is in the right place he is trying look at what you guys have on your side all i can is yokeup theres a winner.

[alianchild]

No real evidence has ever been presented for the existence of god or corroborates the bible. The theists make the extraordinary claim but never seem to be able to support it with anything but hearsay, faulty science and faulty logic. Give real evidence that has not been refuted a dozen times or more.

And make it good, dont waste my time.

[scotzbhoy]

Kalam cosmological argument.

[alianchild]

So you think that there was an intelligent first cause. Then what caused him. The argument is fundamentally flawed, why is it a who and not a what, if you say god always existed then I can say the universe always existed and then there is no need for god.

[scotzbhoy]

He always existed, he does not exist within time. It is a who and not a what because it needed to be able to think in order to create anything. The universe cannot have always existed, it is made up of matter, time, space and energy, all of which it is proven cannot have existed eternally. Hence the first cause must have existed outside of all four of them, hence this would make the cause God by definition. The argument in detail can be found on my site under 'evidence for the existance of God'.

[alianchild]

If he does not exist within time then he could not do anything before or after he did anything else to achieve anything you need the time to do it and if time did not exist for him then he could never do anything, not even think. I have read the argument and it is very flawed and contains no evidence. However the idea that nothing caused everything is scientificly viable look up "vacuum fluctuations" it is the creation of somthing from nothing.

[scotzbhoy]

Of course he could. He created time. By your logic, the universe should never have come into existance because time had to come into existance, and before that point nothing could happen. It is perfectly possible for an omniscent being to exist outside of time and still have an effect on what goes on inside of time.

[jusablackguy]

And lets look at it from the Transcendental logic argument. Technically you are committing hearsay by even being an atheist. I dont need to explain God to you because he is the precondition of all knowledge period. For you to say anything different would be contradictory to the basis. You prove to me that God is not real?

[alianchild]

If you have any knowledge of logic then you know that you cant prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with you to prove god does exist. And using a non-material and obviously flawed logic model just does not cut it. It is simply

TheoreticalBullshit.

[jusablackguy]

Don't worry bro. AndreScott336 is obviously very ignorant and seriously unlearned.

[alianchild]

unlearned? WTF?

[jusablackguy]

Please tell me you know thats a word

[alianchild]

yes I do but you are being redundant in your use of it,"ignorant and seriously unlearned" ignorant means unlearned and unlearned means ignorant. but if you believe in god, you're f-cking nuts. Always remember reality is GOOD. Delusions are BAD. Have a sane day.

[jusablackguy]

God is reality. What if I could tell you that God is the precondition of all human knowledge and experiences. Everything we believe in stems back to him. Non-theistic (atheistic) reasoning leads to self-contradiction from a general view point. This is when your thinking on the basis of your own assumptions.

[alianchild]

The problem with that argument is that you must make many assumptions of your own to come to your conclusion. ( which is logically faulty) My conclusion has no assumptions in its equation.

Belief in something with no real or solid evidence, based solely on intuition that does not meet the burden of proof, is , in a word, delusional. Those are the characteristics of a delusion. No assumptions needed.

I would like to know how you rationally believe in a god. I am serious. no BS.

[jusablackguy]

For me my rational is spiritual gifts. Like healing, speaking in tongues and other supernatural works that cannot have any other explanation. But in general just go outside. Who made that? I mean I've watched many evolutionary video's and the theoretical answers can only go so far. I mean the world does not make sense without God. You can tell me all you want about evolution and just be generally contradicting yourself without even knowing it.

[alianchild]

Every one of your so called spiritual gifts have natural explanations, none of them can be justifiably called supernatural. Give me any list you want of the "gifts" you speak of and include details of them. I will then give you the natural explanation for them. Remember that I dont deny God. I just cant believe in something with no evidence to support it.

[AndreScott336]

From 5:12 to 5:40 yeah cause god is all knowing and he would have know if the bible contained errors and he would of fix it or not even let the errors get there in the frist place

[scotzbhoy]

Where does the bible say God doesn't allow errors in it?

[AndreScott336]

why would god allow errors in it, when it would cause us to go to hell? Isn't god all loving?

[scotzbhoy]

You clearly don't have a clue about Christianity. Errors in the bible would not cause us to go to hell. We are saved by faith in Jesus, not our interpretion of insignificant parts of scripture.

[AndreScott336]

So you are saved by the belief in something with NO evidence, just because someone told you? cause you say you are not saved by the bible, so we do not need the bible? Then way is it here? How would you know gods word with out reading it and how would you ever become saved when you can not find faith? And how would you know that Jesus died for your sins with out the bible?.. I bet your answer would be HE said and she said bullshit

[scotzbhoy]

No evidence? That shows even more that you have no clue what you're talking about. There is pleanty of evidence.

We need the bible to give us the law and tell us about how to get saved. Our beliefs about things such as the creation are insignificant in comparision to the law so long as we agree that God is the creator.

(And btw, I hope you remember that this is all hypothetical. There are no errors in the bible.)

[AndreScott336]

so where is the evidence's of your god and religion?, find it and let me know...

anyways I was born in a fundamentalist Christian Household, my Dad is a licensed Preacher my grandma is the biggest fundamentalist Christian alive my dad used to Preach to me 24/7 so I know a lot about the bible I have 3 bibles and I read them a lot, and btw my dad abuse me and my sister, my brother and my mother for years and he used the bible to justify the abuse,

[scotzbhoy]

The evidence for the resurrection is too numerous to put in a comment- watch my video series 'the case for christianity'. As for God, the Kalam argument proves there is a God.

You would think as a preacher he would know that there is nothing in the bible that justifies any abuse. In fact, it goes directly against the teachings of Jesus.

[AndreScott336]

Btw I HATE Hypocritical people and most of all Hypocritical liars and people who use Religion to justify their Crimes =D

[mobstersreport]

Just ask Fool4ALifetime eh? >=]

[canadianbushman]

the Kalam argument proves people like you are illogical and very gullible. And Jesus said the laws and commandments of the old testament should be held sacred. That means if a adolescent disobeys his or her parents in any way they are either going to hell or means the parent is ordered by god to kill that child. Its in the bible, you know it is. So are you guilty of disobedience in any way. If you are better tell your parents to kill you, in fact do it anyway. Make the world a better place.

[JasonsCabin1000]

The bible cannot be taken literally. You have to have the proper ability to interpret it. Do you really think God would write the literal meaning? Surely with His wisdom, he would use metaphores. God sent us to earth not to just float through life. He sent us for a challenge. Good grief people.

[canadianbushman]

If the bible is a collection of metaphors and subject to interpretation, then why is it considered truthful in any way? It should not be. It is a book of fairy tails. No evidence has ever been presented that any of it is true. alianchild is right.

[scotzbhoy]

Do you even know what hypothetical means?

[lilshnappinturtle]

/ I HATE hypothetical people /

What ?

Scientists are the ones who hypothesise about the nature of reality....???

[AndreScott336]

Scientists do not just hypothesize about the nature of reality, They use the scientific method and the step are to: Ask a Question, Do Background Research, Construct a Hypothesis, Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment [They repeat their experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident and reason for this is to determined if the hypothesis is true or false]

[lilshnappinturtle]

/Ask a Question, Do Background Research, Construct a Hypothesis, Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment /

I agree, but surely now you can see the Hypocrisy involved in Scientific community, to a man, adopting Big Bang Theory, Multi-verse Theory etc...etc...

We can't run a Big Bang experiment to either confirm or debunk the hypothesis, nor can they observe other Universes through the lens of a telescope....therefore these cornerstones of Scientific reasoning are completely fictitious..

[AndreScott336]

Big Bang Theory, Multi-verse Theory make scene with all the evidence we have now, but its not proven, but it is consider true cause they tested it and it is possible for it to have happen that way with the evidence we have now, and did you know that when you look through a telescope you are looking back in time because it take millions of years for light to reach us, so when you look up at a star that is a million light years away you are looking a million years into the past =D

[AndreScott336]

Big Bang Theory, Multi-verse Theory make scene with all the evidence we have now, but its not proven, but it is consider true cause they tested it and it is possible for it to have happen that way with the evidence we have now, and did you know that when you look through a telescope you are looking back in time because it take millions of years for light to reach us, so when you look up at a star that is a million light years away you are looking a million year into the past

[robtuk31]

All scripture is profitable for doctrine and reproof - 2 Timothy 3:16. There are no errors in the original bible - but the bible we have today does contain some mistranslations. Man's error not God's. Jesus said, "and Scripture cannot be broken'. (John 10:35.

[robtuk31]

You should do some research of the Bible before doing a video. The Bible proves the earth is round. Isaiah 40:22 - It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.

The error is man's interpretation of the Bible not the Bible itself.

Gen 1:1 - God created the universe million of years ago.

Gen 1:2- The earth became void, - Is a recreation that happened nearly 6000 years ago.

The earth inhabited by angels before the rebellion-- Job 38:7 - Angels sang for Joy when earth was created.

[scotzbhoy]

No, there was no 'second creation'. Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are part of the same thought. And the angels didn't inhabit the earth, they were with God in heaven. Then Satan fell, and others fell after and reproduced with human women (Genesis6:4).

[robtuk31]

It is called the Creation Gap theory and does explain how the earth is more than 6000 years old especially when science suggests the earth is much older than 6000 years. Human civilisation is no more than 6000 years but the earth is a lot older.

[StutteringDave]

Atheists are no longer allowed to call us ignorant rednecks.

[LittleTruckingBozo]

Hay! It's a honor to be a Redneck. :P

[AbdielAbiram]

I thought his video was a parody.

[AndreScott336]

In the bible it said that the devil took Jesus atop the highest mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth, and that just can not happen unless the earth is flat, even if you go to space you can not see all the kingdoms of the earth unless the earth is flat

[TheAmazingBeliever]

You have to realize at that time, there were very few kingdoms and they were all onver there around where they were.

[scotzbhoy]

Do you not think it possible that maybe the devil showed Jesus a vision (they are supernatural beings)?

[AndreScott336]

If the devil showed Jesus a vision then why the fuck did the devil have to take Jesus on top of the highest mountain, That would be a waste of time don't you think, and I am sure that the Bible would of said that the devil showed Jesus a vision if he did, but it did not. so it is not possible, you Christians need to STOP taking your own fucking Bible out of fucking contexts just to make it seem more Plausible =D

[scotzbhoy]

Here's 2 refutations of that contradiction:

w w w * tektonics * org / af / earth shape * h t m l # globe

w w w * tektonics * org / lp / merrit 01 * h t m l

[AndreScott336]

I think the name of the dating that is use on rocks is called radio active date.. idk but the pont was they can be dated

[scotzbhoy]

Carbon dating is radioactive dating... there are many different types.

[cheezit1314]

t alkorig ins . o rg /ind exc c/C D/ CD0 11 .h t m l

in the page you sent us, only 1 source was credible, and ofcourse it was near impossible to access (thats how YECs do it)....but talk origins has easily accessable sources.

[AndreScott336]

I don't know the names all the types of dateing they use but the point was that we can date rocks a bone and shit, but All we have to do to disprove a religion is to take their Holy book [bible] and analyze its calms, and see if it matches the evidences we have now, and if that holy book contradict it even the stalest bit [thing] then that holy book could not have be inspired by a god and there for man that did not know wrote it and that god was made up=]

[scotzbhoy]

So you're recycling comments that you used in your video, even though I debunked that specific comment word-for-word in my response?

[AndreScott336]

so when was it that you debunked my clams in my video, all you say was that I got the name of the type of dating they use to date bones and rocks wrong, o my fuck shit you make NO scene.. LMFAO...=D

[scotzbhoy]

I debunked your comment starting from 5:00 in the video.

[cheezit1314]

scotzbhoy, when you become of age, you should go for a degree in geology, or biology, or maybe physics or chemistry depending on how intelligent you are.

then, you will be able to properly argue in favor of your beliefs (assuming you still hold them)

[DerivedApe]

No, dinosaur fossils are not dated beacuse they are considered to be to old. they are not dated with carbon dating because, quoting Potholer, THERE'S NO F***ING CARBON IN IT!

[scotzbhoy]

And the reason "THERE'S NO F***ING CARBON IN IT!" is (according to evolutionists) because it's too old. Although we have now found dinosaur fossils with carbon in them.

[DerivedApe]

*And the reason "THERE'S NO F***ING CARBON *IN IT!" is (according to evolutionists) because *it's too old.

No, it's because by studying the fossils we know that they are made of minerals. The original hard tissue is replaced by minerals and are in fact microscopically accurate rock casts of the original bone.

*Although we have now found dinosaur fossils with carbon in them.

Citation of the study please.

[cheezit1314]

"Citation of the study please. "

indeed, i would like to see this source myself.

scotzbhoy, you have been making quite a few baseless statements lately...you should be more carefull.

[scotzbhoy]

earthage . org / radio / carbon14 . htm

Look, you know what I mean on the whole 'dinosaur fossils being too old' thing. Over time, the carbon is replaced with minerals, so eventually the carbon has all been replaced. If there is no carbon it can't be dated, and this happens when it is too old (all the carbon has been replaced.)

[cheezit1314]

"earthage . org / radio / carbon14 . htm"

is it a common trend for YECs to not know what a credible source is?

[DerivedApe]

yes it is I'm afraid.

[DerivedApe]

The citated links of that site don't work but it sounds like theyr refering to Hugh Miller story in which case you might wan't to check this video out:

watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

Start from 5:43 if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

[DerivedApe]

Yeah but all I was trying to say is that scientists don't date dinosaurs with carbon dating because of this baseless assumption of their old age.

[scotzbhoy]

They wouldn't generally attempt to carbon date a dinosaur fossil though.

[DerivedApe]

because we know that there is no carbon there.

[cheezit1314]

ya know scotzbhoy...for every non credible source you give us supporting YEC beliefs...i could theoretically give you several thousand credible publications in return fire...not to mention simply having knowledge of the field, rather than just reading about it on "earth age . or g"

[AndreScott336]

will you proved that 'dinosaur fossils are too old to be dated by carbon dateing the whole point was that we can dated thing to see at Least how old the earth is =]