@Martalog121 The Jews, Christians, and Muslims follow the same deity, otherwise they wouldn't be called the "Abrahamic" religions. The follow the deity of Abraham.
Casey Luskin would do well to heed the words of his elders: "... be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers". -- St. Augustine
Man .Creationist have no other way to present thier arguement with out Lies.Not a contary view of evidence presented by scientific study,,but LIES..flat out Lies.And these are people claiming to be morally superior becuase of thier delusional beliefs.If there was a God ,he /she or it would make it known ..these people do not in anyway shape or form Represent me.Please completely ignore them and use all the power you have discovered in Biological Science to get them the Meds they so clearly need
Casey Luskin also discriminates against new scientific approaches, after I sent him a 46 page scientific abstract, in which I claim it to be a mathematical proof for intelligent design?
Dear Mr. Ruiz Garcia,
Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I reviewed your material and determined that it is outside the scope of what we do at Discovery Institute. Thanks and all the best.
Sincerely, Casey Luskin
So what should be considered to be inside the scope of what they do at Discovery Institute????
GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA ans read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-boson-or-god-particle-which-exist-in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist atr welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology.FIT technology forecast tsynami,IRENE Hurricane
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you read DonExodus' profile, you'll see that he's openly an anti-religion bigot. Furthermore, if you look through his friends list and the positive comments on his videos, you'll notice a disturbing trend: They're nearly all atheist.
This confirms something I've suspected for years now: Darwinian evolution is an atheist religion in a cheap tuxedo. It has all the hallmarks of a religion. It's also why it's so ardently defended, even to the point of outright dishonesty (see this video).
@ReturnOfTheJam Weird, why would he hate religion AND be an atheist while revealing time and time again how he's actually a Christian? Is it because he believes in a religion but at the same time HATE ignorance? Maybe so.
@ReturnOfTheJam First off, evolution is a scientific theory, NOT a religion. Atheist is merely the disbelief in god, also not a religion. There are christians who accept evolution, as well as members of other beliefs. I'm not an atheist or agnostic and I fully accept evolution. I don't pray to darwin, or see him or any scientist as holy. I merely accept the science in evolution, as well as the science in medicine, technology, physic's, etc.. Please stop being dishonest about evolution.
@Boudiga I am an atheist, but have no problem with christians. My parents are christians who also believe in evolution and science. Its not a religion that is a problem with me, its ignorance and stupidity. Why do these creationists deny the evidence? Nobody can disprove God, but evolution is a proven fact.
@nancy6ify I'm not a xian but your right! Theses ppl are a disgrace to theist. They are lost in the darkages when its convent to for them. But their the first idiots lined up for the flue shot. Something I personally don't trust but that shot is a product of evolutionary studies!
@Boudiga You are incorrect. Evolutionism is a religion. As is Atheism.
You BELIEVE and have FAITH in Darwin, Your Lord and Saviour.
What's your proof? None, for you are a blind fanatic. If someone asked you to spend your entire life to prove evolutionism, to anyone, you would fail.
I don't know how you, Thunderfoot, and the rest of you guys can watch the IDiot stupidity and outright dishonesty time after time without getting mad and just going off on these fuckers. I deal with the YT IDiots and Creationist, and they piss me off to the point that I have to walk away from my computer or risk throwing it.
if creationists keep saying the end is coming long enough they will eventualy be right, as around 5 billion years from now the sun will broil the planet alive. They will be dissapointed however because there is no jebus required
I've always find it interesting that creationists reject the science and logic that show evolution to be true, and accept the science behind vote-bots. Oh well.
"The Discovery Institute Embarrases itself...again" - who the eff are you to say if somebody is embarressed? The Creationists were just sharing their view, their knowledge. You say that we "know" the phylogeny of molluscs, yet the dumbass wasn't around millions of years ago when things were changing. People who say evolution is true are really embarassing because they think they're know-it-alls
@OldaurGold It's better to be a know it all and be able to correct what is wrong, than to be idiots and ignorant of all that contradicts what you believe.That's why the ID and the Discovery Institute fail.
What does biology have to do with religion, you fool? Enjoy the science and leave the attacks on religion out of it.
And I'll add that it is precisely because of people who use Evolution as a weapon for anti-religion that so many religious individuals strongly suppress evolutionary biology. Let's get this straight: religion is religion, science is science. You cannot draw supernatural conclusions (God does not exist) from a natural theory.
@AgApE010 No, you can't draw supernatural conclusions from a natural theory, I agree. The thing is the supernatural has been claiming the cause for natural occurrences for centuries and now science is showing them all to be what they are. Natural phenomena. Science is continually proving religion wrong. Whether there is something outside of our time and space I have no idea, but it sure isn't the bullshit that people made up and called holy books.
Granted, in times of ignorance people were quick to point to the sovereignty of God as the cause of all things; which, to be sure, is not wrong in the broadest sense, but is wrong in the sense that there were certain means by which God acted (i.e., the Big Bang).
"Science is continually proving religion wrong"
Since you just said yourself that you cannot draw supernatural conclusions from a natural theory, in what sense do you mean this?
@AgApE010 In the sense that religious claims about the universe, our planet, our species eclipses etc have all been found to have a natural explanation. When I say religion, I mean Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc as being man made. Outside if what we can currently test and know there may well be some kind of ultimate being, I don't believe that there is, but if there is it certainly isn't what we have made it out to be.
Lol you cannot simply claim with certainty that whatever being created the universe is not one of the beings presented by the monotheistic religions. Such a remark shows a lack of knowledge of theology.
The only claims that Christianity makes about the universe is that it was created by God. Again, that is not, and can not, be "disproved" by science. Christianity makes no kind of scientific claims about eclipses or the means by which higher life came about.
Because the Bible does not attempt to teach science and you cannot use natural theories to disprove supernatural claims.
To clarify, "supernatural" means "outside of nature." Therefore, since we cannot apply scientific observation and experimentation to something outside of nature (and therefore outside of the reach of science), we cannot argue against supernatural claims with science. Therefore, "Evolution" does not equal "no God."
@AgApE010 I'm not talking about evolution, although it does disprove the account in genesis. What I mean is without the bible there is no christianity. And the accounts that are in the bible, genesis, noahdic flood etc can be shown as false by what we know through science. Now, there may be some kind of ultimate being that exists outside of our universe (I, personally, don't believe there is), but it is not what we think of in terms of known religion.
Again, the Bible does not make scientific claims. The problem is Fundamentalists who interpret the Genesis accounts literally. The Creation account and Flood account, for instance, are not literal. Top Old Testament scholars like Dr. Bruce Waltke have written extensively on these subjects. You can check out the BioLogos website for some great articles on these topics.
@AgApE010 I agree, it doesn't make scientific claims, but it does make testable claims which fundamentalists are trying to push into sceintific education. When atheists such as myself complain about bible and religion,this is generally who we are talking about. I have no problem with personal faith. The main problem is, indeed, fundamentalists, that was what my point was about. I went to catholic school and it was always taught as stories which we could learn something to live by.
which 'science' are u talking about?u should realize that the so called 'science'(preatty much all the fields of science) are inductive and thus fallacious in their assertions.
as for your "I, personally, don't believe there is" ,again u don't seem to realize that u are claiming to have one(omniscience) of the attributes of the God of the Bible and then u turn around and deny Him,nice try but self refuting at best !
which 'science' are u talking about?u should realize that the so called 'science'(preatty much all the fields of science) are inductive and thus fallacious in their assertions.
as for your "I, personally, don't believe there is" ,again u don't seem to realize that u are claiming to have one(omniscience) of the attributes of the God of the Bible and then u turn around and deny Him,nice try but self refuting at best !
'science' changes all the time and it will never be a reliable source of truth.
as for your " (I, personally, don't believe there is) " u are conveniently asking us to believe that u posses an attribute that belongs to the God of the Bible(omniscience) and then u turn around and deny His existance,nice try but rethink your false assumption.
without the God of the Bible u/anybody can neither deny nor affirm anything !!!
@martalog121 Wrong. Science refines all the time. There is a difference. If you think that science changes all the time, next time leave your house by the second floor instead of the first. And if you say well scientists though the earth was flat etc, those were errors based on reasoning, not observation. I am not saying that god is omniscient, that is what proponents of religion say. I am using their claims to show why they are wrong. I agree. I can't say that there is no god.
only the God of the Bible can make the assertion "there is NO god"(and He has made that assertion numerous times in the Bible) so when people like u("Now, there may be some kind of ultimate being that exists outside of our universe (I, personally, don't believe there is...")), start making FALSE assertion about His existance only proves Proverb 14:1.
as for science "refining' itself,newtonian physycs was discarted all together not refined !
@martalog121 But you can't show me any evidence that there is a god so I find no reason to believe in one, especially in any of the man made religions we know of today. Show me verifiable, repeatable, valid, measurable evidence that god exists outside of natural world and I will, in the words of Tim Minchin, "When I’ve recovered from the shock, I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”
@biggingeryeti empiricism is not reliable(our senses are easely fooled) so u should abandon this type of epistemology and switch to Revelation(the axiom of Christianity),the One True God(the One u'll find in the Bible) has spoken and you are without an excuse before Him.
Believe in Jesus Christ or else u'll perish in your sins(turn or burn).
care to prove your false assertion that Bilical Christianity is "man made"?
@martalog121 It is full of errors, contradictions and things we know are not true. But the one fact that proves it is man made? It permits slavery. No loving, merciful god would surely allow that. So I can be the best, nicest person in the world and spend eternity in hell for not believing but the worst murdering rapist would go to heaven because he does? Either it's man made or your god is an idiot.
who's the "we"(."...we know are not true")? hasty generalization and ad populum are both fallacies !!!
based on your epistemology you can NOT claim something(thing or person) is 'good or bad' so yet again you appeal to Christianity in your futile atempt to disprove it.Nice try, but once again a failure on your part.
@martalog121 I never used epistemology to say the bible was bad. I used morality. I claim the same about Mohammed having an 8yr old bride. And unless you can explain to me how slavery is not an immoral act I suggest it is you who needs to change your outlook. When I say 'we' I mean atheists or rational people. Just as you would say that 'We believe in the resurrection'. And my appeal to christianity is perfectly valid because that is what you claim is true.
@martalog121 Because you believe christianity, you are most familiar with it. How am I being inconsistent? Slavery is bad or wrong in any and all cases. Explain to me how it is okay for your religion to permit it. Atheists are rational (or more rational), atheists don't accept anything on faith alone, we demand evidence and you can not present any. If you, or any other religion for that matter, can't present any evidence to support the claims in your holy book, why should I believe in it?
how are u rational when u're useing Christian principles(good vs bad) and then u turn around and reject the God that gave those percepts?based on your empiricism,as i pointed before,u or any atheist CAN NOT object to ANYTHING! without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor afirm ANYTHING
u keep beating the dead horse of empiricism...again, our senses are very easely fooled,no amount of 'proofs' are going to do u any good.
@martalog121 Really? Our senses are perfectly adequate for judging reality. Yes they can be fooled, but if you think they aren't reliable, I assume you drive with your eyes closed? Or don't look where you are walking? Don't be ridiculous. Our senses are the only tools we have for receiving information from reality and with science we can predict what forces and behaviours are likely to happen given certain parameters. I know that if I jump off something I will fall. I know that if I bleed too
first,science is assuming the consequent in its endevours and thus it's fallacious but then again your mind has been made,facts will not bother u,right?
second,i knew u 'll go to a bunch of wild accusations about our senses...;)
@martalog121 Gravity (for example) is a fact. It can be measured. Demonstrated. Reliably tested and calculated. It is these factors that constitute a fact, and get around the problem of any sensory error. You can not do these things with god. And now I think that you are just trolling me.
@martalog121 Proofs are the only thing we have. What else is there? You ever taken medication? Painkillers? Ready meals, shit, every part of your life has been made better by science and these 'worthless' proofs of yours. How do you think you are able to use that computer of yours? You seem to forget that christianity does not have the monopoly on morailty. We have evolved moral behaviours, because they benefit populations and individuals. It does not. If it does, then I would like you to
believe it or not western civilazation has been built on judeo-christian principles so this false assertion about moral evolving is just in your dreams...just because our society permits the DECAY of morals does not mean morals have 'evolved' !!!
@martalog121 I don't believe that there is a objective morality, but I believe that morality is generally subjective. Basically, if everyone followed moral law X, would society be better or worse for it? I apply the same for general people, If I do x will it have an unnecessary negative impact or effect on others? Obviously, if you want me to state what is bad or good, it is dependent on so many factors, which is why law is so complex. But the two that are always wrong: slavery and rape.
@martalog121 Don't be ridiculous. There is no justifying what they did. I may justify killing someone who is attacking my family, or even battling an army that is attacking my nation, but the systemic slaughter of millions of innocent people can not be justified in anyway. Subjective morality doesn't allow for anyone to be right about any act. It just allows that in certain circumstances certain acts can be justified. Ethnic cleansing is not one of those things.
u keep avoiding the obvious and refuse to admit that u have no bases to judge anyone good or bad( but than again u have to,otherwise u'll cease to be an atheist ! ;) )
just bc u ascribe to some of the biblical morality and think it's 'good' does not mean some of those monsters were bound to do the same (and they din't) !
@martalog121 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
the verse talks about buying a slave not going to aquire one by force,in verse 47 the so called slave could get rich while being a slave...well how could this be?
i guess u anachronistically applied 17 &18 century AD definition of a slave into the Leviticus verse,i'll pretend u did a honest mistake ;)
@martalog121 When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
@martalog121 I couldn't care less what definition you choose to use, and there is no evidence to suggest that the term you use is true, but even if that were the case, even if she did get very well paid I still consider selling your daughter to someone where she can be beaten, required to please a man, where she is considered property and have no say over the matter to be immoral. I am honestly confused why you don't. But your lack of morality speaks volumes about the mindset of the religious.
well,knowing how inconsistent u've been so far no surprise u don't care about which definition u use(anachronism is a fallacy so no matter how desperately u try to weasel out of it,u're still WRONG ! ;) )
my lack of morality?...that's very rich coming from a guy who refuses to aknowledge that he has no basis of judging anything/anybody LOL
as i keep pointing out ,without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor affirm ANYTHING !!!
morality according to whom?whatever God does is ipso facto good or even if its 'bad' He has a purpose for it !
at least try to understand the glaring diff. between the man stealing of 17&18 century AD and the economics of time of Moses.Stop assuming(fallaciously) that the 2 are the same...if u continue to do so i'll pretend u stop posting and are reconidering your selfcontradictory position LOL
@martalog121 Moral according to you. I'm accepting the difference. I want to know if you, as a human being, consider the slavery in the bible (not 17thC, the economics of Moses' time) to be a morally good act.
i've already answered...the same God that said "thou shall not kill..etc" made the provision for the "slavery" so u either take the whole package or reject it allf ;)
in your case,cherry picking as u see fit(making yourself the "measuring stick" for morality...very dangerous and unwittingly self refuting as i keep pointing out)
@martalog121 You haven't answered. You either do believe it to be a moral act or you don't. The fact is you know it to be immoral but you can't admit it because that would mean admitting that an act your god allows is wrong. It isn't cherry picking at all, there are numerous other things in the bible that are immoral, such as slaying every living thing in a village but keeping the virgins for yourself. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right and you are proving that.
u're not reading my posts ! "if God said it, ipso facto is good..."
stop assuming(fallaciously) what i do believe or not!
u still can not account for the parts of the moral code that u accept and the rest that u reject...in the case of 'slavery'(Leviticus account) it was more an economics issue so stop making it what is not !
@martalog121 Yeah you're right. Selling your own child, who has no say in it, who becomes the property of another person, who can beat the shit out of her, use her as they please and with no legal defence because, hey, god says it is okay. Oh yeah, she might even make some money. I hope you don't ever have kids. Fuck you and your immoral, evil god. You are a coward of a human being who can't accept what is blatantly wrong, preferring to try and justify heinous acts with 'He has a plan'.
@martalog121 And to be clear, I am not assuming what you believe, I asked you what you believe. And I have accounted for morality, it evolved as an essential part of societal evolution and is partially hard wired into our genetics and other part taught via upbringing and education. I don't commit murder because I believe taking a persons life is wrong. I have been brought up to think that and my conscience would make me feel guilty for doing it. Leviticus account of slavery is still slavery.
u grew up in a society that was built on Judeo-Christian teaching so that's the reason u've been taught not to kill another...laughable and pathetic,really
here it is again :
without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor affirm anything...until u see that u'll keep making the same fallacies and beating dead horses
@martalog121 Muslims make the same claim. Hindus make the same claim. The ancient Egyptians (and your god hadn't been made up at this point) claimed the same. EVERY religion makes that claim. Yet your particular religion somehow has a monopoly on morality. And you believe the one you were brought up with. Just like most Muslims, Hindus and ancient Egyptians. You can't affirm the bible to be true. You can't prove it to be true. You just believe that it is. That is pathetic.
in Hinduism this world is just a 'dream',the muslims stole the motheism from the Christians as for the egyptians well Moses was trained at the pharao's court but for some reason we do not find any of the politheism of Egypt anywhere in the Bible
next time take the time and do some reading before u make this ignorant and false claims !!!
@martalog121 The only ignorant and false claim being made is by you when you assume the bible to be somehow true, with no evidence to support it. Just like every other religion and their holy book. You don't get it, do you? You have no evidence to suggest that your religion is any truer than any other religion. What somehow makes your religion true? The bible? You just stole Judaism and made some stuff up. The gospels can't even agree with each other on how things happened.
the Bible is about 27% prophecy(telling the future from the past) no other 'holy' book in the world has that,so again u are ignorant and have no idea what u're talking about.(the Quran has a few 'prophecies' but for the end of the world,so we have to wait for the end to prove those prophecies)
look,even your unbelief is part of the Bible prophecy!
what Judaism had(OT) i also have so your argument is just mute,stop making it!
the day Jesus Christ was crucified, He fulfilled 33 prophecies of the OT
-no bone in His body was broken..(the same way the Passover lamb, starting in the wilderness and then in the time of the Temple,was not to have any broken bones)
-what He said,right before He died on the cross(Psl. 22:1)
-they gave Him vinegair to drink(Psl. 69:21)
u get the picture so NO more excuses from u,right? LOL
unfortunatelly for u,the second time He comes(u can bet all your money on that too) it will be very ugly for people like you...JUDGEMENT so get ready, by the looks of it it will be very soon !!! AHAHAhahahahahaha
unfortunatelly for u,the second time He comes(u can bet all your money on that too) it will be very ugly for people like you...JUDGEMENT so get ready, by the looks of it it will be very soon !!! AHAHAhahahahahaha
unfortunatelly for u,the second time He comes(u can bet all your money on that too) it will be very ugly for people like you...JUDGEMENT so get ready, by the looks of it it will be very soon !!! AHAHAhahahahahaha
unfortunatelly for u,the second time He comes(u can bet all your money on that too) it will be very ugly for people like you...JUDGEMENT so get ready, by the looks of it it will be very soon !!! AHAHAhahahahahaha
@martalog121 Very ugly for people like who? People who follow evidence instead of fear based superstition? Why would any sensible god favor that? In reality, atheists would be God's chosen if such a being existed... They pursue truth through evidence, not emotion. The track record of science speaks for itself.
What has faith given us, other than imaginary villains to worship and fear?
@martalog121 Faith, as the trust in that which cannot be perceived by the senses. Faith, as in acceptance of supernatural occurrences without tangible evidence. Faith, as in belief in gods or God by the inherited practices of your parents, authorities, or tribe.
I have seen nothing specific in your address of science, but rather generalized comments. If you like, feel free to reiterate.
What, exactly, am I an "unbeliever" of? I don't believe in many things... Fairies, Santa Clause, etc.
@martalog121 The definition of faith I gave you was a summary of my own religious experiences as a devout christian. I have read 3 versions of the bible, cover to cover. The precepts of faith are quite clear. Believe doctrine over your own observation and logical sense. Believe in that which you cannot see, touch or reason, and accept one holy book above all the other holy books, even those written before or more recently than your source. No, my understanding of "faith" is quite complete.
your definition('as a devout christian') of Faith is not the Bible's,so even if u read 3 diff. versions(of the Bible) it's obvious that u missed the actual meaning of the word(your understanding is lacking and is 'quite incomplete to say the least') ;) !
as i pointed out before,empirical proof(s) is in no way to be trusted over revelation from God
@martalog121 What evidence can you present that the bible is in fact revelation from god?
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to tell me... Induction is fallacious? You're going to have to be more specific. I think you need to read what scientific theory constitutes, because you appear to possess a flawed understanding, or no understanding at all.
it(Bible) was written in more than 1400 yrs by 40 diff. authors and yet is a logical 'encyclopedia' that shows a single Mind was at work...another one would be prophecy(~27% of the Bible is prophecy)
science is inductive and ipso facto fallacious,get it?
@martalog121 Science builds on logical observations. How can a logical observation be fallacious if the conclusion is supported by the evidence? You're not making sense.
@martalog121 If by accident you mean while following a formulated path of logic, then yes. Perhaps you should look up the definition of logic before you blunder into another nonsensical statement.
Do you seriously mean to tell me that the science that sent the voyager probe to the reaches of the solar system was accomplished by fallacious thinking?
i see that your so called ".. formulated path of logic"(refering to scientists/science) sometimes is just a dream that u need to wake up from ;)
as for the 'importance of what he found' again u have to understand that some of the 'super bugs',today, are immune to penicillin...it was true that penicillin was good for us at one time but that 'truth' is no longer true today
as i said before...science changes all the time,it's not reliable as a method of knowledge
@martalog121 "as for the 'importance of what he found' again u have to understand that some of the 'super bugs',today, are immune to penicillin" completely ignores my point and jumps to something else entirely.
The fact that some strains of bacteria are becoming immune is evidence of what? Don't strain yourself too hard here.
@Poeticnuisance"...completely ignores my point and jumps to something else entirely"
how did i jump to something diff. ? u claimed that science is based on "formulated path of logic"
in the case of penicillin(and many others as well) your assertion crumbles and u're left with NOTHING but wishful thinking which for some strange reason u can't see or pretend not to see
the implications of your epistemology is something that u have to came to terms with and be consistent about them
@martalog121 There is a germ that lives of eating nylon. Nylon is a man made material created in 1958. Now either there has always been a source of nylon that we have never found and still haven't to date that this germ has been surviving off or god created this germ in 1958.
@martalog121 AHAHAHA, the irony is so thick I can taste it. In claiming that his false dilemma is proof, you made the hasty INDUCTION fallacy. Congratulations.
@martalog121 You see you seem so reasonable there. I almost feel like I shouldn't have been mean... But then I remember you said this: "If atheists were a bit more logical they would stop being atheists," and then I don't feel bad.
@martalog121 For example, you just asserted that we have a sinful nature and that it causes things. I wonder what logical support you have for those claims.
@martalog121 But logic is not a he, it's a systematic process used to guide thinking and produce reliable results. You cannot support any argument logically by pointing to the Bible without first establishing that the Bible is true.
dismissing it(the Bible) right of the bat and ignoring the coherent and logical system that Scriptures really are and then turning aroud and asking for "support" is a bit irrational
all of us have presupossitions(axioms) bc we have to start somewhere...my axiom is the Bible
yours might be empiricism,rationalism,irrationalism etc...as a recap axioms can not be demonstrated ! :)
@martalog121 Who dismissed it? I asked you to support your claim. I've personally looked at the Bible and found it lacking, but perhaps you can tell me what establishes it as valid support for your claim that God is logic.
@martalog121 Sorry, I didn't read your last sentence. So you're saying that the Bible can't be demonstrated to be valid? Okay, since it can't be demonstrated, I won't use it, and I won't accept it from you as a source.
Perhaps you should consider using axioms that can't be demonstrated to be wrong, though.
as any other first principle(axiom) the Bible can not be demonstrated in terms of empiricism for example(all knowledge comes through propositions that are either true or false,senses at best can tell us what Is, not what Ought to be)
Christianity is the ONLY system that stands when it comes to logical coherence while ALL others are in the dust
as for axioms being demonstrated to be wrong,the whole point of having an axiom is to start somewhere thus they can NOT be demonstrated
@martalog121 "Christianity is the ONLY system that stands when it comes to logical coherence while ALL others are in the dust"
Circular logic, since you're using the Bible as your reference point for reality.
Here's the thing though: your axiom, the Bible, contradicts itself. How is that not demonstrated to be wrong, even using the Bible as your starting point?
the so called 'contradictions' of the Bible have been addressed by many christians writers and is just a matter of beating of a dead horse(s) by unbelievers.
as i said logical coherence is a mark that only the Bible scores,dismissing that fact is not a refutation by any standards and u should know that
the Bible says that all of us r sinners(Rom. 3:9) how true is that? well,no parents have to teach a child how to lie,get it?
@martalog121 Proclaiming it a fact when it's not is not support by any standards and you should know that. As I said, proclaiming the Bible to be logical when you consider it axiomatic is circular logic. The Bible does not score logical coherence.
"The Bible says that all of us r sinners/How true is that?" I couldn't say. Sin only exists if there is a deity to sin against, and since the second cannot be established neither can the first.
@Antifides"The Bible does not score logical coherence."
according to u, but according to christians it does and unless u believe in accidents u have to aknowledge that the 66 books are a logical system that have a divine author eventhough the human agents that actually penned the books lived in diff. time periods and diff/ locations
as for the sin of lying by saying: "I couldn't say" u just made it a possibility that u don't care if someone lies to you,ofcourse i don't believe that for a sec.
@martalog121 I provided you with verses which I believe show why it doesn't score logical coherence. But again, I'm using the actual definition of logic, not the one based on the Bible. I also asked you to explain those verses. Even if it did have logical coherence, all that would show is that the editors did a decent job.
"as for the sin of lying" A sin is an offense against a deity. If the deity does not exist, then sin does not exist. That says nothing of my opinion on lying.
@Antifides " the deity does not exist, then sin does not exist"
as i said before,without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor affirm anything
denying the God of the Bible ipso facto u're denying morality trying to avoid the obvious when it come to lying is exactly what i expected from your worldview,u can't do any better
the Bible makes very plain claims that the Creator/deity exists and u are without excuse "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.."(Rom.1:28)
@martalog121 "as i said before,without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor affirm anything"
I do not accept your assertion.
The rest of your post is gibberish to me, except for the Bible verse, which I dealt with in PM.
"u can't do any better" Than the Bible? For morality? That's a good one.
On an unrelated note, from my limited research on the subject, the ninth commandment specifically refers to falsely testifying. It's not a general proscription against lying.
i know u don't accept my assertion but in doing so u are left with pesky relativism which does not allow u to judge anything 'good or bad' and when u come up and do better for morality other "gods", like you, will pose the question : who made u god above us?
so,in reality u have nothing but wishful thinking
as for lying read John 8:44; Rom. 1:25;Eph. 4:25, don't just assume that if it's not in the 10 commandment then is something we should not worry about it
@martalog121 I don't need to read it. I'll take your word on it. I still won't worry about it, though.
In reality, I have a perceptually accurate reality. I'm not sure why you think I need wishful thinking.
"in doing so u are left with pesky relativism"
I don't understand your point. I should believe in God because my position is inconvenient? I prefer that my beliefs be as accurate as possible. Besides, I have the same problem with your god.
your position(empiricism) is logically inconsistent(inconvenient as well),as soon as u try to come up with some sort of "morality"...u're a god amongst many other gods,and more importantly who made you chief?
u can dream about it, but if u were to make public a totaly new morality that u think will work and be better than the Bible's i'm afraid that u'll be very dissapointed with the public's(leaving the christians out, of course) acceptance of it
@martalog121 Wrong. Morality is subjective. Empiricism does not deal in it.
I'm afraid that a morality different than the Bible's is already quite in effect right now. I'm sorry that you haven't been informed, but it's now considered immoral to keep slaves, just as an example.
if that's the case maybe we should legalize marriages between men and dogs or a combination of dogs and cats,what do u think? amaizing !
as for "a morality different than the Bible's is already quite in effect right now" i think u're confusing the degrading of Biblical morality for a "diff. morality"
@martalog121 Part of science is empiricism. If we didn't gain knowledge from our experiences, what would we go off of? But you say your God never changes, and all that brings is Dark Age mentality. There were no new scientific invention or progress of any kind. If anything, scientific knowledge went backwards. The only thing the Dark Ages brought us was the crusades, and Robin Hood.
i have addressed empiricism as a method of knowledge...
u seem to confuse roman catholicism for biblical christianity,the Dark Ages were brought about bc of the supertitious and antichristian sys. that RCC imposed on the common people
as soon as the Reformation took almost half of Europe back to Biblical christianity,western civilisation took off and science begun to develop.Science is a byproduct of the preaching of the Gospel that the reformers started in the 16th century
@martalog121 Then what about the Puritans and the Burning Times? Or the English and Spanish war, which was Protestant against Catholicism, during Queen Elizabeth I? Or the British and the IRA? Or, most recently, Bush's war on terror, which no matter how you see it, is fundamental Christianity against radical Islam? And science is a byproduct of people wanting to know what really was going on in the world around them. Not the preaching of the Gospel.
without the Reformation(preaching of the Gospel) all of us would be the slaves of that wicked antichrist that sits in the vatican pretending to be god,without the Bible our freedoms(whatever we have left of them) would be non existant
who r those people that wanted to know "what really was going on in the world around them" ? would some of them be a Newton,a lord Kelvin ?ohhh but those 2(amongst many others) were Bible belivers
@martalog121 Newton was Christian, but he said that we shouldn't put "God" in the holes. And whether they were Christians or not is irrelevant. The point is, they were scientists who wanted to know the truth of how the world works. And the reason the majority of people were "Christians" is so they wouldn't be killed. But you never did answer any of my questions. So, what were the Puritans who burned "witches"? What of the English/Spanish War? The British and the IRA? Or the war on terror?
Newton wrote around 1000 pages on the Bible,do u think he had to do the extra to show his "christianity" ? lol
as for the english/spanish war the spaniards attacked england at the order of the antichrist(pope of rome) IRA,well the same thing
the sins of the puritans when it comes to the burning of "witches" is something they will answer for(Jesus Christ never taught anybody to burn another human being)
as for the bush, just another crusade for that wicked man in the vatican
@martalog121 So what? The Muslims were more scientifically advance than the Christians during the Middle Ages. That proves jack shit. What about the Greeks and Romans? They were more advanced than the Christians of the Middle Ages.
The Protestants of England weren't innocent. They persecuted the other sects as well. The IRA fought to free Ireland from Protestant England because they were being repressed.
"Thou shall suffer not a witch to live." Exodus 22:18. What do you think that means?
what happened to the muslims,greeks and romans?why have they stopped(i mean they were ahead of the christians)?how do u explain their sudden lack of interest in advancing their sciences(care to explain the muslim countries of today and their poor living conditions for the common people?)
i never claimed that the english protestants were innocent so i don't see the relevance of your point
Exd 22:18 is quite explicit,even u can understand it ;)
@martalog121 The Greeks and Romans were taken over by different religions. The Muslims were taken over by the radical Muslims. You didn't claim Protestants were innocent, you just blamed every Christian atrocity on the Catholics. And you're right, I know exactly what it mean, and I know that the Christians weren't the only sect to kill witches.
@martalog121 But before I even mentioned the Burning Times you were blaming everything on the Catholics. So until that point, my assertion was not false.
look,to me roman catholicism is not christianity,during the sessions of the council of Trent the claim was made that the hierarchy is the 'church',the laity is just to obey what the hierarchy dictates for them and that's all
they(nominal 'catholics') are...slaves of the pope(s)
@martalog121 They follow the teachings of Christ, they're Christian. And I could say you're a slave to your pastor for the same reason you say Catholics are slaves to the pope.
@Martalog121 The Jews, Christians, and Muslims follow the same deity, otherwise they wouldn't be called the "Abrahamic" religions. The follow the deity of Abraham.
HimesInu 1 month ago
Idiots should not reproduce. That includes out of wedlock immorality.
Karoke77 2 months ago
Christians are such intellectual losers in life o_O
Karoke77 2 months ago
Casey Luskin would do well to heed the words of his elders: "... be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers". -- St. Augustine
yeshuahfullofit 2 months ago 3
Man .Creationist have no other way to present thier arguement with out Lies.Not a contary view of evidence presented by scientific study,,but LIES..flat out Lies.And these are people claiming to be morally superior becuase of thier delusional beliefs.If there was a God ,he /she or it would make it known ..these people do not in anyway shape or form Represent me.Please completely ignore them and use all the power you have discovered in Biological Science to get them the Meds they so clearly need
copycoonie 2 months ago
Quote mining:
aparently evidence for god is found in the quotes of us that dont believe in him if you ignore the right bits
deathman1021 3 months ago
Casey Luskin also discriminates against new scientific approaches, after I sent him a 46 page scientific abstract, in which I claim it to be a mathematical proof for intelligent design?
Dear Mr. Ruiz Garcia,
Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I reviewed your material and determined that it is outside the scope of what we do at Discovery Institute. Thanks and all the best.
Sincerely, Casey Luskin
So what should be considered to be inside the scope of what they do at Discovery Institute????
amarugarcia 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA ans read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-boson-or-god-particle-which-exist-in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist atr welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology.FIT technology forecast tsynami,IRENE Hurricane
vk sonakia
unified field scientist
bhopal
INDIA
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
vksonakia 4 months ago
Creationist lying, who would have thought.
77Totems 5 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@77Totems: "Creationist lying, who would have thought."
You can tell when a Creationist is lying because his lips are moving.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@77Totems creationist lying, thats too redundant, just stop at creationist
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 4 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you read DonExodus' profile, you'll see that he's openly an anti-religion bigot. Furthermore, if you look through his friends list and the positive comments on his videos, you'll notice a disturbing trend: They're nearly all atheist.
This confirms something I've suspected for years now: Darwinian evolution is an atheist religion in a cheap tuxedo. It has all the hallmarks of a religion. It's also why it's so ardently defended, even to the point of outright dishonesty (see this video).
ReturnOfTheJam 5 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam Weird, why would he hate religion AND be an atheist while revealing time and time again how he's actually a Christian? Is it because he believes in a religion but at the same time HATE ignorance? Maybe so.
alias100 5 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam First off, evolution is a scientific theory, NOT a religion. Atheist is merely the disbelief in god, also not a religion. There are christians who accept evolution, as well as members of other beliefs. I'm not an atheist or agnostic and I fully accept evolution. I don't pray to darwin, or see him or any scientist as holy. I merely accept the science in evolution, as well as the science in medicine, technology, physic's, etc.. Please stop being dishonest about evolution.
Boudiga 5 months ago 14
@Boudiga I am an atheist, but have no problem with christians. My parents are christians who also believe in evolution and science. Its not a religion that is a problem with me, its ignorance and stupidity. Why do these creationists deny the evidence? Nobody can disprove God, but evolution is a proven fact.
nancy6ify 3 months ago
@nancy6ify I'm not a xian but your right! Theses ppl are a disgrace to theist. They are lost in the darkages when its convent to for them. But their the first idiots lined up for the flue shot. Something I personally don't trust but that shot is a product of evolutionary studies!
Boudiga 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Boudiga You are incorrect. Evolutionism is a religion. As is Atheism.
You BELIEVE and have FAITH in Darwin, Your Lord and Saviour.
What's your proof? None, for you are a blind fanatic. If someone asked you to spend your entire life to prove evolutionism, to anyone, you would fail.
Please stop preaching your Evolutionism.
Proof or GTFO!
Soveraine 2 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam
being anti-religion is not being a bigot, its being smart. There is no evidence for god what so ever.
assym2006 5 months ago 2
@ReturnOfTheJam "It has all the hallmarks of a religion"
Wow, so you have no idea what a religion is either huh?
roont 5 months ago 2
@ReturnOfTheJam Lol.
Helge129 3 months ago
I don't know how you, Thunderfoot, and the rest of you guys can watch the IDiot stupidity and outright dishonesty time after time without getting mad and just going off on these fuckers. I deal with the YT IDiots and Creationist, and they piss me off to the point that I have to walk away from my computer or risk throwing it.
HimesInu 5 months ago
We're still evolving! ^__^
LocustaVampa 7 months ago
if creationists keep saying the end is coming long enough they will eventualy be right, as around 5 billion years from now the sun will broil the planet alive. They will be dissapointed however because there is no jebus required
remnock 8 months ago
I need more buttons than 'like' and 'dislike', I want buttons that describe my intense hate and buttons for when I really love something.
Anyway, I really liked this video.
pineapplepenumbra 8 months ago
I've always find it interesting that creationists reject the science and logic that show evolution to be true, and accept the science behind vote-bots. Oh well.
upsilon054 9 months ago
"The Discovery Institute Embarrases itself...again" - who the eff are you to say if somebody is embarressed? The Creationists were just sharing their view, their knowledge. You say that we "know" the phylogeny of molluscs, yet the dumbass wasn't around millions of years ago when things were changing. People who say evolution is true are really embarassing because they think they're know-it-alls
OldaurGold 9 months ago
@OldaurGold It's better to be a know it all and be able to correct what is wrong, than to be idiots and ignorant of all that contradicts what you believe.That's why the ID and the Discovery Institute fail.
crazyinsane500 9 months ago 7
@OldaurGold You don't need to be around for millions of years.
Is it really acceptable to "share your view" by flat-out lying and then submitting it as fact?
ElitestPirate 9 months ago
Bot-rating-attacks just prove how stupid, frustrated and evil creationists are...
If I ever had any doubts about this issue, I'd think to myself "If these guys are sabotaging stuff, then they can't be good. Screw creationism then."
skaruts 9 months ago
Humanity invented beer thousands of years before they invented Jesus Christ. Worship beer!
biggingeryeti 10 months ago 22
@biggingeryeti i worship beer every saturday night ,so i can be called faithful?.
TVCSD 10 months ago
@biggingeryeti
-
What does biology have to do with religion, you fool? Enjoy the science and leave the attacks on religion out of it.
And I'll add that it is precisely because of people who use Evolution as a weapon for anti-religion that so many religious individuals strongly suppress evolutionary biology. Let's get this straight: religion is religion, science is science. You cannot draw supernatural conclusions (God does not exist) from a natural theory.
AgApE010 9 months ago
@AgApE010 No, you can't draw supernatural conclusions from a natural theory, I agree. The thing is the supernatural has been claiming the cause for natural occurrences for centuries and now science is showing them all to be what they are. Natural phenomena. Science is continually proving religion wrong. Whether there is something outside of our time and space I have no idea, but it sure isn't the bullshit that people made up and called holy books.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
-
Granted, in times of ignorance people were quick to point to the sovereignty of God as the cause of all things; which, to be sure, is not wrong in the broadest sense, but is wrong in the sense that there were certain means by which God acted (i.e., the Big Bang).
"Science is continually proving religion wrong"
Since you just said yourself that you cannot draw supernatural conclusions from a natural theory, in what sense do you mean this?
AgApE010 9 months ago
@AgApE010 In the sense that religious claims about the universe, our planet, our species eclipses etc have all been found to have a natural explanation. When I say religion, I mean Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc as being man made. Outside if what we can currently test and know there may well be some kind of ultimate being, I don't believe that there is, but if there is it certainly isn't what we have made it out to be.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
-
Lol you cannot simply claim with certainty that whatever being created the universe is not one of the beings presented by the monotheistic religions. Such a remark shows a lack of knowledge of theology.
The only claims that Christianity makes about the universe is that it was created by God. Again, that is not, and can not, be "disproved" by science. Christianity makes no kind of scientific claims about eclipses or the means by which higher life came about.
AgApE010 9 months ago
@AgApE010 Well, science can disprove the bible and without the bible christianity is a moot point.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
-
It's the same fallacious claim you're making. When I say "Christianity," I mean the Bible, as Christianity is based on that book.
AgApE010 9 months ago
@AgApE010 How is that fallacious?
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
-
Because the Bible does not attempt to teach science and you cannot use natural theories to disprove supernatural claims.
To clarify, "supernatural" means "outside of nature." Therefore, since we cannot apply scientific observation and experimentation to something outside of nature (and therefore outside of the reach of science), we cannot argue against supernatural claims with science. Therefore, "Evolution" does not equal "no God."
AgApE010 9 months ago
@AgApE010 I'm not talking about evolution, although it does disprove the account in genesis. What I mean is without the bible there is no christianity. And the accounts that are in the bible, genesis, noahdic flood etc can be shown as false by what we know through science. Now, there may be some kind of ultimate being that exists outside of our universe (I, personally, don't believe there is), but it is not what we think of in terms of known religion.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
-
Again, the Bible does not make scientific claims. The problem is Fundamentalists who interpret the Genesis accounts literally. The Creation account and Flood account, for instance, are not literal. Top Old Testament scholars like Dr. Bruce Waltke have written extensively on these subjects. You can check out the BioLogos website for some great articles on these topics.
AgApE010 9 months ago
@AgApE010 I agree, it doesn't make scientific claims, but it does make testable claims which fundamentalists are trying to push into sceintific education. When atheists such as myself complain about bible and religion,this is generally who we are talking about. I have no problem with personal faith. The main problem is, indeed, fundamentalists, that was what my point was about. I went to catholic school and it was always taught as stories which we could learn something to live by.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@biggingeryeti
which 'science' are u talking about?u should realize that the so called 'science'(preatty much all the fields of science) are inductive and thus fallacious in their assertions.
as for your "I, personally, don't believe there is" ,again u don't seem to realize that u are claiming to have one(omniscience) of the attributes of the God of the Bible and then u turn around and deny Him,nice try but self refuting at best !
RCC has been teaching lies for centuries...
martalog121 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@biggingeryeti
which 'science' are u talking about?u should realize that the so called 'science'(preatty much all the fields of science) are inductive and thus fallacious in their assertions.
as for your "I, personally, don't believe there is" ,again u don't seem to realize that u are claiming to have one(omniscience) of the attributes of the God of the Bible and then u turn around and deny Him,nice try but self refuting at best !
RCC has been teaching lies for centuries...
martalog121 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
'science' changes all the time and it will never be a reliable source of truth.
as for your " (I, personally, don't believe there is) " u are conveniently asking us to believe that u posses an attribute that belongs to the God of the Bible(omniscience) and then u turn around and deny His existance,nice try but rethink your false assumption.
without the God of the Bible u/anybody can neither deny nor affirm anything !!!
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Wrong. Science refines all the time. There is a difference. If you think that science changes all the time, next time leave your house by the second floor instead of the first. And if you say well scientists though the earth was flat etc, those were errors based on reasoning, not observation. I am not saying that god is omniscient, that is what proponents of religion say. I am using their claims to show why they are wrong. I agree. I can't say that there is no god.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
only the God of the Bible can make the assertion "there is NO god"(and He has made that assertion numerous times in the Bible) so when people like u("Now, there may be some kind of ultimate being that exists outside of our universe (I, personally, don't believe there is...")), start making FALSE assertion about His existance only proves Proverb 14:1.
as for science "refining' itself,newtonian physycs was discarted all together not refined !
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 But you can't show me any evidence that there is a god so I find no reason to believe in one, especially in any of the man made religions we know of today. Show me verifiable, repeatable, valid, measurable evidence that god exists outside of natural world and I will, in the words of Tim Minchin, "When I’ve recovered from the shock, I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti empiricism is not reliable(our senses are easely fooled) so u should abandon this type of epistemology and switch to Revelation(the axiom of Christianity),the One True God(the One u'll find in the Bible) has spoken and you are without an excuse before Him.
Believe in Jesus Christ or else u'll perish in your sins(turn or burn).
care to prove your false assertion that Bilical Christianity is "man made"?
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 It is full of errors, contradictions and things we know are not true. But the one fact that proves it is man made? It permits slavery. No loving, merciful god would surely allow that. So I can be the best, nicest person in the world and spend eternity in hell for not believing but the worst murdering rapist would go to heaven because he does? Either it's man made or your god is an idiot.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
who's the "we"(."...we know are not true")? hasty generalization and ad populum are both fallacies !!!
based on your epistemology you can NOT claim something(thing or person) is 'good or bad' so yet again you appeal to Christianity in your futile atempt to disprove it.Nice try, but once again a failure on your part.
maybe u should start rethinking your worldview?
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 I never used epistemology to say the bible was bad. I used morality. I claim the same about Mohammed having an 8yr old bride. And unless you can explain to me how slavery is not an immoral act I suggest it is you who needs to change your outlook. When I say 'we' I mean atheists or rational people. Just as you would say that 'We believe in the resurrection'. And my appeal to christianity is perfectly valid because that is what you claim is true.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
the morality that u used is from the Bible(your worldview/epistemology [empiricism in your case]does NOT allow you to judge anything 'good or bad'!!!)
understand that u are inconsistent and thus selfcontradictory in your assertions,bringing Mohammed into disscusion is another fallacy!
the implication that atheist are 'rational' is bogus! just assuming something without proving it means NOTHING !
u keep 'borrowing' from Christianity,why?
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Because you believe christianity, you are most familiar with it. How am I being inconsistent? Slavery is bad or wrong in any and all cases. Explain to me how it is okay for your religion to permit it. Atheists are rational (or more rational), atheists don't accept anything on faith alone, we demand evidence and you can not present any. If you, or any other religion for that matter, can't present any evidence to support the claims in your holy book, why should I believe in it?
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
how are u rational when u're useing Christian principles(good vs bad) and then u turn around and reject the God that gave those percepts?based on your empiricism,as i pointed before,u or any atheist CAN NOT object to ANYTHING! without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor afirm ANYTHING
u keep beating the dead horse of empiricism...again, our senses are very easely fooled,no amount of 'proofs' are going to do u any good.
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Really? Our senses are perfectly adequate for judging reality. Yes they can be fooled, but if you think they aren't reliable, I assume you drive with your eyes closed? Or don't look where you are walking? Don't be ridiculous. Our senses are the only tools we have for receiving information from reality and with science we can predict what forces and behaviours are likely to happen given certain parameters. I know that if I jump off something I will fall. I know that if I bleed too
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
first,science is assuming the consequent in its endevours and thus it's fallacious but then again your mind has been made,facts will not bother u,right?
second,i knew u 'll go to a bunch of wild accusations about our senses...;)
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Gravity (for example) is a fact. It can be measured. Demonstrated. Reliably tested and calculated. It is these factors that constitute a fact, and get around the problem of any sensory error. You can not do these things with god. And now I think that you are just trolling me.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
u can NOT see,touch,smell gravity(we can only infer that it exists),so by your own demand for empiricism,u have refuted yourself
so if u can make in inference about gravity,why do u go 'wild' about my inference about God?
maybe this time u'll see your inconsistency?i have a feeling u'll not even budge LOL
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Proofs are the only thing we have. What else is there? You ever taken medication? Painkillers? Ready meals, shit, every part of your life has been made better by science and these 'worthless' proofs of yours. How do you think you are able to use that computer of yours? You seem to forget that christianity does not have the monopoly on morailty. We have evolved moral behaviours, because they benefit populations and individuals. It does not. If it does, then I would like you to
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
believe it or not western civilazation has been built on judeo-christian principles so this false assertion about moral evolving is just in your dreams...just because our society permits the DECAY of morals does not mean morals have 'evolved' !!!
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Are you serious? You think that morality somehow popped into existence with the bible?
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
define good and bad outside of the Bible...gime your best shoot!
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 I don't believe that there is a objective morality, but I believe that morality is generally subjective. Basically, if everyone followed moral law X, would society be better or worse for it? I apply the same for general people, If I do x will it have an unnecessary negative impact or effect on others? Obviously, if you want me to state what is bad or good, it is dependent on so many factors, which is why law is so complex. But the two that are always wrong: slavery and rape.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
if morality is subjective,then anything goes...Hitler,Mao,Stalin were right and u can not condemn any of those guys
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Don't be ridiculous. There is no justifying what they did. I may justify killing someone who is attacking my family, or even battling an army that is attacking my nation, but the systemic slaughter of millions of innocent people can not be justified in anyway. Subjective morality doesn't allow for anyone to be right about any act. It just allows that in certain circumstances certain acts can be justified. Ethnic cleansing is not one of those things.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
u keep avoiding the obvious and refuse to admit that u have no bases to judge anyone good or bad( but than again u have to,otherwise u'll cease to be an atheist ! ;) )
just bc u ascribe to some of the biblical morality and think it's 'good' does not mean some of those monsters were bound to do the same (and they din't) !
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 acknowledge that god condones and permits slavery and if you believe that slavery is moral.
So, okay, let's assume that I am neutral. I can't object. Answer me that question, and I'll repeat it:
Will you acknowledge that your god, the god of the bible, permits slavery and do you as a human being believe that slavery is moral?
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
can u be more specific about this slavery?give me verses but please don't give me some historical event in which some guy was cruel to another!
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
the verse talks about buying a slave not going to aquire one by force,in verse 47 the so called slave could get rich while being a slave...well how could this be?
i guess u anachronistically applied 17 &18 century AD definition of a slave into the Leviticus verse,i'll pretend u did a honest mistake ;)
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
economics involved selling of family members that were released in the 7th year...so?
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 If you honestly think that selling your daughter into seven years of slavery is okay, then there really is no hope for you.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
again,u are assuming ,17&18 century Ad,definition of a slave into the text of the Bible...why?
strange how u keep hiting dead horses...LOL
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 I couldn't care less what definition you choose to use, and there is no evidence to suggest that the term you use is true, but even if that were the case, even if she did get very well paid I still consider selling your daughter to someone where she can be beaten, required to please a man, where she is considered property and have no say over the matter to be immoral. I am honestly confused why you don't. But your lack of morality speaks volumes about the mindset of the religious.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
well,knowing how inconsistent u've been so far no surprise u don't care about which definition u use(anachronism is a fallacy so no matter how desperately u try to weasel out of it,u're still WRONG ! ;) )
my lack of morality?...that's very rich coming from a guy who refuses to aknowledge that he has no basis of judging anything/anybody LOL
as i keep pointing out ,without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor affirm ANYTHING !!!
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Do you believe that the definition of slavery contained within the bible is morally good? Yes or no?
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
morality according to whom?whatever God does is ipso facto good or even if its 'bad' He has a purpose for it !
at least try to understand the glaring diff. between the man stealing of 17&18 century AD and the economics of time of Moses.Stop assuming(fallaciously) that the 2 are the same...if u continue to do so i'll pretend u stop posting and are reconidering your selfcontradictory position LOL
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Moral according to you. I'm accepting the difference. I want to know if you, as a human being, consider the slavery in the bible (not 17thC, the economics of Moses' time) to be a morally good act.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
i've already answered...the same God that said "thou shall not kill..etc" made the provision for the "slavery" so u either take the whole package or reject it allf ;)
in your case,cherry picking as u see fit(making yourself the "measuring stick" for morality...very dangerous and unwittingly self refuting as i keep pointing out)
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 You haven't answered. You either do believe it to be a moral act or you don't. The fact is you know it to be immoral but you can't admit it because that would mean admitting that an act your god allows is wrong. It isn't cherry picking at all, there are numerous other things in the bible that are immoral, such as slaying every living thing in a village but keeping the virgins for yourself. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right and you are proving that.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
u're not reading my posts ! "if God said it, ipso facto is good..."
stop assuming(fallaciously) what i do believe or not!
u still can not account for the parts of the moral code that u accept and the rest that u reject...in the case of 'slavery'(Leviticus account) it was more an economics issue so stop making it what is not !
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Yeah you're right. Selling your own child, who has no say in it, who becomes the property of another person, who can beat the shit out of her, use her as they please and with no legal defence because, hey, god says it is okay. Oh yeah, she might even make some money. I hope you don't ever have kids. Fuck you and your immoral, evil god. You are a coward of a human being who can't accept what is blatantly wrong, preferring to try and justify heinous acts with 'He has a plan'.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@martalog121 And to be clear, I am not assuming what you believe, I asked you what you believe. And I have accounted for morality, it evolved as an essential part of societal evolution and is partially hard wired into our genetics and other part taught via upbringing and education. I don't commit murder because I believe taking a persons life is wrong. I have been brought up to think that and my conscience would make me feel guilty for doing it. Leviticus account of slavery is still slavery.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
u grew up in a society that was built on Judeo-Christian teaching so that's the reason u've been taught not to kill another...laughable and pathetic,really
here it is again :
without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor affirm anything...until u see that u'll keep making the same fallacies and beating dead horses
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Muslims make the same claim. Hindus make the same claim. The ancient Egyptians (and your god hadn't been made up at this point) claimed the same. EVERY religion makes that claim. Yet your particular religion somehow has a monopoly on morality. And you believe the one you were brought up with. Just like most Muslims, Hindus and ancient Egyptians. You can't affirm the bible to be true. You can't prove it to be true. You just believe that it is. That is pathetic.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
in Hinduism this world is just a 'dream',the muslims stole the motheism from the Christians as for the egyptians well Moses was trained at the pharao's court but for some reason we do not find any of the politheism of Egypt anywhere in the Bible
next time take the time and do some reading before u make this ignorant and false claims !!!
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 The only ignorant and false claim being made is by you when you assume the bible to be somehow true, with no evidence to support it. Just like every other religion and their holy book. You don't get it, do you? You have no evidence to suggest that your religion is any truer than any other religion. What somehow makes your religion true? The bible? You just stole Judaism and made some stuff up. The gospels can't even agree with each other on how things happened.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
the Bible is about 27% prophecy(telling the future from the past) no other 'holy' book in the world has that,so again u are ignorant and have no idea what u're talking about.(the Quran has a few 'prophecies' but for the end of the world,so we have to wait for the end to prove those prophecies)
look,even your unbelief is part of the Bible prophecy!
what Judaism had(OT) i also have so your argument is just mute,stop making it!
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Oh the prophecies. I forgot about those. Feel free to list them and the dates they were fulfilled. Well, not all. One or two will do.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
the day Jesus Christ was crucified, He fulfilled 33 prophecies of the OT
-no bone in His body was broken..(the same way the Passover lamb, starting in the wilderness and then in the time of the Temple,was not to have any broken bones)
-what He said,right before He died on the cross(Psl. 22:1)
-they gave Him vinegair to drink(Psl. 69:21)
u get the picture so NO more excuses from u,right? LOL
martalog121 9 months ago
@martalog121 Yep, no more from me. I'm converted.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martalog121 "Yep, no more from me. I'm converted."
Now look what you've done! You've got him pretending to give in, just to shut you up, shame on you for harassing the poor man.
pineapplepenumbra 8 months ago
@martalog121
If Jesus Christ ever comes back I'm going to crucify him, AGAIN! AHAHahahahha
OrthodoxDarwinist 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxDarwinist
unfortunatelly for u,the second time He comes(u can bet all your money on that too) it will be very ugly for people like you...JUDGEMENT so get ready, by the looks of it it will be very soon !!! AHAHAhahahahahaha
martalog121 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxDarwinist
unfortunatelly for u,the second time He comes(u can bet all your money on that too) it will be very ugly for people like you...JUDGEMENT so get ready, by the looks of it it will be very soon !!! AHAHAhahahahahaha
martalog121 8 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist
unfortunatelly for u,the second time He comes(u can bet all your money on that too) it will be very ugly for people like you...JUDGEMENT so get ready, by the looks of it it will be very soon !!! AHAHAhahahahahaha
martalog121 8 months ago
@martalog121 After 2000 years, there are still people saying that the end is near. Wow!
ndrthrdr1 8 months ago
@ndrthrdr1
your point being ?
martalog121 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxDarwinist
unfortunatelly for u,the second time He comes(u can bet all your money on that too) it will be very ugly for people like you...JUDGEMENT so get ready, by the looks of it it will be very soon !!! AHAHAhahahahahaha
martalog121 8 months ago
@martalog121 Very ugly for people like who? People who follow evidence instead of fear based superstition? Why would any sensible god favor that? In reality, atheists would be God's chosen if such a being existed... They pursue truth through evidence, not emotion. The track record of science speaks for itself.
What has faith given us, other than imaginary villains to worship and fear?
Poeticnuisance 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance
unbelievers,r u one of them?if u r then what i said applies to u too
as for science's 'track record', maybe u should read all my posts about science and then try again
define 'faith' please
martalog121 7 months ago
@martalog121 Faith, as the trust in that which cannot be perceived by the senses. Faith, as in acceptance of supernatural occurrences without tangible evidence. Faith, as in belief in gods or God by the inherited practices of your parents, authorities, or tribe.
I have seen nothing specific in your address of science, but rather generalized comments. If you like, feel free to reiterate.
What, exactly, am I an "unbeliever" of? I don't believe in many things... Fairies, Santa Clause, etc.
Poeticnuisance 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance
in the Bible,Faith,has only 2 meanings:
1.the mental act of believing something(i.e me believing that u wrote your latest post on this channel)
2.the body of doctrines(i.e all the teachings/doctrines that one finds in the pages of the Bible)
so your definition of 'faith' is not the Bible's,u need to get rid of your misunderstanding about 'faith' ;)
as for science take the time to read my posts,i was very plain in my assertions about it !!!
martalog121 7 months ago
@martalog121 The definition of faith I gave you was a summary of my own religious experiences as a devout christian. I have read 3 versions of the bible, cover to cover. The precepts of faith are quite clear. Believe doctrine over your own observation and logical sense. Believe in that which you cannot see, touch or reason, and accept one holy book above all the other holy books, even those written before or more recently than your source. No, my understanding of "faith" is quite complete.
Poeticnuisance 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance
your definition('as a devout christian') of Faith is not the Bible's,so even if u read 3 diff. versions(of the Bible) it's obvious that u missed the actual meaning of the word(your understanding is lacking and is 'quite incomplete to say the least') ;) !
as i pointed out before,empirical proof(s) is in no way to be trusted over revelation from God
martalog121 7 months ago
@martalog121 What evidence can you present that the bible is in fact revelation from god?
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to tell me... Induction is fallacious? You're going to have to be more specific. I think you need to read what scientific theory constitutes, because you appear to possess a flawed understanding, or no understanding at all.
Poeticnuisance 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance
it(Bible) was written in more than 1400 yrs by 40 diff. authors and yet is a logical 'encyclopedia' that shows a single Mind was at work...another one would be prophecy(~27% of the Bible is prophecy)
science is inductive and ipso facto fallacious,get it?
martalog121 7 months ago
@martalog121 Science builds on logical observations. How can a logical observation be fallacious if the conclusion is supported by the evidence? You're not making sense.
Poeticnuisance 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance "Science builds on logical observations"
really?don't u know that many 'discoveries' were made by pure accident?if u didn't know,u know now...so do not make this blunder again!
as i said before,do some studies in Logic and maybe then u'll understand me ;)
martalog121 7 months ago
@martalog121 If by accident you mean while following a formulated path of logic, then yes. Perhaps you should look up the definition of logic before you blunder into another nonsensical statement.
Do you seriously mean to tell me that the science that sent the voyager probe to the reaches of the solar system was accomplished by fallacious thinking?
Poeticnuisance 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance "If by accident you mean while following a formulated path ..."
whaat?i take it u don't want to be bother with facts bc your mind is made up...u're very funny to say the least
martalog121 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance
explain to me if u will....the discovery of PENICILLIN,take your time !!!
martalog121 7 months ago
@martalog121 How did he recognize the importance of what he found? Take your time.
Poeticnuisance 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance
i see that your so called ".. formulated path of logic"(refering to scientists/science) sometimes is just a dream that u need to wake up from ;)
as for the 'importance of what he found' again u have to understand that some of the 'super bugs',today, are immune to penicillin...it was true that penicillin was good for us at one time but that 'truth' is no longer true today
as i said before...science changes all the time,it's not reliable as a method of knowledge
martalog121 7 months ago
@martalog121 "as for the 'importance of what he found' again u have to understand that some of the 'super bugs',today, are immune to penicillin" completely ignores my point and jumps to something else entirely.
The fact that some strains of bacteria are becoming immune is evidence of what? Don't strain yourself too hard here.
Poeticnuisance 7 months ago
@Poeticnuisance"...completely ignores my point and jumps to something else entirely"
how did i jump to something diff. ? u claimed that science is based on "formulated path of logic"
in the case of penicillin(and many others as well) your assertion crumbles and u're left with NOTHING but wishful thinking which for some strange reason u can't see or pretend not to see
the implications of your epistemology is something that u have to came to terms with and be consistent about them
martalog121 7 months ago
@martalog121 There is a germ that lives of eating nylon. Nylon is a man made material created in 1958. Now either there has always been a source of nylon that we have never found and still haven't to date that this germ has been surviving off or god created this germ in 1958.
ihavevideoatoo 7 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo
as i keep saying,induction is always a fallacy(your false dilemma about the germ being proof of that)
if atheists were a bit more logical they would stop being atheists(at least some of them one hopes) :)
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 AHAHAHA, the irony is so thick I can taste it. In claiming that his false dilemma is proof, you made the hasty INDUCTION fallacy. Congratulations.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
u're right about the false dilemma(,good point ;) !!!)..it's not proof of induction but it's a fallacy that 'ihavevideotoo' made nonetheless
i should've been a bit more clearer
thx
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 You see you seem so reasonable there. I almost feel like I shouldn't have been mean... But then I remember you said this: "If atheists were a bit more logical they would stop being atheists," and then I don't feel bad.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
i give credit where credit is due
due to our sinful nature all of us make logical blundders,some more than others
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 For example, you just asserted that we have a sinful nature and that it causes things. I wonder what logical support you have for those claims.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
my logical support is Revelation(the 66 books of the Bible)as the Word(Jesus Christ) of God
in John 1:1 a perfect translation of the Greek word:LOGOS would be LOGIC
in this context Logic is a HE not an IT
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 But logic is not a he, it's a systematic process used to guide thinking and produce reliable results. You cannot support any argument logically by pointing to the Bible without first establishing that the Bible is true.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
the Bible says it's a HE "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God."(John 1:1)
the Bible is logically consistent and is the most authentic and accurate history book that humanity has
(even though it was written by 40 diff. men in a span of ~1400 yrs)
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 I repeat: the Bible is cannot be used to support your claim until the Bible is established as a reliable resource.
You just made another claim about the Bible. Why should I believe it?
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
i just told u that the Bible is the most reliable source u can dream of just bc u don't accept it does not mean it is not
dismissing something is not refuting that something !!!
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Just because you say it doesn't mean it is.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
dismissing it(the Bible) right of the bat and ignoring the coherent and logical system that Scriptures really are and then turning aroud and asking for "support" is a bit irrational
all of us have presupossitions(axioms) bc we have to start somewhere...my axiom is the Bible
yours might be empiricism,rationalism,irrationalism etc...as a recap axioms can not be demonstrated ! :)
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Who dismissed it? I asked you to support your claim. I've personally looked at the Bible and found it lacking, but perhaps you can tell me what establishes it as valid support for your claim that God is logic.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides" you can tell me what establishes it as valid support for your claim that God is logic"
i gave u the verse and u think that is lacking,i have no idea why but i'm assuming u're looking for something empirical,right?
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Sorry, I didn't read your last sentence. So you're saying that the Bible can't be demonstrated to be valid? Okay, since it can't be demonstrated, I won't use it, and I won't accept it from you as a source.
Perhaps you should consider using axioms that can't be demonstrated to be wrong, though.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
as any other first principle(axiom) the Bible can not be demonstrated in terms of empiricism for example(all knowledge comes through propositions that are either true or false,senses at best can tell us what Is, not what Ought to be)
Christianity is the ONLY system that stands when it comes to logical coherence while ALL others are in the dust
as for axioms being demonstrated to be wrong,the whole point of having an axiom is to start somewhere thus they can NOT be demonstrated
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 "Christianity is the ONLY system that stands when it comes to logical coherence while ALL others are in the dust"
Circular logic, since you're using the Bible as your reference point for reality.
Here's the thing though: your axiom, the Bible, contradicts itself. How is that not demonstrated to be wrong, even using the Bible as your starting point?
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
the so called 'contradictions' of the Bible have been addressed by many christians writers and is just a matter of beating of a dead horse(s) by unbelievers.
as i said logical coherence is a mark that only the Bible scores,dismissing that fact is not a refutation by any standards and u should know that
the Bible says that all of us r sinners(Rom. 3:9) how true is that? well,no parents have to teach a child how to lie,get it?
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Proclaiming it a fact when it's not is not support by any standards and you should know that. As I said, proclaiming the Bible to be logical when you consider it axiomatic is circular logic. The Bible does not score logical coherence.
"The Bible says that all of us r sinners/How true is that?" I couldn't say. Sin only exists if there is a deity to sin against, and since the second cannot be established neither can the first.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides"The Bible does not score logical coherence."
according to u, but according to christians it does and unless u believe in accidents u have to aknowledge that the 66 books are a logical system that have a divine author eventhough the human agents that actually penned the books lived in diff. time periods and diff/ locations
as for the sin of lying by saying: "I couldn't say" u just made it a possibility that u don't care if someone lies to you,ofcourse i don't believe that for a sec.
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 I provided you with verses which I believe show why it doesn't score logical coherence. But again, I'm using the actual definition of logic, not the one based on the Bible. I also asked you to explain those verses. Even if it did have logical coherence, all that would show is that the editors did a decent job.
"as for the sin of lying" A sin is an offense against a deity. If the deity does not exist, then sin does not exist. That says nothing of my opinion on lying.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides " the deity does not exist, then sin does not exist"
as i said before,without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor affirm anything
denying the God of the Bible ipso facto u're denying morality trying to avoid the obvious when it come to lying is exactly what i expected from your worldview,u can't do any better
the Bible makes very plain claims that the Creator/deity exists and u are without excuse "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.."(Rom.1:28)
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 "as i said before,without the God of the Bible u can neither deny nor affirm anything"
I do not accept your assertion.
The rest of your post is gibberish to me, except for the Bible verse, which I dealt with in PM.
"u can't do any better" Than the Bible? For morality? That's a good one.
On an unrelated note, from my limited research on the subject, the ninth commandment specifically refers to falsely testifying. It's not a general proscription against lying.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
i know u don't accept my assertion but in doing so u are left with pesky relativism which does not allow u to judge anything 'good or bad' and when u come up and do better for morality other "gods", like you, will pose the question : who made u god above us?
so,in reality u have nothing but wishful thinking
as for lying read John 8:44; Rom. 1:25;Eph. 4:25, don't just assume that if it's not in the 10 commandment then is something we should not worry about it
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 I don't need to read it. I'll take your word on it. I still won't worry about it, though.
In reality, I have a perceptually accurate reality. I'm not sure why you think I need wishful thinking.
"in doing so u are left with pesky relativism"
I don't understand your point. I should believe in God because my position is inconvenient? I prefer that my beliefs be as accurate as possible. Besides, I have the same problem with your god.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides
your position(empiricism) is logically inconsistent(inconvenient as well),as soon as u try to come up with some sort of "morality"...u're a god amongst many other gods,and more importantly who made you chief?
u can dream about it, but if u were to make public a totaly new morality that u think will work and be better than the Bible's i'm afraid that u'll be very dissapointed with the public's(leaving the christians out, of course) acceptance of it
unlike you,my God does not change!
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Wrong. Morality is subjective. Empiricism does not deal in it.
I'm afraid that a morality different than the Bible's is already quite in effect right now. I'm sorry that you haven't been informed, but it's now considered immoral to keep slaves, just as an example.
"my God does not change!"
Debatable but irrelevant.
Antifides 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Antifides"Wrong. Morality is subjective"
if that's the case maybe we should legalize marriages between men and dogs or a combination of dogs and cats,what do u think? amaizing !
as for "a morality different than the Bible's is already quite in effect right now" i think u're confusing the degrading of Biblical morality for a "diff. morality"
i've addressed the slaves issue in earlier posts
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Change is good. Change brings knowledge. Without change, the world would be stagnate and wouldn't get anywhere.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu
empiricism as a method of knowledge is not reliable at all
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Part of science is empiricism. If we didn't gain knowledge from our experiences, what would we go off of? But you say your God never changes, and all that brings is Dark Age mentality. There were no new scientific invention or progress of any kind. If anything, scientific knowledge went backwards. The only thing the Dark Ages brought us was the crusades, and Robin Hood.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu
i have addressed empiricism as a method of knowledge...
u seem to confuse roman catholicism for biblical christianity,the Dark Ages were brought about bc of the supertitious and antichristian sys. that RCC imposed on the common people
as soon as the Reformation took almost half of Europe back to Biblical christianity,western civilisation took off and science begun to develop.Science is a byproduct of the preaching of the Gospel that the reformers started in the 16th century
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Then what about the Puritans and the Burning Times? Or the English and Spanish war, which was Protestant against Catholicism, during Queen Elizabeth I? Or the British and the IRA? Or, most recently, Bush's war on terror, which no matter how you see it, is fundamental Christianity against radical Islam? And science is a byproduct of people wanting to know what really was going on in the world around them. Not the preaching of the Gospel.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu
without the Reformation(preaching of the Gospel) all of us would be the slaves of that wicked antichrist that sits in the vatican pretending to be god,without the Bible our freedoms(whatever we have left of them) would be non existant
who r those people that wanted to know "what really was going on in the world around them" ? would some of them be a Newton,a lord Kelvin ?ohhh but those 2(amongst many others) were Bible belivers
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 Newton was Christian, but he said that we shouldn't put "God" in the holes. And whether they were Christians or not is irrelevant. The point is, they were scientists who wanted to know the truth of how the world works. And the reason the majority of people were "Christians" is so they wouldn't be killed. But you never did answer any of my questions. So, what were the Puritans who burned "witches"? What of the English/Spanish War? The British and the IRA? Or the war on terror?
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu
Newton wrote around 1000 pages on the Bible,do u think he had to do the extra to show his "christianity" ? lol
as for the english/spanish war the spaniards attacked england at the order of the antichrist(pope of rome) IRA,well the same thing
the sins of the puritans when it comes to the burning of "witches" is something they will answer for(Jesus Christ never taught anybody to burn another human being)
as for the bush, just another crusade for that wicked man in the vatican
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 So what? The Muslims were more scientifically advance than the Christians during the Middle Ages. That proves jack shit. What about the Greeks and Romans? They were more advanced than the Christians of the Middle Ages.
The Protestants of England weren't innocent. They persecuted the other sects as well. The IRA fought to free Ireland from Protestant England because they were being repressed.
"Thou shall suffer not a witch to live." Exodus 22:18. What do you think that means?
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu
what happened to the muslims,greeks and romans?why have they stopped(i mean they were ahead of the christians)?how do u explain their sudden lack of interest in advancing their sciences(care to explain the muslim countries of today and their poor living conditions for the common people?)
i never claimed that the english protestants were innocent so i don't see the relevance of your point
Exd 22:18 is quite explicit,even u can understand it ;)
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 The Greeks and Romans were taken over by different religions. The Muslims were taken over by the radical Muslims. You didn't claim Protestants were innocent, you just blamed every Christian atrocity on the Catholics. And you're right, I know exactly what it mean, and I know that the Christians weren't the only sect to kill witches.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu "you just blamed every Christian atrocity on the Catholics."
the simple fact that i agreed that some puritans were guily of "burning witches" is refutation enough to your false assertion !
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 But before I even mentioned the Burning Times you were blaming everything on the Catholics. So until that point, my assertion was not false.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu
look,to me roman catholicism is not christianity,during the sessions of the council of Trent the claim was made that the hierarchy is the 'church',the laity is just to obey what the hierarchy dictates for them and that's all
they(nominal 'catholics') are...slaves of the pope(s)
martalog121 6 months ago
@martalog121 They follow the teachings of Christ, they're Christian. And I could say you're a slave to your pastor for the same reason you say Catholics are slaves to the pope.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu
that's a fair assumption on your part but i can challenge the teachings of my pastor at any time,in RCC that is not an option for the 'laity'
as for the :"they('chatolics') follow the teachings of Christ",that is false due to the plethora of unbiblical dogmas that RCC has adde