I believed rainbows were the act of magic until I was in Jr. school thanks to those idiotic religious doctrine I was brainwashed with. I'm so glad I shed that really boring and stupid way of thinking.
Now I can actually replicate the real way a rainbow is created in computer software, science for the win!
@ciaochowbella So if you know what the bible says, then you know Matthew 23 for example: Jesus wasn't meek and mild when he addressed the religious leaders of the day, he launched a vicious tirade at them. He called them serpents, a brood of vipers, blind, lawless, said they put burdens too heavy on men's shoulders, that they take the best for themselves, that they are hypocrites, etc. why do you think they had him executed! JESUS CHRIST died for exposing religion.
@q1w2e3r467 Well, when you consider that there is absolutely NO extra-Biblical evidence for the life of Jesus. your whole argument seems to be based on myth.
However, the teachings attributed to him and the words he supposedly spoke CLEARLY imply that he respected and honored the Hebrew religion. His objection in Matthew 23 wasn't about the religion, but about how it had been changed.
BTW, if you have proof he lived, show it. You'll be lauded by billions if you can do that!
@q1w2e3r467 This verse is a common way to attempt to keep people in the church by making it so that the leaders don't have to explain why their "god" hasn't done anything. I used this tactic to keep kids out of my shed. Told them that I had a poisonous snake that was loose in the shed and don't go in there. Worked for about 5 years
I'm not sure you could really say Christianity was ever cohesive - from the earliest stages, there were some massive differences between sects (and I'd say even larger than the differences there are now). Not to say it's not "divergent" - only that it was so startlingly early.
@YamiYami17 Islam did not start the modern scientific movement. That was quashed by the Muslims shortly after it began.
The modern scientific movement was borne of the Enlightenment, not Islam. If you wish to give Islam some credit, then also credit the Greeks, Romans, Indians and Chinese who had scientific advances long before Islam was conceived.
BTW, Islam hasn't contributed anything to the scientific community or modern technology for about 550 years. You seem to ignore that fact.
@YamiYami17 I am not saying there was not a time when Islam encouraged thought and innovation. I am saying that time was over 500 years ago and Islam has been milking that for every bit of worn out prestige it can manage.
You don't see the Chinese still bragging about gunpowder, do you? No, because they've done something since then.
@ciaochowbella No,it's just an answer to those igonrants who said that the coming of islam made the arabs more ignorant,cleary it's the opposite of that,In islam the seeking of knowledge is better than doing Additional prayers,because prayers only helps you,but knowledge helps every body :))
However, Islam has not contributed to the collective knowledge of humanity in any significant or helpful way in over 500 years. You can't rest on the laurels of the past forever.
As for prayer, it's a useless endeavor that has been proved to be not only unproductive, but actually counter-productive in some instances.
The advent of Islam might have improved the lot for a small population at the time, but it is decidedly detrimental now.
@ciaochowbella Well with all my respect,there is a big blunder in you logic,It's not the fault of islam,it's the fault of muslims! islam is the commands of God,do this,and do not do that,This is better and this is ont that great,this is islam,now if islam tells you to seek knowledge and you didn't,how can you say it's the fault of islam ???
If someone said 1+1+1=1 is that the fault of mathematics ? :))
@YamiYami17 Splitting hairs to suit your needs is typical of the religious mindset.
Sorry, but the fact remains that Muslims FOLLOW Islam and Islam fundamentally teaches that NOTHING outside of the Quran and Hadith are truly necessary. Islam, like many other religions, denies anything that directly contradicts its teachings no matter how much scientific proof is offered. THAT is the fault of Islam as well as Muslims.
@ciaochowbella "I am not saying there was not a time when Islam encouraged thought and innovation"
vs
"Islam fundamentally teaches that NOTHING outside of the Quran and Hadith are truly necessary"
Are you debating yourself here or what ?
Look there is no need to get angry,eather you follow the evidence,or you reject the evidence and do what you want,It's your life,do with it what you want,you are a free man,and your choice is respected :))
@YamiYami17 Those are NOT contradictory statements. One is about what was once allowed by the leaders of Islam the other is about the reality of what is taught by Islam.
Don't assume anger where there is none. I have followed the evidence and it has lead me to the conclusion that not only is Islam demonstrably false, the god of Abraham is impossible and the resultant religions are detrimental to the progress of humanity as a whole and dangerous in the extreme.
@ciaochowbella "One is about what was once allowed by ... is taught by Islam"
So,At the time of the prophet,it wasn't the real islam,but after 1400 years we figured out what is the real islam?
Well,you need first to meet the challenge of God to those who disbelieved in him,saying that Qur'an is not from God=Qur'an is from humans,but if it is from humans,why humans can't imitate the Qur'an? to put light on this challenge see this very entertaining lecture: /watch?v=w9vHj4z48q4
@YamiYami17 You really are trying desperately to split hairs to deflect from the real point.
I have read the Quran and noticed that it is plagiarized in large part from the Bible. I don't know what you mean by "humans can't imitate the Quran" but I suspect it's religious doublespeak. Christians say the same thing about the Bible and they're wrong.
The fact remains that Islam and it's followers have not added to the global innovation and technology for over 500 years.
@ciaochowbella (1)"I don't know what you mean by "humans can't imitate the Quran"" in other words humans can't write anything that is not poem-prose-normal speech here you go :))
"Christians say the same thing about the Bible" in fact christians says that the bible was written by humans on the life of jesus (pbuh), so no they don't say the samething,and the most of the bible is just normal speech.
@YamiYami17 The Quran doesn't have anything special. It's just a book written by a HUMAN. I don't know why exactly you think it's somehow exceptional, but I assure you, it isn't.
And yes, Christians DO think the Bible has some sort of special language. BTW, it's not merely about the life of Jesus. It's full of other fairy tales too.
@ciaochowbella (2) I think whether muslims added or didn't add at all to the global innovation won't change the fact that the Noble Qur'an is a miracle from God.
@YamiYami17 How EXACTLY is the Quran supposed to be so special?
BTW, my initial point was that Islam and Muslims HAVE NOT added anything beneficial to the planet in over 500 years. Apparently, having a super special book didn't make you better, smarter, wiser, kinder or more useful.
@Ryakki You're the only one being self-contradictory when you speak about sadism,don't you know that an atheist dose not believe in sadism? man it's all about nature,didn't you hear of the gay gene ? :'P
No,seriously, it's not about what is written,but about the structure of the text itself :))
it's a clear miracle and by the way it is the evidence of the islamic religion.
to understand more you can see this this very entertaining lecture: /watch?v=w9vHj4z48q4
Come on though, if a little poetry and some syntax make something divine... go with some Shakespeare! At least he doesn't eternally torture anyone who doesn't love him enough! And his stories don't constantly contradict each other, they're far better written!
@Ryakki Man That's the point Qur'an has 0 poetry !!! :)) it is not a poem nor prose or normal speech that's the miracle we can't as humankind creat anything which doesn't fit in those categories. please see this vid to understand what happend in the arabic comunity when the noble Qur'an was revealed /watch?v=NypoiJeF7A0
@Helge129 Ok here a half of the chapter "marry" /watch?v=xbFOD7Rjr-w which explain the story of jesus peace be upon him and what really happend, a story you don't find even in the bible!
See for yourself if you can understand the story (words,combination of words,meaning)
This chapter made many many christians ( priests and ministers ) convert to the real teachings of jesus peace be upon him.
@YamiYami17 The Bible is also senseless and incoherent, and incompatible with reality. All gods are fairytales, and Allah, Yahweh and any other omnipotent god, cannot exist.
@Helge129 I'm not talking about the bible but about the Qur'an,i hope you saw my vid.
Also a gave the evidence for my religion to be the truth in fact islam is the religion for all the prophets,if you want to talk about the bible you need to speak with a cristian.
Also, you need to stop with trying to use videos to make your point. If you don't know why it's special without resorting to the words and thoughts of others, then it's apparently not that special.
Surely something that was truly divine would be more spectacular and amazing, easier to translate, easier to comprehend and non-contradictory.
The Quran is not special. It's not even good writing from a literary POV.
@ciaochowbella You are asking the same questions over and over and i'm answering them over and over,you want us to turn in circles ? if so then i think we should stop at this point,i hope our difference in opinion does not spoil the relation of respect between us :))
@YamiYami17 Yes, I am asking the same question because you're not answering it. You're answering around it, changing the subject and dodging the issue.
How can I respect you if you refuse to respect me enough to answer my sincere, honestly asked question?
Once again, what EXACTLY makes the Quran so special?
@YamiYami17 Your examples of why the Quran is supposedly special or exhalted or whatever don't prove your assertion. I simply do not see the superiority or special qualities.
Also, I asked for specific reasons why the Quran is special, not video links. If you can't provide the reasons, just admit it. Surely something so divine would be OBVIOUSLY divine.
And you're still avoiding the initial assertion that Islam has not given anything to humanity for over 500 years.
@YamiYami17 Hold up. Now you're just lying outright.
Atheists do "believe in" sadism as something that does exist as a concept. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Are you implying that homosexuals are sadistic? If so, you are most horribly wrong.
And it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or genetically based. They don't hurt anyone with it. Religion is most definitely a choice and people use it as a reason to hurt others CONSTANTLY.
@yatter1 Well a lot of people disagree with you and say that islam is the right way to live a life,islam is simply what all the prophets did call to,from the first one which was also the first man,adam,to the last prophet of god,mohamed peace be upon them all,mohamed confirms the prophethood of jesus and moses,and beside that islam has an evidence and that's enough to prove the validity of the islamic religion :))
@yatter1 (1) Prophets proved thier prophethood by showing miracles to thier nations and the last prophet wasn't any diffirent,in fact because he is the last and he is send to the whole of mankind,logicaly his miracle must be durable so even after his death people will see it.And that's qur'an, The qur'an is not poem,nor prose,and obviously not normal speech,It's like saying a cube with 7 faces,arabic has 3 branches and qur'an doesn't fit in any of them.
Whatever book of whatever religious or superstitious belief on this earth is just man's work. Nothing divine at all, just the thoughts of dead people who didn't know better.
Science has over and over again proven all those fairy tales wrong. People holding belief in these things are merely living in a dreamworld and deceiving themselves every day. Either because they are brain-washed from childhood, lack of proper education or lack of the ability to think rationally and logically.
@Tycetto (1)Well i can discuss with you evolition is you want,but saying that the book of God that has an inimitable style is not an argument,you need to brake the argument,by creating a non-poem,non-prose,non-normal speech,Or by showing somehow why the argument is not valid,And God challenged those who disbelieved in his words and demanded them eather acceptance or diconstruction of the argument,
@Tyc(2) God said:"And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Prophet Muammad(pbuh)],then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses [supporters] other than Allah,if you should be truthful,But if you do not,and you will never be able to,then fear the Fire,whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers" Because of this clear evidence,poeple are entring in islam in lines,and you should to :)) You will recognize a lot /watch?v=YB5QBzquBrU
You are a blinkered religious nutcase, my friend - and you can't discuss anything as you obviously can't think for yourself, so claiming that you can discuss evolition [sic] is somewhat of a joke!
Quoting your hideous fairy tale book is not an argument for anything - except the fact that you aren't capable of thinking for yourself.
Harry Potter is a much better fairy tale that all the religious book put together. Even Winnie The Pooh is better... and much less violent!
@Tycetto "Quoting your hideous fairy tale book is not an argument" Well i didn't quote the book,i refered to the structure of the text,the structure of the text is a miracle that can be done only by God,If i told you i built a four dimentional Car and no human can build the same,isn't it absurd to say,this isn't an argument because your car has steering wheel and my car steering wheel ?
@yatter1(2) God speaks in a supreme way,which is inimitable,and that's normal,a child dosen't speak english like an adult,an adult dosen't speak english like a teacher of english,a teacher dosen't speak english like PHD doctor in english,a PHD doctor dosen't speak english like a strong author who lived in the golden era of the english language like shakespear,So if there is indeed a revelation from god,it must make shakespear look like a dumb,and that is qur'an: /watch?v=NypoiJeF7A0
imo this is irrelevance, 'predictive models'?? is that what we're doing?, since when? that's science you're talking about, science does not have primacy over metaphysics or musicke or English literature or cake-decorating, it's a different thing. if i told Richard Dawkins the theory of evolution is no good because it doesn't follow sonata form he'd rightly tell me i was not judging it by the proper standard. the same applies to all this imo
How did the religious Americans beat the godless Soviets then? Weren't the godless Soviets supposed to be superior than their American counterparts because they removed (by killing every Soviert citizen who disagreed with them) religion of their society?
@irbk500 Your economy was driven by loans being repayed by europe uk especialy,capitalising on the growing trade from the far east and india when the major powers uk and germany moved out,after ww2 america was the only fully industrialised nation on earth.Russia cut itself off from the world and this was counterproductive as they had nobody to trade with,other then china which was going through social struggles.If it wasnt for hitler america would have stayed in the depression for 20 more yrs.
@irbk500 You forget to open up a cadaver(dead body) was considered the vilest heresy so all surgerys and transplants may not be used by christians,as it is against your teachings.Even learning about the skeleton and organs wasnt fully recorded until late 1800s.The church ( all churchs btw) banned autopsys so please thank the atheists and godless people for standing up and trying to understand and make the world a better place. Otherwise you wouldnt be here and dead of smallpox.
@irbk500 That's because the American government is secular, and not Christian. NASA isn't based on religion, they've been to space and found the world isn't flat and supported by beams. The main disadvantage the Russians had (as a society) wasn't a lack in god, but just the amount of shear corruption.
@fdasherv Well I'm not saying America is perfect or free of corruption (I'm Canadian). I';m just saying the Soviet Union collapsed on it's self due to corruption.
@Pentagon1337 Do you actualy believe that? Do you know that some of the greatest mind that have ever lived were Christian theologiens who praised reason. The modern university system has builld by the Catholic Church. You do not have to be a believer to recognise this.
@TheAwesomeMaths ..l dont care if some of them were christians. The major ones like Charles Darwin, used to be a christian, but after his daughter died, he reverted. A used-to-be christian discovered Evolution. lronic, no? Albert E. is not an atheist nor a believer. Einstein was a deist. He did not believe in a personal God. The list can go on, and would be way too long. 98% of all scientists are not religious. However, like Einstein, there are some who are deist. l will continue in my next post
@Pentagon1337 Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was supported in the USA by Asa Gray,the most important American botanist of the 19th century, who was a Christian.
Charles Darwin said this in reference to Asa Gray:"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist & an evolutionist"
Einstein was a pantheist but others like Max Planck or Heisenberg were Christians.And even today scientists are Christians.
@TheAwesomeMaths The Dark Ages of Western Civilization lasted for about 1000 years and had a complete lack of progress. Gibbon blamed the rise of Christianity since it correlated with the decline of civilization.
@TheAwesomeMaths And seriously, it is true. l was reffering to the dark ages. ln the dark ages, there was little to no technological improvement whatsoever. This is a PROVEN FACT. Conclusion; lf christians did not exist, we really could have explored the galaxy by now. And l don't mean to be rude, but if you are going to deny the happening of the D.A and the ''No-tech-improvement'', do not talk to me again. l do not tolerate stupid oblivious people.
@Pentagon1337 The Dark Ages were caused by the colapse of The Roman Empire which had nothing to do with religion.Development did happen in the Dark Ages: Leo the Mathematician, Hildegard of Bingen, William of Ockham, Nicole Oresme to name a few contributed to our knowledge during that period.
@Pentagon1337 Imagine if Nasa had more than 0.48% of the federal budget? The highest it's ever been is around 4% and that was during the race to beat the soviets to the moon, which we did. Imagine with today's technology how much it would do with 1%.
@Pentagon1337 Did you not make a point by saying we would of been more advanced if religion had not held us back? I simply added to it by saying Nasa hardly gets any money in the gran scheme of things, imagine if it got just a half % more of the budget. ;)
@Pentagon1337 :D or if must of the religious people i have talked to are anything to go by, ill probably rob it, as to them, you cant be atheist and have morals lol
I don't think creationists are all bad. For all the stupid questions they spew. Some are good and gives science something else to persue. It's sad that they have too short of attention span to recieve the answer. (many questions do get answered). So I pose: Are the randomly generated good questions creationists pose, completely useless? For they do fuel science occationally.
@smp1smp2smp3 But it does. It makes truth claims about the world and the universe, and those claims should be testable. Those that are are proven false, and those that aren't are useless and invalid.
@smp1smp2smp3 The Earth is flat. The Earth is young. God created everything as is. There was a global flood. Humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together. If you put salt water with fresh water, they will not mix. That's just off the top of my head, too.
@smp1smp2smp3 The spherical Earth was predicted by Aristotle, not proven, and yes, he was a theist. So? The Bible says the Earth is flat. Therefore, we have a religious claim about the shape of the Earth that is known to be false. -1 accuracy point for the Bible (more like epic fail for being the word of god, but I'm being generous). The Earth's age is NOT 'still widely disputed'. It is 4.25 billion years old, give or take a few million. Nowhere near 6000-10,000. Global flood is in a few...
@ianman6 religious myths and you can only think that it must be either true or a coincidence? Go learn about diffusion and syncretism in religious studies. I don't care what a localized pre-scientific group thought about a mythical global event which purportedly occurred before their time and for which there is no evidence. Geology says derp. Humans and dinos walking together is only probably false to you? It is impossible. If you still even consider it a possibility there are some gaping holes
@smp1smp2smp3 ...in your basic scientific knowledge which need to be filled ASAP kid. Humans: 200,000ya to present. Dinosaurs: Extinct 65 mya. Not exactly an overlap.
I said that the claim of humans and dinosaurs coexistence was unlikely, and I understand the evolutionary timescale. But since you like to talk about failures...how about science failures? Java man (-1) Nebraska man (-1) Peking man (-1) Piltdown man (-3)
And that's only fossils, don't let me get into the Steady State Theory (-1) World Ice Theory (-7) and Phlogiston (-2)
Sure, there have been spectacular failures on both sides. So now tell me the triumphs of evolution please?
@smp1smp2smp3 The 'failures' of science in your first set are hoaxes, frauds. Not real evidence. Nor are they necessary for the theory of evolution. Please try to keep up to date. Your second set are discarded theories that were based on available evidence, and as is the scientific process, scientists updated or came up with newer theories as new evidence came to light. Religion does no such thing. It picks and chooses evidence it wants that supports its dogma. It is a process fundamentally...
The failures surely were hoaxes, I agree with you. But understand that just like Nebraska man has been done away with...so has the flat earth theory. Just as the Steady State Theory has been done away with...so has the salt water fresh water idea. However, remember a statement from a scientist is not necessarily a statement OF science. There have been countess whacky claims by both science and religion, MOSTLY dead and buried.
@smp1smp2smp3 Again, hoaxes of fabricated evidence are not the same as discarded theories. Flat earth was not even a scientific theory. The steady state theory was let go in favor of the Big Bang because the evidence demanded it. But the round Earth is not going to be replaced by another theory. It is now a fact. As is evolution. I don't know why you're even talking about singular claims of scientists not being representative of science. No shit. Science is evidence + consensus of experts.
@smp1smp2smp3 Not 'for me'. For the entire relevant scientific community, save for a few dissenters with faith-based biases and no evidence. The weight of evidence makes evolution by Darwinian mechanics a fact. There is no valid competing theory that explains adequately all the evidence. It is painfully clear that you do not understand the process of science as these are very basic principles I am having to explain to you.
I half agree with you, as I'm sure you'd expect. I can understand that micro-evolution such as bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics is a fact, because it's observable. However, I'd be cautious of using the word 'fact' with macro, because it is still disputable, and not once observable. Or maybe you're a closed book like your friend Dawkins?
@smp1smp2smp3 Lol a closed book? Like Dawkins? Talk about projection. It's your type that refuse evidence that goes against your precious beliefs. But I'll let that slide. Micro and macro evolution are the same processes on different time scales. The words are not even meaningful to those who study evolution. But if by macro evolution you mean morphological change, that has been observed. Dogs, anyone? If you mean speciation, also checked. So really you're holding on to nothing here.
@smp1smp2smp3 Correct. Dogs are domesticated wolves, essentially. They are now a different species. But the various breeds of dogs show extreme morphological differences (poodle to great dane, for instance) despite being the same species and capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Breeds are achieved through artificial selection, which is human controlled evolution. Rather than nature selecting for traits, we do. This wouldn't be possible if evolution were false.
@smp1smp2smp3 Damn, you almost had it. I guess I'll repeat. Macro and micro are the same processes. The only difference is time scale. Macro implies gross morphological change and speciation. Both of these are known to occur and have been observed. Back to dogs. They are proof of evolution, not just what you call macro. They prove the mechanisms. If we let all chihuahuas and all German sheppards go wild, they would not breed with each other. There are barriers to their reproduction and...
@ianman6 they would continue to diverge in different evolutionary directions. Natural selection would take over from where we left them through artificial selection. You have to understand what a species is from a biological standpoint. You seem to think species are discrete categories when they are not.
@smp1smp2smp3 incapable of discerning truth except by accident. Science is a search for truth and knowledge and it's process is designed to achieve this. And it does so successfully. Your comparison is very poor, dishonest and simplistic. Science has admitted it's discarded theories were incorrect. Religion still holds on to its bullshit. Evolution, 150 years down the road, has garnered more evidence in support than almost any other theory, and none against it. It is a FACT. A triumph? Breeding.
@ianman6 Science (from geology mostly) has proven the age of the Earth. I wasn't 'told' by anyone in particular. There was a question (how old is the Earth) and there were many answers throughout history, but science provided us the correct answer by using evidence.
@Thunderf00t I had to pause when you got to the 'originally only one version of Christianity' nonsense. The version of Christianity which we know of as Catholicism, was not the early form of Christianity. Early forms of Christianity were the ones whom had no Bible, as the Bible is merely a collection of Christian gospels.
Anyone who is interested should read 'Lost Christianities', which gives a strong argument for this. Why would there be only one faith before there was the one book?
So, over the span of a couple thousand years Christianity splintered and mutated from a single model ideology into various models; each with disconnected aspects relating back to the original ideology. Wait... Isn't that evolution?
@randallfe Go back in the past for example. The only thing that kept people from Killing each other frequently was religion. It gave a basis of whats good and bad. And Yes Religion was also a reason for war but just how worse it would be if there wasnt. What Im basically saying is that without religion in the past there would be no order.
@TheWolfreaver in the past... where people thought lighting was an act of god... slaughtering people in the name of there god... only thing religion cause in the past was violence and hold back technological advances
@randallfe Holy shit I just said that. AGAIN! let me repeat myself....Yes Religion DID cause violence but It DID stop most too. Religion gave a basis of rules of whats bad and whats right. For example. Randomly killing a person in the street would count as a sin and would have negative consequences. If there was no religion in the past it would mainly be chaotic. Anyways Religion helps people go through things like changing their ways...mainly in prison
Why would you analize use of religion in that sort of utilitarian manner? Does everything you do or think have to be universaly intersubjective in terms of usefulness? Religion has a value foremost for the individual. In my opinion religion shouldent be treated in the same manner as survival skills and common sense judgement in a sense that it shouldnt be the sole thing that you base your decisions on. Science and religion are 2 different things
If what you say is true (which it is not), then everyone would burn in hell because we are ALL sinnners. Jesus loves those who willingly admit that they are sinners and cannot bear the weight of their sin without Him.
So the argument about religion is that rainbows follow the laws of physics? well, not shit Sherlock. I believe more and more in God, and yet i understand science very well, specifically electricity, astronomy, a bit of chemistry, and a bit of biology. I can say, through LOGIC, that in order to prove or disprove something, you need evidence. So far there is no proof that there isn't a god. There proof that he didn't do things, like creating the Earth and the Universe, but we Can't disprove God.
@glaxko2 Looks like someone needs to take a critical thinking class. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion, i.e. the one who claims there is a god. You can't prove a negative. If you can, go ahead and prove there are no pink unicorns, and that Odin and Thor also don't exist.
@ChipArgyle except there is evidence that there is a God, and there are modern ideas about the relationship between God and the Universe. So far, none of the evidence can be disproven. Scientists follow the burden of proof, it's what they do.
Also, It's just SO typical that Mr. "I'm an intellectual atheist" would bring up pink unicorns, what the FUCK does that have to do with anything?
Rainbow="Promise by a powerful God not to destroy the world by a flood again." The Bible was not providing an explanation of how to predict when & where rainbows form. It was stating that rainbows exist b/c they are a sign from God that He will never again destroy the world with a mass flood (Gen9:11). Whether you believe the Bible to be true or not, logically Christianity is sound in that:
Furthermore, for the majority / those who have not investigated Christianity vs "other religions" I encourage you to do so. Christianity stands a part from "religion" due to the extensive factual foundation the Bible provides, not only in comparison with "other religions" but as a "predictive model"; one where all the information is not present(as is most all cases), and where the approach of Physical Evidence & Reasoned Logic is carefully applied, especially reasoned logic.
@BigBr0wnE "Extensive factual foundation the Bible provides"? Come on. You're just trolling, right? The Bible begins to fall apart in Genesis 1, verse 6 and slides rapidly downhill from there.
Where is the logic in "this book is true because it says it's true so there"?
@ChipArgyle Gen1:6expanse between waters. 7expanse from waters above & below. - the creation of the seas & the clouds.
True, God would be asking us to believe BLINDLY in Him if that was the only "evidence" provided. Fortunately, the bible is a compilation of 66 books written over 1500 yrs by 40 authors in 3 languages & on 3 continents. 388 times it claims to be the Word of God. Prophecies are made & occur yrs later. It is extremely accurate & uncontradictory. Thus there is good Reason to Believe
@BigBr0wnE The Bible contradicts itself many times. There are sites on the Internet that have conveniently compiled these contradictions. Have a look.
Ever notice that none of those authors put their name to the book? Why? Could it be that some of their writings were plagiarism of earlier religions? Why yes, it appears so.
Claiming 388 times to be the Word of God doesn't make it so when it was written by men.
One can't begin to describe all the inaccuracies in a mere 500 characters.
@ChipArgyle There is also much evidence disproving the appearance of contradictions on the internet.
Actually there are a few books that do declare who their human author is. The others weren't extremely difficult to figure out; like the Iliad, the author's name doesn't appear but other sources unanimously point to 1 author (Homer in this case).
If we disregard claims from man, then as a man, your claim "388 times..." contradicts itself. We must give a degree of truth to a man's voice.
@ChipArgyle And I agree, 500 chars makes this difficult. I would be more than happy to discuss 1 appearance of Biblical contradiction, evidence regarding "plagiarism" of religions, or 1 "inaccuracy" within the bible.
No guarantees 500 chars is enough but I'm willing to give it a shot.
@BigBr0wnE Here's a start on the contradictions: infidels(dot)org. Click search. Enter 'contradiction' and go to town. The fact that even one exists is evidence the Bible is not infallible. The fact that so many exist makes rational people wonder why that book is ever taken literally, or even seriously.
Plagiarism: research Mithraism. Then learn why we really celebrate Dec. 25. (It's not his birthday.)
Inaccuracy: the flood didn't happen. Math and science prove it from all directions.
@ChipArgyle again, and I'll rephrase, just because something is on the internet doesn't make it true. The material within the Bible holds true to itself and to history more accurately than anything in existence today.
Plagiarism: Christianity & the Bible-which had it's first writings long before Mithraism-which appeared in Rome-a culture that borrowed from all previous cultures. And Christianity plagiarized Mithraism?
@BigBr0wnE I know the arguments already about Mithra. Some historians claim Christians burned the library that contained the writings that would have proven the plagiarism.
No word on the contradictions or the flood though, huh? The myth of the flood is one of the things that destroyed that book's credibility for me. Creating the human race from insufficient genetic information thrice, 900 year-old people, the pillar of salt, and Samson's hair weren't far behind.
@ChipArgyle I didn't comment on the flood because I was given 2 statements with no supporting facts. Remember Gen1:6-the expanse between waters? Clouds above & seas below. It never rained until the day of the flood (thus the intense ridicule Noah feel under) No one had ever even heard of the concept of rain! While unable to be proven (as much of History is) it makes since that the atmosphere (drastically different than now) had a green house effect-plants grew bigger, lived longer and so did ppl
@ChipArgyle I didn't comment on the flood because I was given 2 statements with no supporting facts. Remember Gen1:6-the expanse between waters? Clouds above & seas below. It never rained until the day of the flood (thus the intense ridicule Noah feel under) No one had ever even heard of the concept of rain! While unable to be proven (as much of History is) it makes since that the atmosphere (drastically different than now) had a green house effect-plants grew bigger, lived longer & so did ppl
@ChipArgyle Thus you see giants-the Nephilim in the bible. And after the flood people's lifespans start to decrease as the atmosphere & the world are vastly different. As with anything in the Bible man is asked to have faith in God & not in themselves. I don't have all explanations for the miraculous events described in the Bible. But we see this: God's Word is sovereign. Gen1:3 "God said...and there was" Gen1:6&7 "God said...God made" Gen1:9 "God said...it was so" Gen1:11 "God said..it was so"
@ChipArgyle Gen19:17 "[to Lot] Do not look behind you" Gen19:26 "But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt." Judges13:5 "For behold, you shall conceive & give birth to a son, & no razor shall come upon his head" Jgs16:19&20"had him shave off the seven locks of his hair...and his strength left him...the Lord had departed from him" God's Word is sovereign.
Sampson's hair was not the source of his strength but a symbol of obedience to the Lord.
Search for Ryrie's theory as to one possible explanation of the pillar of salt & destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah. Simply, that there exists, one POSSIBLE theory that connects all data points, logically means that it is not unreasonable to believe that said event occurred (despite not knowing the TRUE manner in which the event occurred). Ex: Rome burned. This is true; we don't know how(accident or arson, who started it...), but it has been accepted by Historians today that Rome did in fact burn.
@BigBr0wnE Ryrie/ Dispensationalism are generally laughed out of the room and don't apply to Lot's wife.
The human body does not contain within it sufficient sodium and chlorine to turn into a pillar of salt. To turn a body into nothing but NaCl would require a lot of time, energy, nuclear reactors, and particle accelerators. None of these items were available while Lot's wife was on the run from the city. And she'd have to be immobilized for the process to occur. Didn't happen.
@ChipArgyle I clearly see you decided not to search for Ryrie's theory.
Anyhow before we continue let me blow your mind about 'truth':
Truth exists beyond that which is scientifically(stfcly) proven. This means that before something is stfcly proven, it was still true (the only difference being, it hasn't been tested & proven by man; so some would say, 'we can't KNOW it to be true'). Please take the time to fully grasp what I've said. It's important that we agree on this truth.
@ChipArgyle OK, so something is Ultimately true, then we stfcly test it & Prove that it's true -now it's Scientific Truth.
For ex. F=MA: F=MA was ultimately true before we/man proved it to be stfcly true.
So there's Ultimate Truth & Stfc Truth. Stfc Truth is like a category within Ultimate Truth. Anything that is stfcly true is also ultimately true, but something can be ultimately true & not stfcly true (thus not testable.) So what is testable will support Ultimate Truth, & never contradict it.
@ChipArgyle Ex 2: One ought naught to torture babies for fun. We know this to be true yet we cannot stfcly test it or prove it. This is not a Stfc Truth (b/c it's not testable) but it is an Ultimate Truth. Furthermore man KNOWS this to be true without stfc evidence. So given that Ultimate Truth exists outside of Stfc Truth, any avg human would want solid reason to BELIEVE something is true.
@BigBr0wnE Sure. God slowly killed David's baby, ergo there is no such thing as "Ultimate Truth". You're talking about morality, which is mutually exclusive from the scientific method (and God too). They're different subjects on their own; however, morality should be applied to scientific advancements where necessary.
I prefer to discuss facts. You like to obfuscate with pie in the sky. Would you like to deny gravity next? It's just a theory you know.
@ChipArgyle If you like to discuss facts then factually disprove the logic I put forth.
Truth (defined as Ultimate Truth) exists before man stfcly proves it to be 'Stfc Truth'.
Ultimately gravity existed before Newton stfcly tested & proved it to be Stfcly True.
A man holding to Ultimate Truth could claim gravity exists without any stfc proof & he would be right even if the whole world called him a liar or lunatic & hung him on a tree.
Science & man don't determine truth but discover it!
@BigBr0wnE I agree that man discovers truth (and facts). Numerous sources, often religions, have different definitions for "ultimate truth", ergo, the concept is vague, if even valid. If by ultimate truth you mean facts yet to be discovered, I can work with that. It doesn't need a deity to work.
Not sure on the "logic" you're espousing. You said one ought not to torture babies for fun and then I referred to a biblical story where God did just that. Still can't see people turning into salt.
@ChipArgyle I was speaking as a man to mankind. A deity that creates man is above man. True, what man has the right to torture a child, but a god(The God) has that right. From the first sin on, -Gen4:21 Garments of animal skin for Adam & Eve- we see that there is a blood sacrifice that must be paid to redeem us back to a sinless & perfect God.
And yes I feel you on the various definitions. Ultimate Truth - facts discovered AND undiscovered.
@ChipArgyle Just like a scientist without sufficient data says, "This is undetermined." Not, "This is invalid." So is my approach to these details, except where the Bible/God says 'this happened'. Because, he's batting 1000 right now, & it's been a couple thousand years. The detailed events we do have point to the Ultimate Truth that God exists!
Take these 6 historical facts concerning the resurrection events, by non-believing historians:
1.Jesus died by crucifixion(by Roman execution)...
@BigBr0wnE You can't call them facts when they only appear in a single set of writings. There's no independence. Most of the Bible was written 50-100 years after the death of the Jesus figure. That makes him a legend, not a lord. The written accounts were not written by eyewitnesses.
Read all four of the gospels. Each has notably different accounts of what happened when the stone was rolled away from the tomb. Note the differences in who was present. How can that be?
50-100 years after is the equivalent to WWI, II, Korea & Vietnam Wars. Try telling a War Vet he didn't really fight through one of those "legendary" wars.
One doesn't need an eyewitness, when people are still alive to confirm what the storyteller says; furthermore the accounts of Christ were passed by word of mouth much like any martial arts. No apprentice changes his master's technique, they practice it repeatedly to guarantee they get it right..
@ChipArgyle Might I also add that Patheos was the 1st person to report the author of the Gospel of John 15-30yrs after John was written. Patheos also said Matthew & 1 of Jesus disciples wrote Matthew, & Mark was not an eyewitness but the information came directly from Peter. Justin 'Martyr' said Luke got his info from eyewitnesses, which agrees with the 1st 4 verses in Luke.
John 20:2 "she[Mary] ran...& said 'They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, & WE do not know where..." catch the WE?
Nicely done video, Thunderf00t, Keep up the very much needed good work!
AthenaSchroedinger 3 days ago
I believed rainbows were the act of magic until I was in Jr. school thanks to those idiotic religious doctrine I was brainwashed with. I'm so glad I shed that really boring and stupid way of thinking.
Now I can actually replicate the real way a rainbow is created in computer software, science for the win!
KittenKoder 4 days ago
IThe Rainbow Bridge its soooo beautiful in the springtime!! And every once in a while, I lioke to scrape up roadkill and forcefeed it to orphans. :-)
TheCrimsonification 6 days ago
Jesus despised religion too.
q1w2e3r467 1 week ago
@q1w2e3r467 *snorts*
That's not what your Bible says!
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella So if you know what the bible says, then you know Matthew 23 for example: Jesus wasn't meek and mild when he addressed the religious leaders of the day, he launched a vicious tirade at them. He called them serpents, a brood of vipers, blind, lawless, said they put burdens too heavy on men's shoulders, that they take the best for themselves, that they are hypocrites, etc. why do you think they had him executed! JESUS CHRIST died for exposing religion.
q1w2e3r467 1 week ago
@q1w2e3r467 Well, when you consider that there is absolutely NO extra-Biblical evidence for the life of Jesus. your whole argument seems to be based on myth.
However, the teachings attributed to him and the words he supposedly spoke CLEARLY imply that he respected and honored the Hebrew religion. His objection in Matthew 23 wasn't about the religion, but about how it had been changed.
BTW, if you have proof he lived, show it. You'll be lauded by billions if you can do that!
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29
I can't prove anything to you, your on your own there.
q1w2e3r467 1 week ago
@q1w2e3r467 sometimes i just want to hang myself listening to religious nuts. so for believing in jesus proves that he existed?
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@q1w2e3r467 This verse is a common way to attempt to keep people in the church by making it so that the leaders don't have to explain why their "god" hasn't done anything. I used this tactic to keep kids out of my shed. Told them that I had a poisonous snake that was loose in the shed and don't go in there. Worked for about 5 years
Xatasha6611 4 days ago
Religion is toxic. Knowledge is power. Peace
EattherichBuddy 1 week ago
I'm not sure you could really say Christianity was ever cohesive - from the earliest stages, there were some massive differences between sects (and I'd say even larger than the differences there are now). Not to say it's not "divergent" - only that it was so startlingly early.
JustAnotherHumanist 1 week ago
Relgion is the problem with religion. It's all stupid, makes people stupid, and has them do stupid shit in the name of a invisible God.
MetalxXxMayhem 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
strawman again
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
well said
tjwhalan 2 weeks ago
Islam is the one that started the modern scienctific movement,and got thunder out of his dark ages ! ofcourse he ignore that !
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
@YamiYami17 Islam did not start the modern scientific movement. That was quashed by the Muslims shortly after it began.
The modern scientific movement was borne of the Enlightenment, not Islam. If you wish to give Islam some credit, then also credit the Greeks, Romans, Indians and Chinese who had scientific advances long before Islam was conceived.
BTW, Islam hasn't contributed anything to the scientific community or modern technology for about 550 years. You seem to ignore that fact.
ciaochowbella 2 weeks ago 2
@ciaochowbella You are very mistaken: /watch?v=97c69Q4_cwI
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
@YamiYami17 No, I am not mistaken.
BTW, a YT video with Muslim propaganda is not a citation.
ciaochowbella 2 weeks ago
@ciaochowbella Ok write in wikipdia "Islamic Golden Age"
and discover for yourself.
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
@YamiYami17 I am not saying there was not a time when Islam encouraged thought and innovation. I am saying that time was over 500 years ago and Islam has been milking that for every bit of worn out prestige it can manage.
You don't see the Chinese still bragging about gunpowder, do you? No, because they've done something since then.
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella No,it's just an answer to those igonrants who said that the coming of islam made the arabs more ignorant,cleary it's the opposite of that,In islam the seeking of knowledge is better than doing Additional prayers,because prayers only helps you,but knowledge helps every body :))
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 Indeed, knowledge does help everyone.
However, Islam has not contributed to the collective knowledge of humanity in any significant or helpful way in over 500 years. You can't rest on the laurels of the past forever.
As for prayer, it's a useless endeavor that has been proved to be not only unproductive, but actually counter-productive in some instances.
The advent of Islam might have improved the lot for a small population at the time, but it is decidedly detrimental now.
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella Well with all my respect,there is a big blunder in you logic,It's not the fault of islam,it's the fault of muslims! islam is the commands of God,do this,and do not do that,This is better and this is ont that great,this is islam,now if islam tells you to seek knowledge and you didn't,how can you say it's the fault of islam ???
If someone said 1+1+1=1 is that the fault of mathematics ? :))
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 Splitting hairs to suit your needs is typical of the religious mindset.
Sorry, but the fact remains that Muslims FOLLOW Islam and Islam fundamentally teaches that NOTHING outside of the Quran and Hadith are truly necessary. Islam, like many other religions, denies anything that directly contradicts its teachings no matter how much scientific proof is offered. THAT is the fault of Islam as well as Muslims.
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella "I am not saying there was not a time when Islam encouraged thought and innovation"
vs
"Islam fundamentally teaches that NOTHING outside of the Quran and Hadith are truly necessary"
Are you debating yourself here or what ?
Look there is no need to get angry,eather you follow the evidence,or you reject the evidence and do what you want,It's your life,do with it what you want,you are a free man,and your choice is respected :))
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 Those are NOT contradictory statements. One is about what was once allowed by the leaders of Islam the other is about the reality of what is taught by Islam.
Don't assume anger where there is none. I have followed the evidence and it has lead me to the conclusion that not only is Islam demonstrably false, the god of Abraham is impossible and the resultant religions are detrimental to the progress of humanity as a whole and dangerous in the extreme.
Oh, and I'm a woman.
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella "One is about what was once allowed by ... is taught by Islam"
So,At the time of the prophet,it wasn't the real islam,but after 1400 years we figured out what is the real islam?
Well,you need first to meet the challenge of God to those who disbelieved in him,saying that Qur'an is not from God=Qur'an is from humans,but if it is from humans,why humans can't imitate the Qur'an? to put light on this challenge see this very entertaining lecture: /watch?v=w9vHj4z48q4
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 You really are trying desperately to split hairs to deflect from the real point.
I have read the Quran and noticed that it is plagiarized in large part from the Bible. I don't know what you mean by "humans can't imitate the Quran" but I suspect it's religious doublespeak. Christians say the same thing about the Bible and they're wrong.
The fact remains that Islam and it's followers have not added to the global innovation and technology for over 500 years.
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella (1)"I don't know what you mean by "humans can't imitate the Quran"" in other words humans can't write anything that is not poem-prose-normal speech here you go :))
"Christians say the same thing about the Bible" in fact christians says that the bible was written by humans on the life of jesus (pbuh), so no they don't say the samething,and the most of the bible is just normal speech.
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 The Quran doesn't have anything special. It's just a book written by a HUMAN. I don't know why exactly you think it's somehow exceptional, but I assure you, it isn't.
And yes, Christians DO think the Bible has some sort of special language. BTW, it's not merely about the life of Jesus. It's full of other fairy tales too.
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella (2) I think whether muslims added or didn't add at all to the global innovation won't change the fact that the Noble Qur'an is a miracle from God.
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 How EXACTLY is the Quran supposed to be so special?
BTW, my initial point was that Islam and Muslims HAVE NOT added anything beneficial to the planet in over 500 years. Apparently, having a super special book didn't make you better, smarter, wiser, kinder or more useful.
ciaochowbella 1 week ago
@ciaochowbella (1)"How EXACTLY is the Quran supposed to be so special?"
It is Inimitable .only God can produce the like of it humans can't and i explained why.
Madam with just your commun sens,Do you think really that God sounds like humans when he speak ?
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17
You mean only allah can be so self-contradictory and sadistic and petty?
Give me a break, poor writing as proof of divinity?
Ryakki 3 days ago
@Ryakki You're the only one being self-contradictory when you speak about sadism,don't you know that an atheist dose not believe in sadism? man it's all about nature,didn't you hear of the gay gene ? :'P
No,seriously, it's not about what is written,but about the structure of the text itself :))
it's a clear miracle and by the way it is the evidence of the islamic religion.
to understand more you can see this this very entertaining lecture: /watch?v=w9vHj4z48q4
YamiYami17 3 days ago
@YamiYami17
Sadism, not satan, lol.
Come on though, if a little poetry and some syntax make something divine... go with some Shakespeare! At least he doesn't eternally torture anyone who doesn't love him enough! And his stories don't constantly contradict each other, they're far better written!
Ryakki 3 days ago
@Ryakki Man That's the point Qur'an has 0 poetry !!! :)) it is not a poem nor prose or normal speech that's the miracle we can't as humankind creat anything which doesn't fit in those categories. please see this vid to understand what happend in the arabic comunity when the noble Qur'an was revealed /watch?v=NypoiJeF7A0
atleast see some of the vid :))
YamiYami17 3 days ago
@YamiYami17 The qur'an is senseless, incoherent ramblings of primitive goatfanciers.
Helge129 3 days ago
@Helge129 Ok here a half of the chapter "marry" /watch?v=xbFOD7Rjr-w which explain the story of jesus peace be upon him and what really happend, a story you don't find even in the bible!
See for yourself if you can understand the story (words,combination of words,meaning)
This chapter made many many christians ( priests and ministers ) convert to the real teachings of jesus peace be upon him.
YamiYami17 3 days ago
@YamiYami17 The Bible is also senseless and incoherent, and incompatible with reality. All gods are fairytales, and Allah, Yahweh and any other omnipotent god, cannot exist.
Helge129 3 days ago
@Helge129 I'm not talking about the bible but about the Qur'an,i hope you saw my vid.
Also a gave the evidence for my religion to be the truth in fact islam is the religion for all the prophets,if you want to talk about the bible you need to speak with a cristian.
YamiYami17 3 days ago
@YamiYami17 If you don't want people to mention the Bible, then YOU shouldn't mention it.
ciaochowbella 1 day ago
@YamiYami17 It's not miraculous.
Also, you need to stop with trying to use videos to make your point. If you don't know why it's special without resorting to the words and thoughts of others, then it's apparently not that special.
Surely something that was truly divine would be more spectacular and amazing, easier to translate, easier to comprehend and non-contradictory.
The Quran is not special. It's not even good writing from a literary POV.
ciaochowbella 1 day ago
@ciaochowbella You are asking the same questions over and over and i'm answering them over and over,you want us to turn in circles ? if so then i think we should stop at this point,i hope our difference in opinion does not spoil the relation of respect between us :))
Hope you the best ~
YamiYami17 1 day ago
@YamiYami17 Yes, I am asking the same question because you're not answering it. You're answering around it, changing the subject and dodging the issue.
How can I respect you if you refuse to respect me enough to answer my sincere, honestly asked question?
Once again, what EXACTLY makes the Quran so special?
ciaochowbella 1 day ago
@YamiYami17 Your examples of why the Quran is supposedly special or exhalted or whatever don't prove your assertion. I simply do not see the superiority or special qualities.
Also, I asked for specific reasons why the Quran is special, not video links. If you can't provide the reasons, just admit it. Surely something so divine would be OBVIOUSLY divine.
And you're still avoiding the initial assertion that Islam has not given anything to humanity for over 500 years.
ciaochowbella 1 day ago
@YamiYami17 Hold up. Now you're just lying outright.
Atheists do "believe in" sadism as something that does exist as a concept. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Are you implying that homosexuals are sadistic? If so, you are most horribly wrong.
And it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or genetically based. They don't hurt anyone with it. Religion is most definitely a choice and people use it as a reason to hurt others CONSTANTLY.
ciaochowbella 1 day ago
@ciaochowbella (2) Maybe you will recognize the difference :
Human(normal speech) :/watch?v=weDQi9ew7RE
Human(prose) :/watch?v=Zkh4vqnhQgE (very beautiful and strong!)
Human(poetry) :/watch?v=QVOrnjc6bg8&feature=related (this man ate the tyrant leaders of arabian countries!!!)
God(swt) : /watch?v=QoGptZy6PJ4
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 Islam started a nightmare, nothing more.
yatter1 2 weeks ago
@yatter1 Well a lot of people disagree with you and say that islam is the right way to live a life,islam is simply what all the prophets did call to,from the first one which was also the first man,adam,to the last prophet of god,mohamed peace be upon them all,mohamed confirms the prophethood of jesus and moses,and beside that islam has an evidence and that's enough to prove the validity of the islamic religion :))
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
@YamiYami17 Well a lot of people are wrong. Islam has no evidence to support it´s claims, if it does, show it. I won´t hold my breath.
yatter1 2 weeks ago
@yatter1 (1) Prophets proved thier prophethood by showing miracles to thier nations and the last prophet wasn't any diffirent,in fact because he is the last and he is send to the whole of mankind,logicaly his miracle must be durable so even after his death people will see it.And that's qur'an, The qur'an is not poem,nor prose,and obviously not normal speech,It's like saying a cube with 7 faces,arabic has 3 branches and qur'an doesn't fit in any of them.
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
@YamiYami17
Whatever book of whatever religious or superstitious belief on this earth is just man's work. Nothing divine at all, just the thoughts of dead people who didn't know better.
Science has over and over again proven all those fairy tales wrong. People holding belief in these things are merely living in a dreamworld and deceiving themselves every day. Either because they are brain-washed from childhood, lack of proper education or lack of the ability to think rationally and logically.
Tycetto 2 weeks ago
@Tycetto (1)Well i can discuss with you evolition is you want,but saying that the book of God that has an inimitable style is not an argument,you need to brake the argument,by creating a non-poem,non-prose,non-normal speech,Or by showing somehow why the argument is not valid,And God challenged those who disbelieved in his words and demanded them eather acceptance or diconstruction of the argument,
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@Tyc(2) God said:"And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Prophet Muammad(pbuh)],then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses [supporters] other than Allah,if you should be truthful,But if you do not,and you will never be able to,then fear the Fire,whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers" Because of this clear evidence,poeple are entring in islam in lines,and you should to :)) You will recognize a lot /watch?v=YB5QBzquBrU
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17
You are a blinkered religious nutcase, my friend - and you can't discuss anything as you obviously can't think for yourself, so claiming that you can discuss evolition [sic] is somewhat of a joke!
Quoting your hideous fairy tale book is not an argument for anything - except the fact that you aren't capable of thinking for yourself.
Harry Potter is a much better fairy tale that all the religious book put together. Even Winnie The Pooh is better... and much less violent!
Tycetto 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tycetto "Quoting your hideous fairy tale book is not an argument" Well i didn't quote the book,i refered to the structure of the text,the structure of the text is a miracle that can be done only by God,If i told you i built a four dimentional Car and no human can build the same,isn't it absurd to say,this isn't an argument because your car has steering wheel and my car steering wheel ?
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@yatter1(2) God speaks in a supreme way,which is inimitable,and that's normal,a child dosen't speak english like an adult,an adult dosen't speak english like a teacher of english,a teacher dosen't speak english like PHD doctor in english,a PHD doctor dosen't speak english like a strong author who lived in the golden era of the english language like shakespear,So if there is indeed a revelation from god,it must make shakespear look like a dumb,and that is qur'an: /watch?v=NypoiJeF7A0
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
religion corrupts the minds of other wise reasonable people.how else can people support a god that does not exist. lol
Matemastr 3 weeks ago
imo this is irrelevance, 'predictive models'?? is that what we're doing?, since when? that's science you're talking about, science does not have primacy over metaphysics or musicke or English literature or cake-decorating, it's a different thing. if i told Richard Dawkins the theory of evolution is no good because it doesn't follow sonata form he'd rightly tell me i was not judging it by the proper standard. the same applies to all this imo
LucyHarcarty 3 weeks ago
You forgot thre leprechaun model. It prediction is that you will find a pot of golad at the end of it. :)
MisterTutor2010 3 weeks ago
How did the religious Americans beat the godless Soviets then? Weren't the godless Soviets supposed to be superior than their American counterparts because they removed (by killing every Soviert citizen who disagreed with them) religion of their society?
irbk500 1 month ago
@irbk500 Your economy was driven by loans being repayed by europe uk especialy,capitalising on the growing trade from the far east and india when the major powers uk and germany moved out,after ww2 america was the only fully industrialised nation on earth.Russia cut itself off from the world and this was counterproductive as they had nobody to trade with,other then china which was going through social struggles.If it wasnt for hitler america would have stayed in the depression for 20 more yrs.
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
@irbk500 You forget to open up a cadaver(dead body) was considered the vilest heresy so all surgerys and transplants may not be used by christians,as it is against your teachings.Even learning about the skeleton and organs wasnt fully recorded until late 1800s.The church ( all churchs btw) banned autopsys so please thank the atheists and godless people for standing up and trying to understand and make the world a better place. Otherwise you wouldnt be here and dead of smallpox.
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
@irbk500 That's because the American government is secular, and not Christian. NASA isn't based on religion, they've been to space and found the world isn't flat and supported by beams. The main disadvantage the Russians had (as a society) wasn't a lack in god, but just the amount of shear corruption.
GouledXD 1 month ago
@GouledXD Yea, thank goodness America will never collapse from within by dishonesty and greed.
fdasherv 1 month ago
@fdasherv Well I'm not saying America is perfect or free of corruption (I'm Canadian). I';m just saying the Soviet Union collapsed on it's self due to corruption.
GouledXD 1 month ago
---
gibsonfan871 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As any other ancient religion, christianity shall also fall
eilier 3 months ago
God is like magic, it isn't real.
shinokiba 3 months ago
The problem with religion is that it left a gap of science for 1000 years. Just think, we could have been exploring the whole fucking galaxy by now!
Pentagon1337 3 months ago 46
@Pentagon1337 Do you actualy believe that? Do you know that some of the greatest mind that have ever lived were Christian theologiens who praised reason. The modern university system has builld by the Catholic Church. You do not have to be a believer to recognise this.
TheAwesomeMaths 1 month ago
@TheAwesomeMaths ..l dont care if some of them were christians. The major ones like Charles Darwin, used to be a christian, but after his daughter died, he reverted. A used-to-be christian discovered Evolution. lronic, no? Albert E. is not an atheist nor a believer. Einstein was a deist. He did not believe in a personal God. The list can go on, and would be way too long. 98% of all scientists are not religious. However, like Einstein, there are some who are deist. l will continue in my next post
Pentagon1337 1 month ago
@Pentagon1337 Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was supported in the USA by Asa Gray,the most important American botanist of the 19th century, who was a Christian.
Charles Darwin said this in reference to Asa Gray:"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist & an evolutionist"
Einstein was a pantheist but others like Max Planck or Heisenberg were Christians.And even today scientists are Christians.
TheAwesomeMaths 1 month ago
@TheAwesomeMaths The Dark Ages of Western Civilization lasted for about 1000 years and had a complete lack of progress. Gibbon blamed the rise of Christianity since it correlated with the decline of civilization.
Did you miss this part?
Pentagon1337 1 month ago
@TheAwesomeMaths And seriously, it is true. l was reffering to the dark ages. ln the dark ages, there was little to no technological improvement whatsoever. This is a PROVEN FACT. Conclusion; lf christians did not exist, we really could have explored the galaxy by now. And l don't mean to be rude, but if you are going to deny the happening of the D.A and the ''No-tech-improvement'', do not talk to me again. l do not tolerate stupid oblivious people.
Pentagon1337 1 month ago
@Pentagon1337 The Dark Ages were caused by the colapse of The Roman Empire which had nothing to do with religion.Development did happen in the Dark Ages: Leo the Mathematician, Hildegard of Bingen, William of Ockham, Nicole Oresme to name a few contributed to our knowledge during that period.
TheAwesomeMaths 1 month ago
@Pentagon1337 Imagine if Nasa had more than 0.48% of the federal budget? The highest it's ever been is around 4% and that was during the race to beat the soviets to the moon, which we did. Imagine with today's technology how much it would do with 1%.
Antimidation 2 weeks ago
@Antimidation l do understand what you're saying, but what's your point? xP
Pentagon1337 2 weeks ago
@Pentagon1337 Did you not make a point by saying we would of been more advanced if religion had not held us back? I simply added to it by saying Nasa hardly gets any money in the gran scheme of things, imagine if it got just a half % more of the budget. ;)
Antimidation 2 weeks ago
@Antimidation Yea indeed :P l see your point now. :p
Pentagon1337 2 weeks ago
@Pentagon1337 Ipads could have been cheap enough for poor ass students like me to buy them:(:P
messi996 6 days ago
@messi996 Aww that sounded somewhat sad D: Ask money for your Birthday? :3
Pentagon1337 6 days ago
@Pentagon1337 :D or if must of the religious people i have talked to are anything to go by, ill probably rob it, as to them, you cant be atheist and have morals lol
messi996 6 days ago
I don't think creationists are all bad. For all the stupid questions they spew. Some are good and gives science something else to persue. It's sad that they have too short of attention span to recieve the answer. (many questions do get answered). So I pose: Are the randomly generated good questions creationists pose, completely useless? For they do fuel science occationally.
Defhrone 4 months ago
its funny
the thumb nails says "science"
so it looks like
"the problem with religion ,
SCIENCE!"
crownedkitty67 4 months ago
This isn't even a good argument. Religion never claims to have the predictive capability that science has.
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 But it does. It makes truth claims about the world and the universe, and those claims should be testable. Those that are are proven false, and those that aren't are useless and invalid.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
What religious claims about the world and the universe have been proven false?
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 The Earth is flat. The Earth is young. God created everything as is. There was a global flood. Humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together. If you put salt water with fresh water, they will not mix. That's just off the top of my head, too.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
The spherical shape of the Earth was proven by Aristotle (Theist) and it was never a RELIGIOUS claim, it was merely bad science.
The Earth's age is still widely disputed and rightly so (But how about OEC's, eh?)
The Global Flood is in a few religions, is this a coincidence?
Humans and dinosaurs walking the Earth together is a big one, pretty crazy (probably false)
LOLWUT? Salt water and fresh water not mixing? Never heard that one!
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 The spherical Earth was predicted by Aristotle, not proven, and yes, he was a theist. So? The Bible says the Earth is flat. Therefore, we have a religious claim about the shape of the Earth that is known to be false. -1 accuracy point for the Bible (more like epic fail for being the word of god, but I'm being generous). The Earth's age is NOT 'still widely disputed'. It is 4.25 billion years old, give or take a few million. Nowhere near 6000-10,000. Global flood is in a few...
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6 religious myths and you can only think that it must be either true or a coincidence? Go learn about diffusion and syncretism in religious studies. I don't care what a localized pre-scientific group thought about a mythical global event which purportedly occurred before their time and for which there is no evidence. Geology says derp. Humans and dinos walking together is only probably false to you? It is impossible. If you still even consider it a possibility there are some gaping holes
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
I did not think that the says that the Earth is flat per se, it says something about the four corners of the Earth? Is this what you are getting at?
Who told you that the Earth is 4.25 billion years old?
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 ...in your basic scientific knowledge which need to be filled ASAP kid. Humans: 200,000ya to present. Dinosaurs: Extinct 65 mya. Not exactly an overlap.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
I said that the claim of humans and dinosaurs coexistence was unlikely, and I understand the evolutionary timescale. But since you like to talk about failures...how about science failures? Java man (-1) Nebraska man (-1) Peking man (-1) Piltdown man (-3)
And that's only fossils, don't let me get into the Steady State Theory (-1) World Ice Theory (-7) and Phlogiston (-2)
Sure, there have been spectacular failures on both sides. So now tell me the triumphs of evolution please?
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 The 'failures' of science in your first set are hoaxes, frauds. Not real evidence. Nor are they necessary for the theory of evolution. Please try to keep up to date. Your second set are discarded theories that were based on available evidence, and as is the scientific process, scientists updated or came up with newer theories as new evidence came to light. Religion does no such thing. It picks and chooses evidence it wants that supports its dogma. It is a process fundamentally...
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
The failures surely were hoaxes, I agree with you. But understand that just like Nebraska man has been done away with...so has the flat earth theory. Just as the Steady State Theory has been done away with...so has the salt water fresh water idea. However, remember a statement from a scientist is not necessarily a statement OF science. There have been countess whacky claims by both science and religion, MOSTLY dead and buried.
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 Again, hoaxes of fabricated evidence are not the same as discarded theories. Flat earth was not even a scientific theory. The steady state theory was let go in favor of the Big Bang because the evidence demanded it. But the round Earth is not going to be replaced by another theory. It is now a fact. As is evolution. I don't know why you're even talking about singular claims of scientists not being representative of science. No shit. Science is evidence + consensus of experts.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
Yes the round Earth theory is a fact. But evolution? What constitutes a fact for you?
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 Not 'for me'. For the entire relevant scientific community, save for a few dissenters with faith-based biases and no evidence. The weight of evidence makes evolution by Darwinian mechanics a fact. There is no valid competing theory that explains adequately all the evidence. It is painfully clear that you do not understand the process of science as these are very basic principles I am having to explain to you.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
I half agree with you, as I'm sure you'd expect. I can understand that micro-evolution such as bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics is a fact, because it's observable. However, I'd be cautious of using the word 'fact' with macro, because it is still disputable, and not once observable. Or maybe you're a closed book like your friend Dawkins?
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 Lol a closed book? Like Dawkins? Talk about projection. It's your type that refuse evidence that goes against your precious beliefs. But I'll let that slide. Micro and macro evolution are the same processes on different time scales. The words are not even meaningful to those who study evolution. But if by macro evolution you mean morphological change, that has been observed. Dogs, anyone? If you mean speciation, also checked. So really you're holding on to nothing here.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
I knew you'd like that. I thought that dogs came from wolves etc. as a product of domestication? But it's more complicated than that?
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 Correct. Dogs are domesticated wolves, essentially. They are now a different species. But the various breeds of dogs show extreme morphological differences (poodle to great dane, for instance) despite being the same species and capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Breeds are achieved through artificial selection, which is human controlled evolution. Rather than nature selecting for traits, we do. This wouldn't be possible if evolution were false.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
I agree 100%. But why wouldn't this be possible if macroevolution were false?
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 Damn, you almost had it. I guess I'll repeat. Macro and micro are the same processes. The only difference is time scale. Macro implies gross morphological change and speciation. Both of these are known to occur and have been observed. Back to dogs. They are proof of evolution, not just what you call macro. They prove the mechanisms. If we let all chihuahuas and all German sheppards go wild, they would not breed with each other. There are barriers to their reproduction and...
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6 they would continue to diverge in different evolutionary directions. Natural selection would take over from where we left them through artificial selection. You have to understand what a species is from a biological standpoint. You seem to think species are discrete categories when they are not.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6
Well I guess I lose you when you say that macro and micro are the same process, because they simply aren't.
smp1smp2smp3 4 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 marco-evolution is just an accumulated amount of micro-evolution over the timescale of millions of years
TheAnimeXIII 3 months ago 21
@TheAnimeXIII
Supposedly
smp1smp2smp3 3 months ago
@TheAnimeXIII There are no such things as micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It's just evolution.
TheSmackerlacker 2 months ago
@smp1smp2smp3 incapable of discerning truth except by accident. Science is a search for truth and knowledge and it's process is designed to achieve this. And it does so successfully. Your comparison is very poor, dishonest and simplistic. Science has admitted it's discarded theories were incorrect. Religion still holds on to its bullshit. Evolution, 150 years down the road, has garnered more evidence in support than almost any other theory, and none against it. It is a FACT. A triumph? Breeding.
ianman6 4 months ago
@ianman6 Science (from geology mostly) has proven the age of the Earth. I wasn't 'told' by anyone in particular. There was a question (how old is the Earth) and there were many answers throughout history, but science provided us the correct answer by using evidence.
ianman6 4 months ago
@Thunderf00t I had to pause when you got to the 'originally only one version of Christianity' nonsense. The version of Christianity which we know of as Catholicism, was not the early form of Christianity. Early forms of Christianity were the ones whom had no Bible, as the Bible is merely a collection of Christian gospels.
Anyone who is interested should read 'Lost Christianities', which gives a strong argument for this. Why would there be only one faith before there was the one book?
57worldwide 4 months ago
So, over the span of a couple thousand years Christianity splintered and mutated from a single model ideology into various models; each with disconnected aspects relating back to the original ideology. Wait... Isn't that evolution?
HotblackDesiat042 4 months ago
But there should be Religion in the world. If there wasnt everything would be chaotic
TheWolfreaver 5 months ago
@TheWolfreaver how so??
randallfe 4 months ago
@randallfe Go back in the past for example. The only thing that kept people from Killing each other frequently was religion. It gave a basis of whats good and bad. And Yes Religion was also a reason for war but just how worse it would be if there wasnt. What Im basically saying is that without religion in the past there would be no order.
TheWolfreaver 4 months ago
@TheWolfreaver in the past... where people thought lighting was an act of god... slaughtering people in the name of there god... only thing religion cause in the past was violence and hold back technological advances
randallfe 4 months ago
@randallfe Holy shit I just said that. AGAIN! let me repeat myself....Yes Religion DID cause violence but It DID stop most too. Religion gave a basis of rules of whats bad and whats right. For example. Randomly killing a person in the street would count as a sin and would have negative consequences. If there was no religion in the past it would mainly be chaotic. Anyways Religion helps people go through things like changing their ways...mainly in prison
TheWolfreaver 4 months ago
@TheWolfreaver -.-
randallfe 4 months ago
If faith was fact than religion would be science.
Why would you analize use of religion in that sort of utilitarian manner? Does everything you do or think have to be universaly intersubjective in terms of usefulness? Religion has a value foremost for the individual. In my opinion religion shouldent be treated in the same manner as survival skills and common sense judgement in a sense that it shouldnt be the sole thing that you base your decisions on. Science and religion are 2 different things
OsobliwyKlecha 5 months ago
@061323980
If what you say is true (which it is not), then everyone would burn in hell because we are ALL sinnners. Jesus loves those who willingly admit that they are sinners and cannot bear the weight of their sin without Him.
MissEmcat24 5 months ago
So the argument about religion is that rainbows follow the laws of physics? well, not shit Sherlock. I believe more and more in God, and yet i understand science very well, specifically electricity, astronomy, a bit of chemistry, and a bit of biology. I can say, through LOGIC, that in order to prove or disprove something, you need evidence. So far there is no proof that there isn't a god. There proof that he didn't do things, like creating the Earth and the Universe, but we Can't disprove God.
glaxko2 6 months ago
@glaxko2 Looks like someone needs to take a critical thinking class. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion, i.e. the one who claims there is a god. You can't prove a negative. If you can, go ahead and prove there are no pink unicorns, and that Odin and Thor also don't exist.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle except there is evidence that there is a God, and there are modern ideas about the relationship between God and the Universe. So far, none of the evidence can be disproven. Scientists follow the burden of proof, it's what they do.
Also, It's just SO typical that Mr. "I'm an intellectual atheist" would bring up pink unicorns, what the FUCK does that have to do with anything?
glaxko2 5 months ago
Poor example. Facts:
Rainbow="Promise by a powerful God not to destroy the world by a flood again." The Bible was not providing an explanation of how to predict when & where rainbows form. It was stating that rainbows exist b/c they are a sign from God that He will never again destroy the world with a mass flood (Gen9:11). Whether you believe the Bible to be true or not, logically Christianity is sound in that:
God said Gen9:11,
rainbows exist,
& the world hasnt been destroyed by a flood again
BigBr0wnE 6 months ago
Furthermore, for the majority / those who have not investigated Christianity vs "other religions" I encourage you to do so. Christianity stands a part from "religion" due to the extensive factual foundation the Bible provides, not only in comparison with "other religions" but as a "predictive model"; one where all the information is not present(as is most all cases), and where the approach of Physical Evidence & Reasoned Logic is carefully applied, especially reasoned logic.
BigBr0wnE 6 months ago
@BigBr0wnE "Extensive factual foundation the Bible provides"? Come on. You're just trolling, right? The Bible begins to fall apart in Genesis 1, verse 6 and slides rapidly downhill from there.
Where is the logic in "this book is true because it says it's true so there"?
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Gen1:6expanse between waters. 7expanse from waters above & below. - the creation of the seas & the clouds.
True, God would be asking us to believe BLINDLY in Him if that was the only "evidence" provided. Fortunately, the bible is a compilation of 66 books written over 1500 yrs by 40 authors in 3 languages & on 3 continents. 388 times it claims to be the Word of God. Prophecies are made & occur yrs later. It is extremely accurate & uncontradictory. Thus there is good Reason to Believe
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
Comment removed
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Continued...
that something bigger than man has ultimately authored this book-the Bible.
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
Comment removed
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@BigBr0wnE The Bible contradicts itself many times. There are sites on the Internet that have conveniently compiled these contradictions. Have a look.
Ever notice that none of those authors put their name to the book? Why? Could it be that some of their writings were plagiarism of earlier religions? Why yes, it appears so.
Claiming 388 times to be the Word of God doesn't make it so when it was written by men.
One can't begin to describe all the inaccuracies in a mere 500 characters.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle There is also much evidence disproving the appearance of contradictions on the internet.
Actually there are a few books that do declare who their human author is. The others weren't extremely difficult to figure out; like the Iliad, the author's name doesn't appear but other sources unanimously point to 1 author (Homer in this case).
If we disregard claims from man, then as a man, your claim "388 times..." contradicts itself. We must give a degree of truth to a man's voice.
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle And I agree, 500 chars makes this difficult. I would be more than happy to discuss 1 appearance of Biblical contradiction, evidence regarding "plagiarism" of religions, or 1 "inaccuracy" within the bible.
No guarantees 500 chars is enough but I'm willing to give it a shot.
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@BigBr0wnE Here's a start on the contradictions: infidels(dot)org. Click search. Enter 'contradiction' and go to town. The fact that even one exists is evidence the Bible is not infallible. The fact that so many exist makes rational people wonder why that book is ever taken literally, or even seriously.
Plagiarism: research Mithraism. Then learn why we really celebrate Dec. 25. (It's not his birthday.)
Inaccuracy: the flood didn't happen. Math and science prove it from all directions.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle again, and I'll rephrase, just because something is on the internet doesn't make it true. The material within the Bible holds true to itself and to history more accurately than anything in existence today.
Plagiarism: Christianity & the Bible-which had it's first writings long before Mithraism-which appeared in Rome-a culture that borrowed from all previous cultures. And Christianity plagiarized Mithraism?
2 statements & no facts?...
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle comereason(dot)org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp for more on Mithraism & Christianity
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@BigBr0wnE I know the arguments already about Mithra. Some historians claim Christians burned the library that contained the writings that would have proven the plagiarism.
No word on the contradictions or the flood though, huh? The myth of the flood is one of the things that destroyed that book's credibility for me. Creating the human race from insufficient genetic information thrice, 900 year-old people, the pillar of salt, and Samson's hair weren't far behind.
Do you see magic anywhere?
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle I didn't comment on the flood because I was given 2 statements with no supporting facts. Remember Gen1:6-the expanse between waters? Clouds above & seas below. It never rained until the day of the flood (thus the intense ridicule Noah feel under) No one had ever even heard of the concept of rain! While unable to be proven (as much of History is) it makes since that the atmosphere (drastically different than now) had a green house effect-plants grew bigger, lived longer and so did ppl
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle I didn't comment on the flood because I was given 2 statements with no supporting facts. Remember Gen1:6-the expanse between waters? Clouds above & seas below. It never rained until the day of the flood (thus the intense ridicule Noah feel under) No one had ever even heard of the concept of rain! While unable to be proven (as much of History is) it makes since that the atmosphere (drastically different than now) had a green house effect-plants grew bigger, lived longer & so did ppl
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Thus you see giants-the Nephilim in the bible. And after the flood people's lifespans start to decrease as the atmosphere & the world are vastly different. As with anything in the Bible man is asked to have faith in God & not in themselves. I don't have all explanations for the miraculous events described in the Bible. But we see this: God's Word is sovereign. Gen1:3 "God said...and there was" Gen1:6&7 "God said...God made" Gen1:9 "God said...it was so" Gen1:11 "God said..it was so"
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Gen19:17 "[to Lot] Do not look behind you" Gen19:26 "But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt." Judges13:5 "For behold, you shall conceive & give birth to a son, & no razor shall come upon his head" Jgs16:19&20"had him shave off the seven locks of his hair...and his strength left him...the Lord had departed from him" God's Word is sovereign.
Sampson's hair was not the source of his strength but a symbol of obedience to the Lord.
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
Search for Ryrie's theory as to one possible explanation of the pillar of salt & destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah. Simply, that there exists, one POSSIBLE theory that connects all data points, logically means that it is not unreasonable to believe that said event occurred (despite not knowing the TRUE manner in which the event occurred). Ex: Rome burned. This is true; we don't know how(accident or arson, who started it...), but it has been accepted by Historians today that Rome did in fact burn.
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@BigBr0wnE Ryrie/ Dispensationalism are generally laughed out of the room and don't apply to Lot's wife.
The human body does not contain within it sufficient sodium and chlorine to turn into a pillar of salt. To turn a body into nothing but NaCl would require a lot of time, energy, nuclear reactors, and particle accelerators. None of these items were available while Lot's wife was on the run from the city. And she'd have to be immobilized for the process to occur. Didn't happen.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle I clearly see you decided not to search for Ryrie's theory.
Anyhow before we continue let me blow your mind about 'truth':
Truth exists beyond that which is scientifically(stfcly) proven. This means that before something is stfcly proven, it was still true (the only difference being, it hasn't been tested & proven by man; so some would say, 'we can't KNOW it to be true'). Please take the time to fully grasp what I've said. It's important that we agree on this truth.
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle OK, so something is Ultimately true, then we stfcly test it & Prove that it's true -now it's Scientific Truth.
For ex. F=MA: F=MA was ultimately true before we/man proved it to be stfcly true.
So there's Ultimate Truth & Stfc Truth. Stfc Truth is like a category within Ultimate Truth. Anything that is stfcly true is also ultimately true, but something can be ultimately true & not stfcly true (thus not testable.) So what is testable will support Ultimate Truth, & never contradict it.
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Ex 2: One ought naught to torture babies for fun. We know this to be true yet we cannot stfcly test it or prove it. This is not a Stfc Truth (b/c it's not testable) but it is an Ultimate Truth. Furthermore man KNOWS this to be true without stfc evidence. So given that Ultimate Truth exists outside of Stfc Truth, any avg human would want solid reason to BELIEVE something is true.
Please scrutinize this logic & that it is sound.
Any chance we at least see eye to eye?
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@BigBr0wnE Sure. God slowly killed David's baby, ergo there is no such thing as "Ultimate Truth". You're talking about morality, which is mutually exclusive from the scientific method (and God too). They're different subjects on their own; however, morality should be applied to scientific advancements where necessary.
I prefer to discuss facts. You like to obfuscate with pie in the sky. Would you like to deny gravity next? It's just a theory you know.
Oh and what if Zeus is the real God?
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle If you like to discuss facts then factually disprove the logic I put forth.
Truth (defined as Ultimate Truth) exists before man stfcly proves it to be 'Stfc Truth'.
Ultimately gravity existed before Newton stfcly tested & proved it to be Stfcly True.
A man holding to Ultimate Truth could claim gravity exists without any stfc proof & he would be right even if the whole world called him a liar or lunatic & hung him on a tree.
Science & man don't determine truth but discover it!
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@BigBr0wnE I agree that man discovers truth (and facts). Numerous sources, often religions, have different definitions for "ultimate truth", ergo, the concept is vague, if even valid. If by ultimate truth you mean facts yet to be discovered, I can work with that. It doesn't need a deity to work.
Not sure on the "logic" you're espousing. You said one ought not to torture babies for fun and then I referred to a biblical story where God did just that. Still can't see people turning into salt.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle I was speaking as a man to mankind. A deity that creates man is above man. True, what man has the right to torture a child, but a god(The God) has that right. From the first sin on, -Gen4:21 Garments of animal skin for Adam & Eve- we see that there is a blood sacrifice that must be paid to redeem us back to a sinless & perfect God.
And yes I feel you on the various definitions. Ultimate Truth - facts discovered AND undiscovered.
As for the details, I don't worry about them...
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Just like a scientist without sufficient data says, "This is undetermined." Not, "This is invalid." So is my approach to these details, except where the Bible/God says 'this happened'. Because, he's batting 1000 right now, & it's been a couple thousand years. The detailed events we do have point to the Ultimate Truth that God exists!
Take these 6 historical facts concerning the resurrection events, by non-believing historians:
1.Jesus died by crucifixion(by Roman execution)...
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle So #1 says a man named Jesus died but also he lived!
2.He was buried(in tomb of Joseph Haverah Matheyah)
3.His disciples were in despair believing his life was ended
4.A few days later, tomb was discovered to be empty
5.His disciples had experiences which they believed to be the literal appearance of Jesus
6.His disciples went from doubters afraid to say they followed Christ to bodly proclaiming it & some die because of their claims
Any historical facts you disagree with? & why?
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@BigBr0wnE You can't call them facts when they only appear in a single set of writings. There's no independence. Most of the Bible was written 50-100 years after the death of the Jesus figure. That makes him a legend, not a lord. The written accounts were not written by eyewitnesses.
Read all four of the gospels. Each has notably different accounts of what happened when the stone was rolled away from the tomb. Note the differences in who was present. How can that be?
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Each book was independently written.
50-100 years after is the equivalent to WWI, II, Korea & Vietnam Wars. Try telling a War Vet he didn't really fight through one of those "legendary" wars.
One doesn't need an eyewitness, when people are still alive to confirm what the storyteller says; furthermore the accounts of Christ were passed by word of mouth much like any martial arts. No apprentice changes his master's technique, they practice it repeatedly to guarantee they get it right..
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Might I also add that Patheos was the 1st person to report the author of the Gospel of John 15-30yrs after John was written. Patheos also said Matthew & 1 of Jesus disciples wrote Matthew, & Mark was not an eyewitness but the information came directly from Peter. Justin 'Martyr' said Luke got his info from eyewitnesses, which agrees with the 1st 4 verses in Luke.
John 20:2 "she[Mary] ran...& said 'They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, & WE do not know where..." catch the WE?
BigBr0wnE 5 months ago