I think Douglas Jacoby is making the whole issue about how we know stoning is wrong confusing. If Michael Shermer, who was an evangelical for 8 years, read the new testament, he would see that Jesus himself said that he came to abolish the Law, which didn't go well with the Pharisees. Also, read the story of the adultress woman. Another thing is, and this might be taking it a bit far, Moses could have made his own laws in order to deal with the stubbornness of the Israelites.
if morality isn't objective and real, how does Shermer adjudicate between the varying Old Testament moral laws? How does he judge what is closer or further to being "right" or "correct"?He's apparently using some kind of standard, but what IS that standard and how does he know it's reliable?
@dwheel39 chirst is the moral standard his teachings what he made available to us himself dying for me and his spilt blood being the new coventment to wash away our sins because the harts of people where far from (love)god and they would go off and commit horrible sin then have a traditional party with no hart but head knowledge so the issue isn't a technical one
@dwheel39 chirst is the moral standard his teachings what he made available to us himself dying for me and his spilt blood being the new coventment to wash away our sins because the harts of people where far from (love)god and they would go off and commit horrible sin then have a traditional party with no hart but head knowledge so the issue isn't a technical one
"Saved by the Bell" Shermer had Jacoby pinned against the ropes... he was just about to deliver the K.O. Blow and that freaking ref calls time lol..... let em fight man!!!...
Dr. Shermer is very ignorant about the difference between old and new testament. When Jesus came, he made a new covenant, then a new law came. That is why we do not stone women any more. Jacoby is not dancing around the question, but rather as he said it is a simplistic question. We do not follow that law because there is a new law with Jesus, but the old testament is important because it is our history. Why do we study history in school? Its important.
@mvgurlie50 How true, but Jacoby never said that! It would be a very clear answer to say, "We do not abide by the same laws of the Old Testament because Jesus acted as the sacrifice, fulfilling all laws for us." But he did not say that.
This was a disappointing clip from both sides. I was unimpressed with the direction of thought Shermer took the debate in when he could have asked so many more convincing questions and by the lack of a clear answer by Jacoby when an easy reply was available.
If I could ask a Theologian any question, it would be this: "In the Itchy & Scratchy CD Rom, is there any way to get out of the dungeon without using the Wizard's Key?"
The laws of Deuteronomy were for a theocracy ruled by God Himself exclusively for the Jews of that time period,not even for the people around them.There were moral laws,ceremonial laws,and civil laws,these were for the Jews and even special laws for the Levitical priesthood that others weren't even bound by then ,in the Jewish community.
@CapnofRum Jesus kept the Law completely and if He saves us His righteousness is counted as ours.This is not licence to sin wildly but if we sin we have an advocate.
@CBALLEN That doesn't address the argument at all. Dogmatic mumbojumbo has no pertinence or relevance as to whether or not God exists. Why is it that God has a paradigm shift regarding morality going from the Old Testament to the New Testament? If he were infallible in the first place, his law would have been infallible IN THE FIRST PLACE.
@CapnofRum I don't really think God changed the morality. I think he fulfilled the law, which made the Old Testament obsolete, because it was fulfilled.
your right! The law is still the same and the consequences are still the same. They are just trying to rationalize their way away retribution for wickedness, no we don't stone anybody for those things because they made laws that will penalize you but God operates in very different ways than man does!
How could "god" suddenly change his mind from OT to NT if he's perfect and unchangeable!? Why would a god change the strategy if he knows everything and is perfect to begin with!? Couldn't he come up with a perfect plan from the beginning? Is he some kind of a sadist?
@armelix73 It makes absolutely no sense. If he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, he would have the knowledge and power to create infallible laws. That's assuming he created us at all, however. If he was 'perfect', then there would have been no need to create the universe. Why would a child that is perfectly content want a toy to play with?
At this point it appears that Dr. Shermer's disagreement with Christianity is based on his own lack of understanding of the progressive nature of God's revelation--beginning with calling out a people who swam upstream against the cultural values of its day.
@lizazoon Yes, "progressive revelation" is like "progressive education," i.e. learning about a subject step by step. You don't learn everything at once in either.
@MorganMarvinson Exactly. And there is Jesus's sacrificing, which gave us the New law. Christians don't live by the old law, we live by the New law. Which doesn't involve sacrificing animals, or people.
So hearing Shermer trying to make an argument out of the Old Testament is kinda lame. At least in my opinion.
@Transformers217 If God is omniscient, he would have given us perfect moral laws that we wouldn't need to be skeptical of. But what did he decide to do instead? Give us the Old Testament, then change it up entirely in the New Testament. Why does he make contradictions concerning morality if he is an infallible entity? It is paradoxical.
Think about this...if we teach our kids that lying is acceptable, what will they do? Lie.
Since religion is the biggest lie out there, I think it is ingrained in people's minds that it is okay to lie...that, or they just think they'll be forgiven when they start marathon praying when they're on their death beds. :(
@kusalaviro the question being the law of stoning to death women and disobedient children? why to read the old testament and the ones to agree with and the ones not to agree with?i believe jesus was the messiah so if you are to believe the new testament he is the new covenant the new moral standard,stoning and other extreme methods of punishment our guidelines to just notice how serious our sin would have been punished in those days, and repent through making effort to change and move on in life
@slicksmitty1 Not one sentance in the new testemant says the old testament laws are no longer valid. Jesus also stated he is not here to change the old laws (you can google that). Besides that, it at least means that god was a fucking asshole at one time. Who would worship such a prick?
@kusalaviro well if you read from the gospels you'll notice how Jesus says Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.its a matter of hart and the implications of reading the whole text,like i don't use gods name in vain becuase of what he has done for me then i would notice how the might've stoned someone in the old days then i would feel guilty and ask for forgiveness its quite beautiful and refreshing to humble myself
@slicksmitty1 Spoken like a good little slave always obedient to his cruel dictator in spite of all his capricious acts. I'll make one assumption here though, YOU are more moral than the god you worship because, I haven't met you, but I'm sure you wouldn't do the shit god has done. I don't think you'd burn me in a fire for eternity either, even though I didn't believe in you...
@kusalaviro god is just, a year ago i would reminisce of all the horrible twisted things i would do to someone who would say that to my face the words might sting but you yourself i just feel sorry for,i can forgive my birth dad from the hart,i can be treated unfairly and just be fully content and smile and cry i can look weak and have so much joy i care about you becuase god firsthand has confirmed to me jesus is the way love you bro
haha! that idiot on the right kept skipping around the question and trying to run down the clock....HE NEVER ANSWERED SHERMER'S QUESTION!!!!! How do you pick and choose what you take and what you leave? That asshole couldn't answer the question because the only logical question is that we know...it is innate in ourselves, the belief that murder (stoning a woman to death) is wrong while helping the poor and the sick is good.
Oh ye God, benevolent and wise are thou that thy castif the first stone at the blasphemer and heretic, adulteress, and impotent child, witch and heathen, fornicator and sinner, oh how wise and all knowing are ye....
Praise and worship ye oh lord, benevolent and all powerful, magnificent and all knowing, glorious great grand and merciful. Ruler of the universe, ruler of the heavens and earth, creator and master of all man and beast, imprisoner of Satan, oh praise ye lord!
Schermer is way too friendly. Jacoby is dodging the question as could be expected; picking and choosing from the bible, embracing the few positive things that make sense, ignoring all the horrible barbaric stuff.
if Schermer simply asked one question. He is trying to ask a double question expecting one answer. if schermer had asked "do you think they would be applicable today" or "what is your stance for it today" that would be legitimate. but what He was saying "do you think it is wrong?" you would have to have a presupposition that there was a "right" or there was a "good" in which where would you get the definition of "good" or the standard of a moral "right".
No, Schermer is not picking in the bible - he is showing that Jacoby is using a HUMAN sensibility to choose what parts of the bible appeal to him. Jacoby is not treating the bible as the word of god, but the word of man. Understand? .
well, actually, Schermer would in fact be picking and choosing....though to make a point....he still is picking and choosing.
and nowhere have i seen Jacoby treat the Bible as the word of man rather than God's word.
yes, morality does vary from culture to culture, but even if you take ancient civilizations like early Christians, Jews, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, Hindus, and the Romans....you will see how strikingly similar their moralities are...despite religious differences.
"wouldn't Schermer be picking and choosing the bible as well?? "
Well yes - Schermer would be picking and choosing all the irrational, contradicting, erratic stuff from the bible to prove that it makes no sense whatsoever. Religionists prefer to either ignore the bad stuff, or rationalize it with baseless assumptions.
You can't just pick the stuff that looks good and take it literally, and ignore or 'interpret' the bad stuff. How do you decide?
well, even historians that do not agree with Christianity don't agree with that statement that it contradicts itself.
...message me the verses you think contradict and i will fix them (i know it'll take much more that 500 characters)
i agree that people of religion choose to ignore the bad stuff rather than dealing with it. which is ignorant and stupid....that is why i study hard to try to fix these differences so people can see what really is there....
"...message me the verses you think contradict and i will fix them"
No thanks - I fell for that one before. There is no way to objectively discuss all the contradictions in the bible with a fundamentalist christian, because by default they are incapable of even considering the possibility that the bible might contain errors. This fact alone makes discussing these issues futile. One look at answersingenesis(dot)com and you know what I mean.
well, i agree. but i am not a fundamentalist. i am a logician. message me the ones YOU think are. not a website. because you may not agree with all the website or you may have more.
or....we could just do it on here. it'll be a BILLION comments long tho. haha
evidence means, evidence, definition....presented facts. that is what it means. and again, i'm srry that most religionists are unscientific with you. many are ignorant. but, even Jacoby should be an example that not all are unscientific.
....well, you can also say that religion uses objective methods as well....if done properly. yes, there are some idiots out there that have done wrong....but there are MANY MANY more that have done right. unfortunately those that have done wrong stick out more than those who have done right.
i try to be as honest as i can, i give the evidences that i have gathered and that has been given to me, i present the points. if i know it, than i know it. if i don't, i don't. just like a lawyer does in court.
it is unfortunate that people do have to point out the bad things, or flawed things, rather than just simply lifting something up for the good it has done.
like, Christians have been feeding the poor for years, but i never hear praise for it...granted, i don't need it, but still.
"like, Christians have been feeding the poor for years, but i never hear praise for it..."
That's probably because non-christians have been feeding the poor as well and they don't get praised for it either.
If Christians help the poor, they do it because either their god or their bible tells them to. When atheists help the poor they do it because they want it to, not because someone else tells them to - there's a vital difference there.
now i'm not saying that non-Christians don't. my point was stating that Christians do great things....not all are idiots. and they do good things, as they should.....as a human should.
why does it make a Christian forced to do so....i know many "Christians" that don't help the poor....it doesn't mean that they are forced...if so...all would do it. it is those that do it are those that want to. no difference in humanity when it comes to Christians and atheists.
"no difference in humanity when it comes to Christians and atheists."
Though when it comes to morality, most christians think that morality comes from god and from the bible, whereas atheists say that morality is innate in humans and that the bible is actually not such a great source to get your morality from.
i agree that Christians believe that their morality comes from God and atheists believe it is innate. but think about that for a moment...if morality came from within us, like our instincts....our instincts can clash....and if a moral law was presiding over us tell us what we "ought" to do rather that what we "want" to do....there MUST be something stronger than ourselves telling us a Moral Law. because if so...morality would be multi-based, your morality, my morality, joe's morality...so on.
You would have to agree that the bible is at least very poorly written for being 'the undisputed word of god'. There is so much room for interpretation that most of the religionists are spending all of their time doing just that: interpreting the texts. This is also the reason for there being such an absurdly high number of religions, all based on the same book. One religion picks 'an eye for an eye', the other picks 'turn the other cheek', and so on.
o i don't see how it is very poorly written. maybe translated...but not written. if you read it in Hebrew and Aramaic for the OT and Greek for the NT you will see how precise and how beautiful it is. there actually is NO room for interpretation....religionists make it that way, like i said, ignorant folk they are. but, there are many that take it for how it is (especially many pastors that know the hebrew and greek to be able to teach it).
"o i don't see how it is very poorly written. maybe translated...but not written."
Leviticus was not mistranslated; the barbaric bronze age mentality in there is also in the 'original' versions. Yet most decent christians now agree that those horrific verses should not be taken literally. They used to take them literally, and some still do. How do you decide what's good and what's not? Why does it change in time how religionists interpret their holy book? ->
i was referring to how translations can be innaccurate rather than the actual texts. now....the levitical law....i'm no expert on it, but i do know a bit about it. in the levitical law there are many moralities that we still hold today, don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat on your spouce, discipline your children. now....are the details of each law different, yes! y? because it is a different culture. just like our laws are basically the same as China...but the details are not the same. simple
-> If the bible is the undisputed word of god, your guide book for a moral life, you'd expect it to be timeless - yet it isn't. How is that not poorly written?
Many of the events in the bible are scientifically impossible. You could say that the ark story is a metaphor or just a great story - I can accept that - but there are still millions of people that really believe that such an event actually happened. Yet all scientific evidence clearly proves it couldn't have. ->
...if each is mutually exclusive? again, what about since the speed of light is actually slowing down....scientists thought that light cannot slow down, but in recent years studies are showing that it is.
....you see, there are uncertainties in ALL things, and religion does happen to fall under "ALL". but yet, it is criticized the most. and even at that.....if we knew ALL so that there are no uncertainties....we would in fact....be God. u see?
what morals are outdated if you don't mind me asking? generousity, love, mercy, discipline.....to each yes, they do have details that have evolved....but each morality then is the same as of now. check ancient cultures such as, ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia, China.....all show that morality has not changed....minute details have, but all in all morality has been the same.
i would agree with the ark story, except the the earths atmosphere used to be different, and the ark has been found.
"what morals are outdated if you don't mind me asking?"
Ehm, well, the death penalty for having gay sex comes to mind. Or the death penalty period. Most modern civilized countries have abolished the death penalty because it is barbaric and immoral. In the US however, one of the most religious countries in the world, the death penalty is still very popular among Bible Belt Christians. Deuteronomy 19:21, "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
there are still countries that have death penalty for being homosexual. and the deuteronomy verse, if you read it in full context, it says that if someone does evil among you...and the life for life....this is saying "do not take anything more valuable than what was taken from you." its a law of fairness. still does not seem outdated.
"there are still countries that have death penalty for being homosexual."
Yes, and all of them are backward islamic countries.
"and the deuteronomy verse, if you read it in full context,"
Full context=the entire bible right? How do you decide which verses you can take literally (usually the good stuff) and which verses to 'read in full context' (usually the bad stuff)?
well....how can you say something is backward if there is no standard forward? and even China has laws against homosexuality....and they are no islamic.
lol. no. the full context means the passage in which it is written. meaning you can't pull something out because you can distort the meaning for one's own purposes. and this goes for all thoughts....whether if you want it good or bad. idc.....i wanna know what the WHOLE thing says no matter.
Surely you don't want to compare your morals to those of one of the biggest barbaric regimes on the planet?
"i wanna know what the WHOLE thing says no matter."
You still haven't answered the question; how do you decide which parts to take literally (like the creation story in Genesis, or the ten commandments), and which parts to 'interpret' or 'read in context'? If the bible says gays should be killed, why is that taken out of context?
barbaric....i would agree to some extent. but nonetheless, it is another culture that agrees homosexuality is wrong, and it is not based off Christian culture, not even religious culture. even Japan, one of the most intellectual cultures on the planet, has laws against homosexuality.
and i did answer this. because the punishment of cultures have changed. simply. even many cultures that were not Jewish did not accept homosexuality (granted some did) but it was a law of the land at the time.
"and i did answer this. because the punishment of cultures have changed. simply."
It's not that simple, because you know quite well that it's always the secular societies that are the first ones to initiate changes in morality, religion is always the last one.
And you still did not answer the question. How do you decide which parts in the bible are unchangeable and which parts aren't? Can the ten commandments be changed into the six commandments? Why not?
it is that simple. it is the same exact logic. if you cannot see God by empirical testing, you conclude He doesn't exist. so, if i conclude that your organs do not exist by empirical testing.....it is the same thing. now, this simply means that there are other ways of seeing things besides empirical testing, ok great. it just means that you cannot count God out by empirical testing alone because there are many things that cannot be accounted for by empirical testing alone.
It is not. There is solid, irrefutable scientific evidence that proves that a human being can not be alive without his internal organs. Based on this scientific fact, you can make future predictions.
You have no scientific evidence whatsoever to make any kind of prediction about the existence of god. As a result, anything is possible really. Your god could be dead - you have no reason to assume he isn't other than wishful thinking.
and i did answer. i said punishments of all cultures have changed, but the laws that state something immoral are still there.
so, by this, you cannot change any law....just the punishment of each law. so, if something says "stone your disobedient child" the law is for children to honor their parents...but the way of punishment is changed from stoning to....whatever is suitable for culture. u see what i mean now?
"so, by this, you cannot change any law....just the punishment of each law."
Not quite so. The laws themselves change as well. Laws against homosexuality for instance will eventually all disappear. It is happening as wel speak, the most religious countries taking much longer as usual. The US has now finally decided it will sign the UN Gay Rights Declaration, after having been the only Western nation that opposed to it for many years. Working on sunday is another one of those silly laws ->
well, law as we know it does change often, yes. but, does natural law change? the law of gravity? physics? moral law? no. lets talk about homosexuality since you brought it up. according to Natural Selection there would be no need for homosexuals since they do nothing for the expanse of the species....so why not kill them? now, i would not agree this is right to do....but Hitler didn't have any mind....but according to evolutionary theory....there was no problem for him doing this. honestly.
It most certainly does. Homosexuality has been considered as extremely immoral by religious fundamentalists for centuries. Most enlightened western countries have no problem with homosexuality anymore, it is no longer considered immoral. My country is run by a christian party, yet homosexuals can marry here in a church - moral laws most certainly change.
As for killing homosexuals - if we had to kill anyone that did not benefit our species, we'd be killing all day long.
Most enlightened eastern countries still do have a problem with it. so, i don't see where you are making your point on that it is not a cultural problem? i stated that moral law on the basis does not change. details can change due to culture, but the overall morality does not change.
[details can change due to culture, but the overall morality does not change.]
Your holy book clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination to your deity, it is immoral. Only 50 years ago, most Americans agreed. Another fifty years from now, homosexuals will be able to get married in a majority of the States - moral laws change.
What 'enlightened' eastern countries are you referring to? How would you define enlightened anyway?
-> that has been recognized as such by most people. Punishments change, but laws change as well - including biblical laws. The fact that the Vatican has now accepted the theory of evolution is just another example of how religionists realize that they have to adapt their interpretation of their holy books in a fast changing world where knowledge is growing exponentially.
if you can prove to me that it was a hoax....and provide evidence besides personal opinion. then maybe.
but, if it is found on a mountain (just as stated in Genesis), extinct wood and the EXACT measurements.....than so far the evidence is in favor of the story.
I assume you are referring to the Dogubayazit site in Turkey?
It won't convince you, science hardly ever does convince that prefer supernatural explanations, but here is some good info that should at least make you doubt the truthfulness of Wyatt's claims:
wow. there you go again assuming that i won't take this as factual evidence if true, simply because i am a Christian. you REALLY are starting to sound like a stereotypical Christian....judgmental. and people call Christian's judgmental.
i'll take a look at these websites when i get done commenting.
I apologize - I admit that I did sound a bit cynical there. Maybe it's because the majority of religionists here are indeed incapable of criticizing their belief or imagining there is a possibility they might be wrong.
its ok. i forgive you. and i know many...but i won't even come close to saying the majority. i don't even know the majority of Christians or religionists at all.
at least you admit it haha. and dude, i could be wrong too. i'm just going off the evidences that i have been given. i used to be JUST like you bro....but, evidence is in favor of Creation. it truly is. read Case for a Creator, it may lead you to further study or simply open your eyes on the spot. idk. but do read it tho, great book
.....ok, i just checked them out. they seem to have good information. but what i did not see where any names. on the first website it says "leading Christian Creationist" but gives no names....so, i don't know who to reference for future study. and the second website it does the same. but the 2 names given are, they guy who did the website and a deceased excavator that can no longer be interviewed.
i found one website that gave much information, a little sketch, but it gives lots of info...
Let me put it this way; even answersingenesis says it's a hoax. I mean, they're as deluded as can be. They have a very extensive analysis on their freakshow website, but for once they behave somewhat like rational beings:
-> There is no clear distinction in the bible between facts and fantasy, which causes different believers to believe different things. The virgin birth, the talking snake, 6-day creation, old earth creationists, hell or no hell - all based on different interpretations of the same book. Had the bible been written properly, with no ambiguities, there'd be only one possible interpretation. Like a book of law or a science book. You can't blame everything on mistranslations.
....as for the virgin birth, even Jews and Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin. 6-day creation, old earth theory or new earth theory....none actually matter, since God created it all in the first place (if you actually believe God created the earth)...if you have evidences for either side....great....but in the end, when you die....who cares? lol
even in law and science there are uncertainties. for example, light. what is light, particle or beam? they are both...but how so if....
"....as for the virgin birth, even Jews and Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin."
Virgin birth seems to be a requirement for many religions. Just like resurrections. Trends are not truth.
"even in law and science there are uncertainties."
There are many, and scientists will never stop working on them. That's what science does - getting answers. Religionist are not interested in getting answers - they're convinced -without any evidence - that they already have them.
i agree that trends are not truth. but i'm saying that Jews and Muslims believe that JESUS was born of a virgin....this isn't even their Savior. (well, He is, they just never accepted the fact).
just as there are uncertainties with things jumping from culture to culture over a thousand years. and there are translators and scholars that won't stop working on them. you see, please don't put all religionists in the same category, i know far too many that know and seem more evidence.
There is no evidence for any of the many virgin births that supposedly happened. The Buddhists have none for Gautama Buddha, the Greeks (2,000 B.C.) had none for Adonis, nor for Attis, nor for Dionysus, the Mayans had none for Ixquic, the Chinese (6th century B.C) have none for Laozi, the Aztecs had none for Huitzilopochtli, and the Christians have none for Jesus.
An ancient text written decades after the events supposedly took place, that have been tampered with for decades, is not evidence.
when i was referring to these cultures i was past the virgin birth, but onto how morality is basically the same, with slight details missing jumping from culture to culture.
the manuscripts that were written for the NT are very accurate, we have, as of now, 24,000+ manuscripts and nearly 5,000 are written within 80 years of the time of Christ. the even cooler fact is, our bibles now....are still the same as written in the 1st century. so, that counts out the tampering theory.
The stories in your holy book were written decades after the events supposedly happened - what kind of an eye witness account is that? You think it would hold up in a court of law? It's all based on hearsay and personal interpretation - every single gospel.
How come not all the gospels are part of the undisputed word of god? How is that not tampering?
like i said....they all were written at most 60 years. the thoughts of Buddha were written around 500 years. Hindu...written over a spanse of 2000 years but do not have a single focus....Christianity has writtings from 40 different authors, written over 1500 years and all point to one focus....salvation. simple.
"like i said....they all were written at most 60 years. the thoughts of Buddha were written around 500 years. Hindu...written over a spanse of 2000 years but do not have a single focus....Christianity has writtings from 40 different authors, written over 1500 years and all point to one focus....salvation. simple."
You forgot Mohammed, who got his stories straight from the source. Why not become a muslim then?
Whether a religion has a single focus or not, says nothing about the truthfulness.
o, i counted him out because it is only subjective writings from one person. the Bible is over 40 different authors over 1500 years, and the Hadith and Qur'an is within 25-30 years. and even in the Hadith it describes Mohammed saying that he wasn't even sure if he had his revelation from God or not...but it was his wife and her sister pushing the issue of their idea of Christianity from a heretical sect that was wiped out in the 8th century i believe. and it also describes perfectly of what -->
"o, i counted him out because it is only subjective writings from one person."
Mankind for most of it's existence thought the world was flat, that thunder was caused by angry gods, that disease was caused by evil spirits and that the sun orbited the earth.
If a billion people believe a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. Quantity says nothing about truthfulness. People believen in thousands of different gods. You believe in the god of your parents, like all believers do.
and as i said, the Bible states a few times that the earth is round, and that there are other people that are having night when they are in the daytime. so, yes, there may be others that believe such a thing, but even the Bible says they are wrong. and the Bible would stand as correct, because as we well know, the earth is round...just as the Bible states.
agreed, but i didn't state on belief. i stated on authorship. Quantity and length of time between authorships would give some validity.
The bible states many things. For instance that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and other planets travel around it. Now should I believe the bible or NASA?
where does the Bible say that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and other plants travel around it? since you have read the Bible through and through, you should know this, correct? if so, reference it to me.
[where does the Bible say that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and other plants travel around it?]
It's futile, you know it. Whatever verses I quote, you'll interpret it differently. Spend some time on answersingenesis for instance - it's pathetic how even the most ridiculous verses are twisted and turned and 'put in historical context' to make sense. If you truly believe that the bible is the undisputed word of god, by default you are not capable of critizing it.
so, you are making an assumption that the Bible says it? just like an Evolutionist. at least i will give you kudos for your consistency.
i believe in the undisputed word of God because 1) it is more consistent than Evolutionary theory. and 2) because more and more scientists are becoming theist (especially in the cosmology, physics and astronomy fields.)
[so, you are making an assumption that the Bible says it?]
Of course not - why should I assume the bible says it, when it clearly does so?
The earth is fixed at (or near) the center of the universe. The sun and other planets travel around it. That is what the Bible plainly says (Ps. 93:1; Ps. 19:1-6; Josh. 10:12-14) and what the evidence indicates.
And now you are going to prove my point that the bible is so poorly written, by claiming that these verses actually mean something else.
The bible states many things. For instance that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and other planets travel around it. Now should be believe the bible or NASA?
and i agree that if a religion simply has a single focus, it says nothing about its truthfulness. but it does give account to its consistency....though truth may be there or not. the idea of consistency gives much more validity to it. then it is when you test it with truth. and thusfar....the Bible holds up quite well with what truth is.
ooo....btw. this evidence was already tested by a lawyer, and the evidence would hold up in a court of law....read about Thomas Sherlock and Ross Clifford
and an eye for an eye and turn the other cheek i'll message you about....so i can give you an accurate example without taking more than 1 message....because i won't have enough comment space. sorry bout that.
Rationalists prefer the scientific method; there is little or no room for interpretation, it just is. No one interprets the theory of gravity differently, it is very clear and proven. Not many people interpret the books of law differently, because they were written specifically to have only one interpretation.
Spend some time on answersingenesis for instance, and see how they get to most of their conclusions based on nothing but interpretation. The ark article is downright embarrassing to read.
and i know many rationalists that prefer Christian thought alongside of scientific method. i'll take a look at that site when i can...i've been VERY busy lately so forgive me bout that.
"and i know many rationalists that prefer Christian thought alongside of scientific method."
How can an intelligent, rational thinking biologist or geologist use the scientific method and believe in the bible? Scientific evidence clearly proves that the bible is wrong on many accounts - how does that work? Ignore the silly parts and focus on the more sensible bits? How can you be a rationalist and be fine with that?
"this is personal opinion. you claim that the bible is not rational by your own personal thoughts and project them on the entirety of society."
Science is not personal opinion, it is fact. Science proves that the events described in the bible are scientifically impossible. And science shows us that there there is no empirical evidence that any of the miraculous events ever happened. That is not personal opinion, it is fact.
no when you said "How can an intelligent, rational thinking biologist or geologist use the scientific method and believe in the bible?" is personal opinion. the Bible constantly tells people to reason and seek knowledge. and it is your opinion that it doesn't.
and if i am standing in front of you there is no empirical evidence that your organs exist. so am i to assume that they are not there? again, speaking about dark matter....we cannot see it....be we know it is there...again...the wind...
really? then tell me how life must have started. tell me how these things that were documented even by pagan and Jewish historians that the Christians were doing miraculous things?
i agree, but you didn't answer it. would i assume that they are not there? since there would be no empirical evidence.....
"i agree, but you didn't answer it. would i assume that they are not there?"
I did answer your answer. Science is able to make predictions based on research and evidence. Your example makes no sense, because it would mean you'd have to believe in anything - there would be no reason not to. It is impossible to be alive without internal organs, therefore you can conclude that if I'm alive, I will still have (most of) my organs. What is interesting, is that you use the same logic as I do when ->
you did not answer as a matter of fact. if all things are proven by empirical evidence, and i cannot see your organs, than in fact....you do not have organs. i understand that it is biologically impossible....but going by empirical evidence....you would not have organs. this must mean that there are things that can be proven outside of empirical evidence. like, dark matter.
and i do dismiss all but one. because the fact is, there is only evidence for one. and i've heard that statement before..
"if all things are proven by empirical evidence, and i cannot see your organs, than in fact....you do not have organs."
Like I said earlier, science is capable of making predictions based on scientific research. We know that Pluto's orbit takes 248 years, yet no one has ever witnessed it. We know it takes 248 years based on scientific research. You could say that that Pluto might suddenly accellerate tomorrow, but until there is evidence that supports that, it won't.
If you believe the unbelievable, then basically anything is possible and you have no reason to limit yourself to a believe in god. There are thousands of people on this planet that claim to have been abducted by aliens - most of them are alive and well. Real first hand evidence, true eye witness accounts, yet you don't believe them. You prefer a bronze age text, writtten decades after the events supposedly happened. Why is that? Because your parents told you to.
and also studies show that most people that have been "abducted" also live in a mass neurosis, and is just in a hysteria and it fades out over time. miracles on the other hand would prove time and time again since the time of the Biblical accounts (from the Jewish and Christian perspective). now, i myself have seen some extraordinary things happen, which you may not believe me, but i do know what i saw though.
and actually no. my dad is deceases and idk if he believed or not, but my mom doesnt
"now, i myself have seen some extraordinary things happen, which you may not believe me, but i do know what i saw though. "
Am I correct that for religionists only extraordinary positive events count as miracles and extraordinary negative events don't?
For example: X is miraculously cured from a deadly disease, the doctors are clueless => miracle from god. Y unexpectedly drops dead, the doctors are clueless => not so nice, so not a miracle.
you are correct. simply because a Miracle is where God's hand touches a situation for the helping of someone in a positive way. so, you would be correct simply because that is the very definition. situation Y would be labeled as a supernatural act of God, not a miracle (depending on who it is hahaha jk jk)
The problem is that by default religionists are incapable of critizing their deity because he/she/it is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing and infallable. This per definition makes debating religionists futile. And yes, that makes me look rather stupid.
maybe for any other religion...but even the Bible urges for believers to test their faith....so, you may touch other religions, but not Christianity. the problem with evolutionists is that they are incapable of criticizing their faith.
[the problem with evolutionists is that they are incapable of criticizing their faith.]
You're confused again. Faith is believing something without evidence. Religion is faith. Evolution is based on scientific evidence as published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Scientists are constantly criticizing their findings - your statement clearly shows you never read any scientific journals.
Scientists are always looking for answers, no matter what the answers are; that is what science is.
Religionists are not looking for answers on matters that concern their faith - they think they already have all the answers. There's a vital difference there.
Real scientists can give you a list of potential scientific evidence that will convince them that they are wrong, no matter the subject or their personal opinions.
A religionist can not provide such a list, because they are incapable of accepting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
real scientists will tell you that we are in the perfect spot in our galaxy that we are not blasted by supernovae or gamma ray explosions that are toward the center of the galaxy, and that we are perfectly lined in our solar system that life can exist. our bodies are so complex that it is nearly impossible to explain that it evolved (nor can intermediate species be provided....just as you have not provided), nor can even the mere origin of life theory be consistant.
shoot, i would be willing for any information that would contradict Christianity. heck, that is how i became a Christian. along with C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Antony Flew (not Christian by Theist), Lee Strobel, and many other Christian or theist apologists.
so, if you can provide me an intermediate species, i will look at it definitely. but, you have failed time and time again to provide it.
[shoot, i would be willing for any information that would contradict Christianity.]
You misunderstood my challenge. I repeat:
Real scientists can give you a list of potential scientific evidence that will convince them that they are wrong, no matter the subject or their personal opinions.
A religionist can not provide such a list, because they are incapable of accepting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
So: what scientific evidence will convince you you're wrong?
incorrect. faith is believing in something because you know it to be true. whether if it is by facts or not. your faith is in partial science. mine is in God and science.
you have not mentioned a single intermediate species and then claim i am ignorant because i fail to recognize them. the burden of proof is on you to present your case. which species are you referring to?
maybe some faiths do, but Christianity never says they have all the answers....that would be prideful, thus, sinful.
To put this to the test; there is quite a complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps, represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others. You will now reject this.
wow. it sounds like you are telling me what to do. i'm pretty sure i will actually be looking into it since i have only heard of 2 of these species, Velociraptor and Archaeopteryx. but if you want to be judgmental (like the stereotype is for a Christian) be my guest.
its chill. but, you don't know the future, so don't try to predict it because you don't know what everyone is going to say. it makes you sound prejudice and judgmental....just like the stereotype that Christians have. not the best for your case.
[you don't know the future, so don't try to predict it]
Well, you keep dodging the question, so it does look like I do.
Again:
Real scientists can give you a list of potential scientific evidence that will convince them that they are wrong, no matter the subject or their personal opinions.
A religionist can not provide such a list, because they are incapable of accepting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
So: what scientific evidence will convince you that you're wrong?
i'm glad that you are using the English term. unfortunately for you, the Bible was not written originally in English. it was Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. and the Hebrew mindset for "Faith" was that it was the "driving force behind every action." so, i would be correct in the context of Biblical language
yea. but time and time again, you have failed to mention one. and are judgmental (wow, doesn't a Christian usually fall into that?) that you say all creationists believe this.
[i'm glad that you are using the English term. unfortunately for you, the Bible was not written originally in English.]
But that is not the issue. I responded to something you said earlier:
"the problem with evolutionists is that they are incapable of criticizing their faith."
You were using the word 'faith' in regular English context. I just wanted to point out that by its very definition you can not apply the word 'faith' to science, even though I realize creationists love to do it.
ok ok, i thought you were referring to something else. my mistake.
and even at that....science goes by what is true today. so, something can be true today in science, and not tomorrow. for example, look at the scientific research of 50 years ago compared to today's about cells. they thought they were just simply an organic blob, but now it is a vast number of "machines" for lack of a better word, within each cell.
so, technically, it is faith that you trust that it is absolutely true.
[science goes by what is true today. so, something can be true today in science, and not tomorrow.]
That's so great about science. Self-critique is one of the driving forces behind scientific research and discoveries - always trying to improve. It is the very essence of science that it's predictions and claims in theory should be able to be falsified. No scientist will ever be so stupid to claim that science has all the answers. ->
yes, it is quite amazing. the only thing that does get me is that those who are fundamentalist and even when proof is given the opposite way, they still hold on to it. it is quite annoying.
i'm glad Christianity is the same way tho, or it'd be toast! lol
[the only thing that does get me is that those who are fundamentalist and even when proof is given the opposite way, they still hold on to it.]
Most religionists use a very wide definition of 'proof', i.e. anything that sounds convincing and supports their claims. They fail to understand that opinion, assumptions and wishful thinking is not scientific evidence, even when it is published in a book.
no. something that sounds convincing and supports a claim would be entitled a "premise" and i'm sure you know most religionists so you can support that....sounds a bit judgmental to me bro. and i know many atheists that think the EXACT same way, so you are not giving differentiation.
Isn't that what the entire bible is all about? What do most christians think about homosexuals? Do they let them mind their own private business or do they condemn their immoral behavior?
judgmental: thinking superior to someone else and placing judgment upon them because they are "inferior."
i cannot place a judgment on most Christians because, i don't know them. but, the Bible and science does teach that it is unnatural...and it does say homosexual offenders to go to hell. but, if someone is in fact homosexual, they could live a chastised life without lusting, and still go to heaven. so you are combining homosexual preference with homosexual action. bible is against action.
>"i cannot place a judgment on most Christians because, i don't know them."
You don't know any of the nazis either - does that mean you cannot judge them either?
>"but, the Bible and science does teach that it is unnatural"
Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species. The pervasiveness of homosexuality throughout nature shows, beyond question, that homosexuality is natural, belying the only non-religious justification for hatred of homosexuality.
Notice in the Bible (when you read it) that Jesus always says to the Pharisees 'your Law', not 'God's law'.
anosh88 3 weeks ago
I think Douglas Jacoby is making the whole issue about how we know stoning is wrong confusing. If Michael Shermer, who was an evangelical for 8 years, read the new testament, he would see that Jesus himself said that he came to abolish the Law, which didn't go well with the Pharisees. Also, read the story of the adultress woman. Another thing is, and this might be taking it a bit far, Moses could have made his own laws in order to deal with the stubbornness of the Israelites.
anosh88 3 weeks ago
if morality isn't objective and real, how does Shermer adjudicate between the varying Old Testament moral laws? How does he judge what is closer or further to being "right" or "correct"?He's apparently using some kind of standard, but what IS that standard and how does he know it's reliable?
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39 chirst is the moral standard his teachings what he made available to us himself dying for me and his spilt blood being the new coventment to wash away our sins because the harts of people where far from (love)god and they would go off and commit horrible sin then have a traditional party with no hart but head knowledge so the issue isn't a technical one
slicksmitty1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 chirst is the moral standard his teachings what he made available to us himself dying for me and his spilt blood being the new coventment to wash away our sins because the harts of people where far from (love)god and they would go off and commit horrible sin then have a traditional party with no hart but head knowledge so the issue isn't a technical one
slicksmitty1 1 month ago
How is buying and application to the modern sittuation any different?
mzyzer19 3 months ago
"Saved by the Bell" Shermer had Jacoby pinned against the ropes... he was just about to deliver the K.O. Blow and that freaking ref calls time lol..... let em fight man!!!...
Triathlete5551 4 months ago
Oh, we're onto morality. This is usually where I bail on the nonsense theists love to spout.
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
Dr. Shermer is very ignorant about the difference between old and new testament. When Jesus came, he made a new covenant, then a new law came. That is why we do not stone women any more. Jacoby is not dancing around the question, but rather as he said it is a simplistic question. We do not follow that law because there is a new law with Jesus, but the old testament is important because it is our history. Why do we study history in school? Its important.
mvgurlie50 7 months ago
@mvgurlie50 How true, but Jacoby never said that! It would be a very clear answer to say, "We do not abide by the same laws of the Old Testament because Jesus acted as the sacrifice, fulfilling all laws for us." But he did not say that.
This was a disappointing clip from both sides. I was unimpressed with the direction of thought Shermer took the debate in when he could have asked so many more convincing questions and by the lack of a clear answer by Jacoby when an easy reply was available.
Jakesonaplane 5 months ago
@mvgurlie50
And at that same time in history, mahavira in india was preaching the idea of complete non-violence. I know which one seems more god-like.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
Jacoby is either avoiding the question here or has some serious reasoning problems.
drstrangelove09 8 months ago
Jacoby did a great job of dancing around that question.
jordaniac89 9 months ago
fuck, the moderator has misunderstood his role in such a debate. He's ruining the flow of the discussion, instead of helping it. So annoying!
HKragh 11 months ago
@HKragh yeah that moderator jumped in clearly to save Jacoby, he was dancing up a storm and his shoes were about to fall off lol
Triathlete5551 4 months ago
If I could ask a Theologian any question, it would be this: "In the Itchy & Scratchy CD Rom, is there any way to get out of the dungeon without using the Wizard's Key?"
SamonMarquis 1 year ago
Even though I love listening to Hitchens' wonderful vowels and eloquence, but I've always felt that Shermer is more down-to-earth and empathetic.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
The laws of Deuteronomy were for a theocracy ruled by God Himself exclusively for the Jews of that time period,not even for the people around them.There were moral laws,ceremonial laws,and civil laws,these were for the Jews and even special laws for the Levitical priesthood that others weren't even bound by then ,in the Jewish community.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Even so, how do you know which laws to take literally and which are only applicable to the ancient Jews? Sounds like cherry-picking to me.
CapnofRum 1 year ago
@CapnofRum Jesus kept the Law completely and if He saves us His righteousness is counted as ours.This is not licence to sin wildly but if we sin we have an advocate.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN That doesn't address the argument at all. Dogmatic mumbojumbo has no pertinence or relevance as to whether or not God exists. Why is it that God has a paradigm shift regarding morality going from the Old Testament to the New Testament? If he were infallible in the first place, his law would have been infallible IN THE FIRST PLACE.
CapnofRum 1 year ago
@CapnofRum Look,either the eternal God created all things or magic without a magician created everything.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CapnofRum I don't really think God changed the morality. I think he fulfilled the law, which made the Old Testament obsolete, because it was fulfilled.
Transformers217 1 year ago
your right! The law is still the same and the consequences are still the same. They are just trying to rationalize their way away retribution for wickedness, no we don't stone anybody for those things because they made laws that will penalize you but God operates in very different ways than man does!
SHAVAHT 1 year ago
How could "god" suddenly change his mind from OT to NT if he's perfect and unchangeable!? Why would a god change the strategy if he knows everything and is perfect to begin with!? Couldn't he come up with a perfect plan from the beginning? Is he some kind of a sadist?
armelix73 1 year ago
@armelix73 It makes absolutely no sense. If he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, he would have the knowledge and power to create infallible laws. That's assuming he created us at all, however. If he was 'perfect', then there would have been no need to create the universe. Why would a child that is perfectly content want a toy to play with?
CapnofRum 1 year ago
This debate was far too short to get into the meat of it.
Domzdream 1 year ago
Shermer seems very bright.
GrahamSMcCann 1 year ago
At this point it appears that Dr. Shermer's disagreement with Christianity is based on his own lack of understanding of the progressive nature of God's revelation--beginning with calling out a people who swam upstream against the cultural values of its day.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson-- the progressive nature of God's revelation-- Another attempt to blurr the issue .
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Yes, "progressive revelation" is like "progressive education," i.e. learning about a subject step by step. You don't learn everything at once in either.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Exactly. And there is Jesus's sacrificing, which gave us the New law. Christians don't live by the old law, we live by the New law. Which doesn't involve sacrificing animals, or people.
So hearing Shermer trying to make an argument out of the Old Testament is kinda lame. At least in my opinion.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217 If God is omniscient, he would have given us perfect moral laws that we wouldn't need to be skeptical of. But what did he decide to do instead? Give us the Old Testament, then change it up entirely in the New Testament. Why does he make contradictions concerning morality if he is an infallible entity? It is paradoxical.
CapnofRum 1 year ago
@CapnofRum Well he starts off giving us a perfect law, and then fulfilling it. He fulfills the law, and morality.
It's not a contradiction. It was prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and was fulfilled in the New Testament.
Transformers217 1 year ago
I'm getting bored quickly here. Give me a minute of a Hitchens debate over an hour of these guys any day.
setmedic 2 years ago 2
Shermer sucks at debates :(
mortemdei 2 years ago
approx. 05:45: 'truth telling'...
Think about this...if we teach our kids that lying is acceptable, what will they do? Lie.
Since religion is the biggest lie out there, I think it is ingrained in people's minds that it is okay to lie...that, or they just think they'll be forgiven when they start marathon praying when they're on their death beds. :(
supermanlives1973 2 years ago
@supermanlives1973 Except Christianity teaches us not to lie. So you're wrong.
Transformers217 1 year ago
"Time!"
The hell is wrong with that moderator?!
VarialProductions 2 years ago 13
Geez he avoided answering that question didn't he...
kusalaviro 2 years ago 17
@kusalaviro I think he was pointing out the flaw within Shermen's question.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@kusalaviro pathetic isnt it
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
@kusalaviro the question being the law of stoning to death women and disobedient children? why to read the old testament and the ones to agree with and the ones not to agree with?i believe jesus was the messiah so if you are to believe the new testament he is the new covenant the new moral standard,stoning and other extreme methods of punishment our guidelines to just notice how serious our sin would have been punished in those days, and repent through making effort to change and move on in life
slicksmitty1 1 month ago
@slicksmitty1 Not one sentance in the new testemant says the old testament laws are no longer valid. Jesus also stated he is not here to change the old laws (you can google that). Besides that, it at least means that god was a fucking asshole at one time. Who would worship such a prick?
kusalaviro 1 month ago
@kusalaviro well if you read from the gospels you'll notice how Jesus says Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.its a matter of hart and the implications of reading the whole text,like i don't use gods name in vain becuase of what he has done for me then i would notice how the might've stoned someone in the old days then i would feel guilty and ask for forgiveness its quite beautiful and refreshing to humble myself
slicksmitty1 1 month ago
@slicksmitty1 Spoken like a good little slave always obedient to his cruel dictator in spite of all his capricious acts. I'll make one assumption here though, YOU are more moral than the god you worship because, I haven't met you, but I'm sure you wouldn't do the shit god has done. I don't think you'd burn me in a fire for eternity either, even though I didn't believe in you...
kusalaviro 1 month ago
@kusalaviro god is just, a year ago i would reminisce of all the horrible twisted things i would do to someone who would say that to my face the words might sting but you yourself i just feel sorry for,i can forgive my birth dad from the hart,i can be treated unfairly and just be fully content and smile and cry i can look weak and have so much joy i care about you becuase god firsthand has confirmed to me jesus is the way love you bro
slicksmitty1 1 month ago
Youtube: Mountain of Fire. The Real Mt Sinai. Jabel Al Lawz Saudi Arabia. God melted half a 4000 Ft. Mountain.
Wazzup132435465768 2 years ago
lol
ineffige 2 years ago
haha! that idiot on the right kept skipping around the question and trying to run down the clock....HE NEVER ANSWERED SHERMER'S QUESTION!!!!! How do you pick and choose what you take and what you leave? That asshole couldn't answer the question because the only logical question is that we know...it is innate in ourselves, the belief that murder (stoning a woman to death) is wrong while helping the poor and the sick is good.
andyrooney11 2 years ago
Oh ye God, benevolent and wise are thou that thy castif the first stone at the blasphemer and heretic, adulteress, and impotent child, witch and heathen, fornicator and sinner, oh how wise and all knowing are ye....
Praise and worship ye oh lord, benevolent and all powerful, magnificent and all knowing, glorious great grand and merciful. Ruler of the universe, ruler of the heavens and earth, creator and master of all man and beast, imprisoner of Satan, oh praise ye lord!
TooDrunkToCare808 3 years ago
wow.
"How do you decide which ones are good?"
"Not all of them are bad."
bornonmybday 3 years ago
Schermer is way too friendly. Jacoby is dodging the question as could be expected; picking and choosing from the bible, embracing the few positive things that make sense, ignoring all the horrible barbaric stuff.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
if Schermer simply asked one question. He is trying to ask a double question expecting one answer. if schermer had asked "do you think they would be applicable today" or "what is your stance for it today" that would be legitimate. but what He was saying "do you think it is wrong?" you would have to have a presupposition that there was a "right" or there was a "good" in which where would you get the definition of "good" or the standard of a moral "right".
npotts89 2 years ago
again....
wouldn't Schermer be picking and choosing the bible as well??
npotts89 2 years ago
No, Schermer is not picking in the bible - he is showing that Jacoby is using a HUMAN sensibility to choose what parts of the bible appeal to him. Jacoby is not treating the bible as the word of god, but the word of man. Understand? .
TaylorThaHick 2 years ago
well, actually, Schermer would in fact be picking and choosing....though to make a point....he still is picking and choosing.
and nowhere have i seen Jacoby treat the Bible as the word of man rather than God's word.
yes, morality does vary from culture to culture, but even if you take ancient civilizations like early Christians, Jews, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, Hindus, and the Romans....you will see how strikingly similar their moralities are...despite religious differences.
npotts89 2 years ago
"wouldn't Schermer be picking and choosing the bible as well?? "
Well yes - Schermer would be picking and choosing all the irrational, contradicting, erratic stuff from the bible to prove that it makes no sense whatsoever. Religionists prefer to either ignore the bad stuff, or rationalize it with baseless assumptions.
You can't just pick the stuff that looks good and take it literally, and ignore or 'interpret' the bad stuff. How do you decide?
Science uses objective methods, religion not.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
well, even historians that do not agree with Christianity don't agree with that statement that it contradicts itself.
...message me the verses you think contradict and i will fix them (i know it'll take much more that 500 characters)
i agree that people of religion choose to ignore the bad stuff rather than dealing with it. which is ignorant and stupid....that is why i study hard to try to fix these differences so people can see what really is there....
npotts89 2 years ago
"...message me the verses you think contradict and i will fix them"
No thanks - I fell for that one before. There is no way to objectively discuss all the contradictions in the bible with a fundamentalist christian, because by default they are incapable of even considering the possibility that the bible might contain errors. This fact alone makes discussing these issues futile. One look at answersingenesis(dot)com and you know what I mean.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
well, i agree. but i am not a fundamentalist. i am a logician. message me the ones YOU think are. not a website. because you may not agree with all the website or you may have more.
or....we could just do it on here. it'll be a BILLION comments long tho. haha
npotts89 2 years ago
...i'm very willing to submit if i am presented with good amount of evidence.
npotts89 2 years ago
"...i'm very willing to submit if i am presented with good amount of evidence."
Please define 'evidence'. From experience I know that most religionists have a rather unscientific or at least very subjective definition of it.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
evidence means, evidence, definition....presented facts. that is what it means. and again, i'm srry that most religionists are unscientific with you. many are ignorant. but, even Jacoby should be an example that not all are unscientific.
npotts89 2 years ago
....well, you can also say that religion uses objective methods as well....if done properly. yes, there are some idiots out there that have done wrong....but there are MANY MANY more that have done right. unfortunately those that have done wrong stick out more than those who have done right.
npotts89 2 years ago
You actually sound like one of the very few honest religionists on here. Self-critique is virtually impossible to most of them.
You are right that the bad ones always stand out more than the good ones, no matter where or what it concerns.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
i try to be as honest as i can, i give the evidences that i have gathered and that has been given to me, i present the points. if i know it, than i know it. if i don't, i don't. just like a lawyer does in court.
it is unfortunate that people do have to point out the bad things, or flawed things, rather than just simply lifting something up for the good it has done.
like, Christians have been feeding the poor for years, but i never hear praise for it...granted, i don't need it, but still.
npotts89 2 years ago
"like, Christians have been feeding the poor for years, but i never hear praise for it..."
That's probably because non-christians have been feeding the poor as well and they don't get praised for it either.
If Christians help the poor, they do it because either their god or their bible tells them to. When atheists help the poor they do it because they want it to, not because someone else tells them to - there's a vital difference there.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
now i'm not saying that non-Christians don't. my point was stating that Christians do great things....not all are idiots. and they do good things, as they should.....as a human should.
why does it make a Christian forced to do so....i know many "Christians" that don't help the poor....it doesn't mean that they are forced...if so...all would do it. it is those that do it are those that want to. no difference in humanity when it comes to Christians and atheists.
npotts89 2 years ago
"no difference in humanity when it comes to Christians and atheists."
Though when it comes to morality, most christians think that morality comes from god and from the bible, whereas atheists say that morality is innate in humans and that the bible is actually not such a great source to get your morality from.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
i agree that Christians believe that their morality comes from God and atheists believe it is innate. but think about that for a moment...if morality came from within us, like our instincts....our instincts can clash....and if a moral law was presiding over us tell us what we "ought" to do rather that what we "want" to do....there MUST be something stronger than ourselves telling us a Moral Law. because if so...morality would be multi-based, your morality, my morality, joe's morality...so on.
npotts89 2 years ago
You would have to agree that the bible is at least very poorly written for being 'the undisputed word of god'. There is so much room for interpretation that most of the religionists are spending all of their time doing just that: interpreting the texts. This is also the reason for there being such an absurdly high number of religions, all based on the same book. One religion picks 'an eye for an eye', the other picks 'turn the other cheek', and so on.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
o i don't see how it is very poorly written. maybe translated...but not written. if you read it in Hebrew and Aramaic for the OT and Greek for the NT you will see how precise and how beautiful it is. there actually is NO room for interpretation....religionists make it that way, like i said, ignorant folk they are. but, there are many that take it for how it is (especially many pastors that know the hebrew and greek to be able to teach it).
npotts89 2 years ago
"o i don't see how it is very poorly written. maybe translated...but not written."
Leviticus was not mistranslated; the barbaric bronze age mentality in there is also in the 'original' versions. Yet most decent christians now agree that those horrific verses should not be taken literally. They used to take them literally, and some still do. How do you decide what's good and what's not? Why does it change in time how religionists interpret their holy book? ->
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
i was referring to how translations can be innaccurate rather than the actual texts. now....the levitical law....i'm no expert on it, but i do know a bit about it. in the levitical law there are many moralities that we still hold today, don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat on your spouce, discipline your children. now....are the details of each law different, yes! y? because it is a different culture. just like our laws are basically the same as China...but the details are not the same. simple
npotts89 2 years ago
-> If the bible is the undisputed word of god, your guide book for a moral life, you'd expect it to be timeless - yet it isn't. How is that not poorly written?
Many of the events in the bible are scientifically impossible. You could say that the ark story is a metaphor or just a great story - I can accept that - but there are still millions of people that really believe that such an event actually happened. Yet all scientific evidence clearly proves it couldn't have. ->
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
...if each is mutually exclusive? again, what about since the speed of light is actually slowing down....scientists thought that light cannot slow down, but in recent years studies are showing that it is.
....you see, there are uncertainties in ALL things, and religion does happen to fall under "ALL". but yet, it is criticized the most. and even at that.....if we knew ALL so that there are no uncertainties....we would in fact....be God. u see?
npotts89 2 years ago
what morals are outdated if you don't mind me asking? generousity, love, mercy, discipline.....to each yes, they do have details that have evolved....but each morality then is the same as of now. check ancient cultures such as, ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia, China.....all show that morality has not changed....minute details have, but all in all morality has been the same.
i would agree with the ark story, except the the earths atmosphere used to be different, and the ark has been found.
npotts89 2 years ago
"what morals are outdated if you don't mind me asking?"
Ehm, well, the death penalty for having gay sex comes to mind. Or the death penalty period. Most modern civilized countries have abolished the death penalty because it is barbaric and immoral. In the US however, one of the most religious countries in the world, the death penalty is still very popular among Bible Belt Christians. Deuteronomy 19:21, "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
there are still countries that have death penalty for being homosexual. and the deuteronomy verse, if you read it in full context, it says that if someone does evil among you...and the life for life....this is saying "do not take anything more valuable than what was taken from you." its a law of fairness. still does not seem outdated.
npotts89 2 years ago
"there are still countries that have death penalty for being homosexual."
Yes, and all of them are backward islamic countries.
"and the deuteronomy verse, if you read it in full context,"
Full context=the entire bible right? How do you decide which verses you can take literally (usually the good stuff) and which verses to 'read in full context' (usually the bad stuff)?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
well....how can you say something is backward if there is no standard forward? and even China has laws against homosexuality....and they are no islamic.
lol. no. the full context means the passage in which it is written. meaning you can't pull something out because you can distort the meaning for one's own purposes. and this goes for all thoughts....whether if you want it good or bad. idc.....i wanna know what the WHOLE thing says no matter.
npotts89 2 years ago
"and even China has laws against homosexuality"
Surely you don't want to compare your morals to those of one of the biggest barbaric regimes on the planet?
"i wanna know what the WHOLE thing says no matter."
You still haven't answered the question; how do you decide which parts to take literally (like the creation story in Genesis, or the ten commandments), and which parts to 'interpret' or 'read in context'? If the bible says gays should be killed, why is that taken out of context?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
barbaric....i would agree to some extent. but nonetheless, it is another culture that agrees homosexuality is wrong, and it is not based off Christian culture, not even religious culture. even Japan, one of the most intellectual cultures on the planet, has laws against homosexuality.
and i did answer this. because the punishment of cultures have changed. simply. even many cultures that were not Jewish did not accept homosexuality (granted some did) but it was a law of the land at the time.
npotts89 2 years ago
"and i did answer this. because the punishment of cultures have changed. simply."
It's not that simple, because you know quite well that it's always the secular societies that are the first ones to initiate changes in morality, religion is always the last one.
And you still did not answer the question. How do you decide which parts in the bible are unchangeable and which parts aren't? Can the ten commandments be changed into the six commandments? Why not?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
it is that simple. it is the same exact logic. if you cannot see God by empirical testing, you conclude He doesn't exist. so, if i conclude that your organs do not exist by empirical testing.....it is the same thing. now, this simply means that there are other ways of seeing things besides empirical testing, ok great. it just means that you cannot count God out by empirical testing alone because there are many things that cannot be accounted for by empirical testing alone.
npotts89 2 years ago
"it is the same exact logic."
It is not. There is solid, irrefutable scientific evidence that proves that a human being can not be alive without his internal organs. Based on this scientific fact, you can make future predictions.
You have no scientific evidence whatsoever to make any kind of prediction about the existence of god. As a result, anything is possible really. Your god could be dead - you have no reason to assume he isn't other than wishful thinking.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
and i did answer. i said punishments of all cultures have changed, but the laws that state something immoral are still there.
so, by this, you cannot change any law....just the punishment of each law. so, if something says "stone your disobedient child" the law is for children to honor their parents...but the way of punishment is changed from stoning to....whatever is suitable for culture. u see what i mean now?
npotts89 2 years ago
"so, by this, you cannot change any law....just the punishment of each law."
Not quite so. The laws themselves change as well. Laws against homosexuality for instance will eventually all disappear. It is happening as wel speak, the most religious countries taking much longer as usual. The US has now finally decided it will sign the UN Gay Rights Declaration, after having been the only Western nation that opposed to it for many years. Working on sunday is another one of those silly laws ->
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
well, law as we know it does change often, yes. but, does natural law change? the law of gravity? physics? moral law? no. lets talk about homosexuality since you brought it up. according to Natural Selection there would be no need for homosexuals since they do nothing for the expanse of the species....so why not kill them? now, i would not agree this is right to do....but Hitler didn't have any mind....but according to evolutionary theory....there was no problem for him doing this. honestly.
npotts89 2 years ago
"moral law? no."
It most certainly does. Homosexuality has been considered as extremely immoral by religious fundamentalists for centuries. Most enlightened western countries have no problem with homosexuality anymore, it is no longer considered immoral. My country is run by a christian party, yet homosexuals can marry here in a church - moral laws most certainly change.
As for killing homosexuals - if we had to kill anyone that did not benefit our species, we'd be killing all day long.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
Most enlightened eastern countries still do have a problem with it. so, i don't see where you are making your point on that it is not a cultural problem? i stated that moral law on the basis does not change. details can change due to culture, but the overall morality does not change.
npotts89 2 years ago
[details can change due to culture, but the overall morality does not change.]
Your holy book clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination to your deity, it is immoral. Only 50 years ago, most Americans agreed. Another fifty years from now, homosexuals will be able to get married in a majority of the States - moral laws change.
What 'enlightened' eastern countries are you referring to? How would you define enlightened anyway?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
-> that has been recognized as such by most people. Punishments change, but laws change as well - including biblical laws. The fact that the Vatican has now accepted the theory of evolution is just another example of how religionists realize that they have to adapt their interpretation of their holy books in a fast changing world where knowledge is growing exponentially.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
"and the ark has been found."
You've got to be kidding me. Please tell me you're not referring to the Wyatt hoax.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
if you can prove to me that it was a hoax....and provide evidence besides personal opinion. then maybe.
but, if it is found on a mountain (just as stated in Genesis), extinct wood and the EXACT measurements.....than so far the evidence is in favor of the story.
npotts89 2 years ago
I assume you are referring to the Dogubayazit site in Turkey?
It won't convince you, science hardly ever does convince that prefer supernatural explanations, but here is some good info that should at least make you doubt the truthfulness of Wyatt's claims:
tentmaker(DOT)org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1(DOT)html
csun(DOT)edu/~vcgeo005/bogus(DOT)html
Wishing something to be true, does not make it so.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
wow. there you go again assuming that i won't take this as factual evidence if true, simply because i am a Christian. you REALLY are starting to sound like a stereotypical Christian....judgmental. and people call Christian's judgmental.
i'll take a look at these websites when i get done commenting.
npotts89 2 years ago
I apologize - I admit that I did sound a bit cynical there. Maybe it's because the majority of religionists here are indeed incapable of criticizing their belief or imagining there is a possibility they might be wrong.
I could be wrong. There, I said it.
But I'd need to see the scienitific evidence.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
its ok. i forgive you. and i know many...but i won't even come close to saying the majority. i don't even know the majority of Christians or religionists at all.
at least you admit it haha. and dude, i could be wrong too. i'm just going off the evidences that i have been given. i used to be JUST like you bro....but, evidence is in favor of Creation. it truly is. read Case for a Creator, it may lead you to further study or simply open your eyes on the spot. idk. but do read it tho, great book
npotts89 2 years ago
.....ok, i just checked them out. they seem to have good information. but what i did not see where any names. on the first website it says "leading Christian Creationist" but gives no names....so, i don't know who to reference for future study. and the second website it does the same. but the 2 names given are, they guy who did the website and a deceased excavator that can no longer be interviewed.
i found one website that gave much information, a little sketch, but it gives lots of info...
npotts89 2 years ago
Let me put it this way; even answersingenesis says it's a hoax. I mean, they're as deluded as can be. They have a very extensive analysis on their freakshow website, but for once they behave somewhat like rational beings:
answersingenesis(DOT)org/creation/v14/i4/report(DOT)asp
If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
i'll take a look at this website when i can. i just got back to school from break and i have a lot of work to do. forgive me for the slowness.
npotts89 2 years ago
-> There is no clear distinction in the bible between facts and fantasy, which causes different believers to believe different things. The virgin birth, the talking snake, 6-day creation, old earth creationists, hell or no hell - all based on different interpretations of the same book. Had the bible been written properly, with no ambiguities, there'd be only one possible interpretation. Like a book of law or a science book. You can't blame everything on mistranslations.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
....as for the virgin birth, even Jews and Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin. 6-day creation, old earth theory or new earth theory....none actually matter, since God created it all in the first place (if you actually believe God created the earth)...if you have evidences for either side....great....but in the end, when you die....who cares? lol
even in law and science there are uncertainties. for example, light. what is light, particle or beam? they are both...but how so if....
npotts89 2 years ago
"....as for the virgin birth, even Jews and Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin."
Virgin birth seems to be a requirement for many religions. Just like resurrections. Trends are not truth.
"even in law and science there are uncertainties."
There are many, and scientists will never stop working on them. That's what science does - getting answers. Religionist are not interested in getting answers - they're convinced -without any evidence - that they already have them.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
i agree that trends are not truth. but i'm saying that Jews and Muslims believe that JESUS was born of a virgin....this isn't even their Savior. (well, He is, they just never accepted the fact).
just as there are uncertainties with things jumping from culture to culture over a thousand years. and there are translators and scholars that won't stop working on them. you see, please don't put all religionists in the same category, i know far too many that know and seem more evidence.
npotts89 2 years ago
There is no evidence for any of the many virgin births that supposedly happened. The Buddhists have none for Gautama Buddha, the Greeks (2,000 B.C.) had none for Adonis, nor for Attis, nor for Dionysus, the Mayans had none for Ixquic, the Chinese (6th century B.C) have none for Laozi, the Aztecs had none for Huitzilopochtli, and the Christians have none for Jesus.
An ancient text written decades after the events supposedly took place, that have been tampered with for decades, is not evidence.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
when i was referring to these cultures i was past the virgin birth, but onto how morality is basically the same, with slight details missing jumping from culture to culture.
the manuscripts that were written for the NT are very accurate, we have, as of now, 24,000+ manuscripts and nearly 5,000 are written within 80 years of the time of Christ. the even cooler fact is, our bibles now....are still the same as written in the 1st century. so, that counts out the tampering theory.
npotts89 2 years ago
"that counts out the tampering theory."
The stories in your holy book were written decades after the events supposedly happened - what kind of an eye witness account is that? You think it would hold up in a court of law? It's all based on hearsay and personal interpretation - every single gospel.
How come not all the gospels are part of the undisputed word of god? How is that not tampering?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
like i said....they all were written at most 60 years. the thoughts of Buddha were written around 500 years. Hindu...written over a spanse of 2000 years but do not have a single focus....Christianity has writtings from 40 different authors, written over 1500 years and all point to one focus....salvation. simple.
npotts89 2 years ago
"like i said....they all were written at most 60 years. the thoughts of Buddha were written around 500 years. Hindu...written over a spanse of 2000 years but do not have a single focus....Christianity has writtings from 40 different authors, written over 1500 years and all point to one focus....salvation. simple."
You forgot Mohammed, who got his stories straight from the source. Why not become a muslim then?
Whether a religion has a single focus or not, says nothing about the truthfulness.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
o, i counted him out because it is only subjective writings from one person. the Bible is over 40 different authors over 1500 years, and the Hadith and Qur'an is within 25-30 years. and even in the Hadith it describes Mohammed saying that he wasn't even sure if he had his revelation from God or not...but it was his wife and her sister pushing the issue of their idea of Christianity from a heretical sect that was wiped out in the 8th century i believe. and it also describes perfectly of what -->
npotts89 2 years ago
"o, i counted him out because it is only subjective writings from one person."
Mankind for most of it's existence thought the world was flat, that thunder was caused by angry gods, that disease was caused by evil spirits and that the sun orbited the earth.
If a billion people believe a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. Quantity says nothing about truthfulness. People believen in thousands of different gods. You believe in the god of your parents, like all believers do.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
and as i said, the Bible states a few times that the earth is round, and that there are other people that are having night when they are in the daytime. so, yes, there may be others that believe such a thing, but even the Bible says they are wrong. and the Bible would stand as correct, because as we well know, the earth is round...just as the Bible states.
agreed, but i didn't state on belief. i stated on authorship. Quantity and length of time between authorships would give some validity.
npotts89 2 years ago
"just as the Bible states."
The bible states many things. For instance that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and other planets travel around it. Now should I believe the bible or NASA?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
where does the Bible say that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and other plants travel around it? since you have read the Bible through and through, you should know this, correct? if so, reference it to me.
npotts89 2 years ago
[where does the Bible say that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and other plants travel around it?]
It's futile, you know it. Whatever verses I quote, you'll interpret it differently. Spend some time on answersingenesis for instance - it's pathetic how even the most ridiculous verses are twisted and turned and 'put in historical context' to make sense. If you truly believe that the bible is the undisputed word of god, by default you are not capable of critizing it.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
so, you are making an assumption that the Bible says it? just like an Evolutionist. at least i will give you kudos for your consistency.
i believe in the undisputed word of God because 1) it is more consistent than Evolutionary theory. and 2) because more and more scientists are becoming theist (especially in the cosmology, physics and astronomy fields.)
npotts89 2 years ago
[so, you are making an assumption that the Bible says it?]
Of course not - why should I assume the bible says it, when it clearly does so?
The earth is fixed at (or near) the center of the universe. The sun and other planets travel around it. That is what the Bible plainly says (Ps. 93:1; Ps. 19:1-6; Josh. 10:12-14) and what the evidence indicates.
And now you are going to prove my point that the bible is so poorly written, by claiming that these verses actually mean something else.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
[i believe in the undisputed word of God because 1) it is more consistent than Evolutionary theory.]
More consistent in a sense that it is static and never changing, yes.
[because more and more scientists are becoming theist (especially in the cosmology, physics and astronomy fields.)]
I am very interested in your objective sources for this rather amusing statement.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
"the earth is round...just as the Bible states."
The bible states many things. For instance that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and other planets travel around it. Now should be believe the bible or NASA?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
.....it would just depend on whether if it stood up to science, history, and other subjects we learn today. which, it clearly does.
npotts89 2 years ago
--> a seizure is.
and forgive me, it was not the Hadith collections, but the Qur'an. my bad.
npotts89 2 years ago
and i agree that if a religion simply has a single focus, it says nothing about its truthfulness. but it does give account to its consistency....though truth may be there or not. the idea of consistency gives much more validity to it. then it is when you test it with truth. and thusfar....the Bible holds up quite well with what truth is.
npotts89 2 years ago
ooo....btw. this evidence was already tested by a lawyer, and the evidence would hold up in a court of law....read about Thomas Sherlock and Ross Clifford
npotts89 2 years ago
"ooo....btw. this evidence was already tested by a lawyer, and the evidence would hold up in a court of law"
Evidence? Tested? You'll have to be more specific when you're making extraordinary claims.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
that is why i said to read about Thomas Sherlock and Ross Clifford...i don't have enough room to go indepth.
npotts89 2 years ago
and an eye for an eye and turn the other cheek i'll message you about....so i can give you an accurate example without taking more than 1 message....because i won't have enough comment space. sorry bout that.
npotts89 2 years ago
Rationalists prefer the scientific method; there is little or no room for interpretation, it just is. No one interprets the theory of gravity differently, it is very clear and proven. Not many people interpret the books of law differently, because they were written specifically to have only one interpretation.
Spend some time on answersingenesis for instance, and see how they get to most of their conclusions based on nothing but interpretation. The ark article is downright embarrassing to read.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
and i know many rationalists that prefer Christian thought alongside of scientific method. i'll take a look at that site when i can...i've been VERY busy lately so forgive me bout that.
npotts89 2 years ago
"and i know many rationalists that prefer Christian thought alongside of scientific method."
How can an intelligent, rational thinking biologist or geologist use the scientific method and believe in the bible? Scientific evidence clearly proves that the bible is wrong on many accounts - how does that work? Ignore the silly parts and focus on the more sensible bits? How can you be a rationalist and be fine with that?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
u see. this is personal opinion. you claim that the bible is not rational by your own personal thoughts and project them on the entirety of society.
if you do want a science book that backs it. you can read Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. phenominal book.
npotts89 2 years ago
"this is personal opinion. you claim that the bible is not rational by your own personal thoughts and project them on the entirety of society."
Science is not personal opinion, it is fact. Science proves that the events described in the bible are scientifically impossible. And science shows us that there there is no empirical evidence that any of the miraculous events ever happened. That is not personal opinion, it is fact.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
no when you said "How can an intelligent, rational thinking biologist or geologist use the scientific method and believe in the bible?" is personal opinion. the Bible constantly tells people to reason and seek knowledge. and it is your opinion that it doesn't.
and if i am standing in front of you there is no empirical evidence that your organs exist. so am i to assume that they are not there? again, speaking about dark matter....we cannot see it....be we know it is there...again...the wind...
npotts89 2 years ago
"the Bible constantly tells people to reason and seek knowledge. and it is your opinion that it doesn't."
No, it is a fact that modern science contradicts the miraculous events in the bible - it has nothing to do with my personal opinion.
"and if i am standing in front of you there is no empirical evidence that your organs exist. so am i to assume that they are not there?"
You would be very foolish, because it is biologically impossible.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
really? then tell me how life must have started. tell me how these things that were documented even by pagan and Jewish historians that the Christians were doing miraculous things?
i agree, but you didn't answer it. would i assume that they are not there? since there would be no empirical evidence.....
npotts89 2 years ago
"i agree, but you didn't answer it. would i assume that they are not there?"
I did answer your answer. Science is able to make predictions based on research and evidence. Your example makes no sense, because it would mean you'd have to believe in anything - there would be no reason not to. It is impossible to be alive without internal organs, therefore you can conclude that if I'm alive, I will still have (most of) my organs. What is interesting, is that you use the same logic as I do when ->
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
you did not answer as a matter of fact. if all things are proven by empirical evidence, and i cannot see your organs, than in fact....you do not have organs. i understand that it is biologically impossible....but going by empirical evidence....you would not have organs. this must mean that there are things that can be proven outside of empirical evidence. like, dark matter.
and i do dismiss all but one. because the fact is, there is only evidence for one. and i've heard that statement before..
npotts89 2 years ago
"if all things are proven by empirical evidence, and i cannot see your organs, than in fact....you do not have organs."
Like I said earlier, science is capable of making predictions based on scientific research. We know that Pluto's orbit takes 248 years, yet no one has ever witnessed it. We know it takes 248 years based on scientific research. You could say that that Pluto might suddenly accellerate tomorrow, but until there is evidence that supports that, it won't.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
If you believe the unbelievable, then basically anything is possible and you have no reason to limit yourself to a believe in god. There are thousands of people on this planet that claim to have been abducted by aliens - most of them are alive and well. Real first hand evidence, true eye witness accounts, yet you don't believe them. You prefer a bronze age text, writtten decades after the events supposedly happened. Why is that? Because your parents told you to.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
and also studies show that most people that have been "abducted" also live in a mass neurosis, and is just in a hysteria and it fades out over time. miracles on the other hand would prove time and time again since the time of the Biblical accounts (from the Jewish and Christian perspective). now, i myself have seen some extraordinary things happen, which you may not believe me, but i do know what i saw though.
and actually no. my dad is deceases and idk if he believed or not, but my mom doesnt
npotts89 2 years ago
"now, i myself have seen some extraordinary things happen, which you may not believe me, but i do know what i saw though. "
Am I correct that for religionists only extraordinary positive events count as miracles and extraordinary negative events don't?
For example: X is miraculously cured from a deadly disease, the doctors are clueless => miracle from god. Y unexpectedly drops dead, the doctors are clueless => not so nice, so not a miracle.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
you are correct. simply because a Miracle is where God's hand touches a situation for the helping of someone in a positive way. so, you would be correct simply because that is the very definition. situation Y would be labeled as a supernatural act of God, not a miracle (depending on who it is hahaha jk jk)
npotts89 2 years ago
The problem is that by default religionists are incapable of critizing their deity because he/she/it is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing and infallable. This per definition makes debating religionists futile. And yes, that makes me look rather stupid.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
maybe for any other religion...but even the Bible urges for believers to test their faith....so, you may touch other religions, but not Christianity. the problem with evolutionists is that they are incapable of criticizing their faith.
npotts89 2 years ago
[the problem with evolutionists is that they are incapable of criticizing their faith.]
You're confused again. Faith is believing something without evidence. Religion is faith. Evolution is based on scientific evidence as published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Scientists are constantly criticizing their findings - your statement clearly shows you never read any scientific journals.
Scientists are always looking for answers, no matter what the answers are; that is what science is.
->
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
->
Religionists are not looking for answers on matters that concern their faith - they think they already have all the answers. There's a vital difference there.
Real scientists can give you a list of potential scientific evidence that will convince them that they are wrong, no matter the subject or their personal opinions.
A religionist can not provide such a list, because they are incapable of accepting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
Wanna try?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
real scientists will tell you that we are in the perfect spot in our galaxy that we are not blasted by supernovae or gamma ray explosions that are toward the center of the galaxy, and that we are perfectly lined in our solar system that life can exist. our bodies are so complex that it is nearly impossible to explain that it evolved (nor can intermediate species be provided....just as you have not provided), nor can even the mere origin of life theory be consistant.
npotts89 2 years ago
shoot, i would be willing for any information that would contradict Christianity. heck, that is how i became a Christian. along with C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Antony Flew (not Christian by Theist), Lee Strobel, and many other Christian or theist apologists.
so, if you can provide me an intermediate species, i will look at it definitely. but, you have failed time and time again to provide it.
npotts89 2 years ago
[shoot, i would be willing for any information that would contradict Christianity.]
You misunderstood my challenge. I repeat:
Real scientists can give you a list of potential scientific evidence that will convince them that they are wrong, no matter the subject or their personal opinions.
A religionist can not provide such a list, because they are incapable of accepting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
So: what scientific evidence will convince you you're wrong?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
incorrect. faith is believing in something because you know it to be true. whether if it is by facts or not. your faith is in partial science. mine is in God and science.
you have not mentioned a single intermediate species and then claim i am ignorant because i fail to recognize them. the burden of proof is on you to present your case. which species are you referring to?
maybe some faiths do, but Christianity never says they have all the answers....that would be prideful, thus, sinful.
npotts89 2 years ago
[incorrect. faith is believing in something because you know it to be true.]
English is not my native language, but your own dictionary happens to agree with me:
Faith: belief that is not based on proof: "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."
[you have not mentioned a single intermediate species]
Would it make a difference to you? We both know it wouldn't; you will label any intermediate species as a separate species - all creationists do.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
To put this to the test; there is quite a complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps, represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others. You will now reject this.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
wow. it sounds like you are telling me what to do. i'm pretty sure i will actually be looking into it since i have only heard of 2 of these species, Velociraptor and Archaeopteryx. but if you want to be judgmental (like the stereotype is for a Christian) be my guest.
npotts89 2 years ago
[wow. it sounds like you are telling me what to do.]
I wasn't telling you what to do, I was merely predicting what you were going to do. I apologize for not being more clear.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
its chill. but, you don't know the future, so don't try to predict it because you don't know what everyone is going to say. it makes you sound prejudice and judgmental....just like the stereotype that Christians have. not the best for your case.
npotts89 2 years ago
[you don't know the future, so don't try to predict it]
Well, you keep dodging the question, so it does look like I do.
Again:
Real scientists can give you a list of potential scientific evidence that will convince them that they are wrong, no matter the subject or their personal opinions.
A religionist can not provide such a list, because they are incapable of accepting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
So: what scientific evidence will convince you that you're wrong?
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
i'm glad that you are using the English term. unfortunately for you, the Bible was not written originally in English. it was Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. and the Hebrew mindset for "Faith" was that it was the "driving force behind every action." so, i would be correct in the context of Biblical language
yea. but time and time again, you have failed to mention one. and are judgmental (wow, doesn't a Christian usually fall into that?) that you say all creationists believe this.
npotts89 2 years ago
[i'm glad that you are using the English term. unfortunately for you, the Bible was not written originally in English.]
But that is not the issue. I responded to something you said earlier:
"the problem with evolutionists is that they are incapable of criticizing their faith."
You were using the word 'faith' in regular English context. I just wanted to point out that by its very definition you can not apply the word 'faith' to science, even though I realize creationists love to do it.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
ok ok, i thought you were referring to something else. my mistake.
and even at that....science goes by what is true today. so, something can be true today in science, and not tomorrow. for example, look at the scientific research of 50 years ago compared to today's about cells. they thought they were just simply an organic blob, but now it is a vast number of "machines" for lack of a better word, within each cell.
so, technically, it is faith that you trust that it is absolutely true.
npotts89 2 years ago
[science goes by what is true today. so, something can be true today in science, and not tomorrow.]
That's so great about science. Self-critique is one of the driving forces behind scientific research and discoveries - always trying to improve. It is the very essence of science that it's predictions and claims in theory should be able to be falsified. No scientist will ever be so stupid to claim that science has all the answers. ->
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
yes, it is quite amazing. the only thing that does get me is that those who are fundamentalist and even when proof is given the opposite way, they still hold on to it. it is quite annoying.
i'm glad Christianity is the same way tho, or it'd be toast! lol
npotts89 2 years ago
[the only thing that does get me is that those who are fundamentalist and even when proof is given the opposite way, they still hold on to it.]
Most religionists use a very wide definition of 'proof', i.e. anything that sounds convincing and supports their claims. They fail to understand that opinion, assumptions and wishful thinking is not scientific evidence, even when it is published in a book.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
no. something that sounds convincing and supports a claim would be entitled a "premise" and i'm sure you know most religionists so you can support that....sounds a bit judgmental to me bro. and i know many atheists that think the EXACT same way, so you are not giving differentiation.
npotts89 2 years ago
Judgmental: tending to make moral judgments.
Isn't that what the entire bible is all about? What do most christians think about homosexuals? Do they let them mind their own private business or do they condemn their immoral behavior?
Don't give me that crap - it's hypocritical.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
judgmental: thinking superior to someone else and placing judgment upon them because they are "inferior."
i cannot place a judgment on most Christians because, i don't know them. but, the Bible and science does teach that it is unnatural...and it does say homosexual offenders to go to hell. but, if someone is in fact homosexual, they could live a chastised life without lusting, and still go to heaven. so you are combining homosexual preference with homosexual action. bible is against action.
npotts89 2 years ago
>"i cannot place a judgment on most Christians because, i don't know them."
You don't know any of the nazis either - does that mean you cannot judge them either?
>"but, the Bible and science does teach that it is unnatural"
Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species. The pervasiveness of homosexuality throughout nature shows, beyond question, that homosexuality is natural, belying the only non-religious justification for hatred of homosexuality.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago