I dont intend to start a discussion orsomthing just flying tru, you said that u dont believe in angels etc because ur skeptic right? But have u seen any fossils or creatures that point to Evolution theory? If so, I would like to see them.
But perhaps you should listen to those who told you debating VenomFangX is a waste of time. Getting through to your average moderate Christian is a monumental task in itself, but a deluded fruit loop like Venom.....forget dude!!
Here is the proof. There is an all knowing, all powerful, eternal Maker of all matter in the universe.
The function that hydrogen has inside of life forms along with most of the most common derivatives of hydrogen are working together in life forms according to what a preexisting word orders them to do. All lesser functions have a maker and no lesser function is nearly as technologically advanced or comparable to the functions in life forms. Things work when made & ordered.
@transtlantic Hydrogen only does what it is ordered to do.
No, Oxygen is a derivative of hydrogen. You have it backwards.
Technology is designed. The technology utilized in life forms is something we don't even fully understand yet.
Life forms are ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function of most of the most common elements on earth and in the universe. It is observable and the observable function in life forms requires a Maker.
Nobody DENIES design, they deny intelligent design.
Genetic mistakes are perfectly explaind by evolution, siamese twins, cancer, bacteria, we USE evolution in medicine now, nothing contradicts it everything supports it. I know it would have been awfully tempting in the bronze age for people who don't know anything to make false conclusions, but you have no excuse today.
@Danicicco He was an atheist just because his parents are. However, his science skills and understanding is very poor. Science is like gibberish to him, and the bible is easy (in comparison). And because of that he chose the easier way....
To put it short, in his mind:
Science say "blablabigbangblablablablaerandommutationblablablabla........" and bible says "God did it". Second statement makes sense, then it's true.
There is no reason to leave the door open to the possibility of the existence of the Christian God.
Something all knowing, all powerful and encompassing everything, by its very nature becomes pointless as an object of adoration. The adoration is based on qualities and definitions, which are limitations upon the sum of totality.
The concept is meaningless and can be safely disregarded as figments of limited imaginations.
@izlamiztruth i am sorry you think like that. But Christianity is not a religion, it is much more than that. It is a movement of people who have found Jesus Christ as the ultimate reason to live for. Those are really Christians. Sadly there are many fake ones.
I'm not a Christian, but I know the Bible VERY WELL, in the original language in which it was written - HEBREW. And I ASSURE YOU - THERE IS NOWHERE THAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY THAT THE COSMOS WAS CREATED, as you say, "LESS THAN 10,000 YEARS AGO". Most who call themselves "Christians" are VERY ignorant of their own "Bible".
@hisbeatnik The Bible does not say it explicitly, but when you study the chronology of the Bible and the genealogy of men from Adam you will see that the Bible shows a world of thousands of years, not millions.
......one book i found interesting was "the case for Christ" writen by a former atheist that set out to prove there was no God and poke fatal holes in faith. Just a thought. I will never say there is any one person on this planet that has it all figured out because that in it self would make them God. No one can see the whole picture.
Gravity is also considered a theory. Do you dispute that as well? Please learn what the scientific definition of a theory is before saying "it's JUST a theory".
the evolution theory was already disproved. keep up with science and history. history contradicts evolution and so does science. you need to go back to school and LISTEN to earth science and history and study a bit more on dna. and no god didnt create the cosmos less than ten thousand years ago, it was way more than that. i only listened to like 20 seconds and right off the bat it shows that you have no clue of what you are talking about. please study these things before you talk about them.
@JD3s i never said god existed, but i was saying he is getting the religion wrong. and if you did not know that evolution was disproven then you need to study up on that and science and earth's history. even when i was an atheist i knew it was disproven, not by me but by scientists, thats why its only a theory, if it was proven it would be the evolution law or the law of evolution but its only the theory of evolution or evolution theory, and it was disproven.
@IPAndrews the answer is in the underbar he said "If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't believe what I believe. Might I be wrong, sure, I just doubt it; as much as you doubt that I am right."
both sides are theories whats wrong with believing that god made us to evolve(us being everything in the universe)or vice versa.whats before the big bang.there must have been somthing.i believe that god made us evolve so we evolve to be a god so we can make us to evolve so we evolve to be a god so we can make us to evolve so we evolve to be a god so we can make us evolve so we evolve to be a god so we can make us evolve to evolve into a god to make us evolve so we evolve to godhood to evolve imo
Anyone who's willing to accept the possibility that they could be wrong has guts. But with one exception. That is, believing in God. Because if someone tells me that I have no guts just because I'm not willing to accept the possibility that there is no god, that's like telling them they have no guts just because they wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle or wear a seat belt. Being scared of hell fire does not make you a sissy. And riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't make you macho.
I am a believer. I also know that evolution is part of the world and reality. I don't understand these people who try to separate the two. I think that what "RabidApe" is saying is extremely rational, and I appreciate it!
Well if you know the nature of reality shown through science its pretty clear that there was some greater influnce in the reality around us to have the world we have today.
The mathmatical chances that all the things we take for granted an how perfectly balanced everything is is alot! less than 1% I know this for sure.
For instance when the univere started... science tell it came from "Nothing" an that it must of had an external cause as its statering cause would be ..
This was a rational and balanced extension to debate, but since you are open to debating with people whose only proof is their faith in the text of a book and their arguments that are based on pseudo-science and tendentious logic AT BEST, how can you reasonably expect a rational debate?
You are willing to be wrong. That is the first duty of the scientist and logician. Faith based arguments cannot permit the slightest possibility of being wrong. Buddy, you're pissing in the wind with this one.
Would you like to have a conversation about the true Existence of God? I heard you say in the video that you are open to discussion and that you could change your mind if you are wrong; correct?
@Jammsbro1 I took Quantum Theory, VERY tough courses. I all got A's did pretty good...didn't see any God or Allah in it though...however, didn't see how i would use Quantum crap in my 8am-4pm daily life either LOL
@Yooparkeria actually I served two tours in afgahnistan in the Marine Corp and recently finished my masters degree in law so you can rot your lowlife nerdy self in a ditch as you'll never amount to shit. athiests are just plain lowlife mommas boy nerds :) enjoy. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
@StoniestStoned that's funny!! somehow being in the Marine corps is supposed to strike awe and admiration from me? please-you guys were getting your shit ruined by no more than a few hyped up muslims armed with assault rifles and land mines. and what kind of marine are you? i thought they were disciplined and respectful? you sure as hell arn't.
oh this might surprise you, but lawyers in America are a dime a dozen. Have fun being a wannabe retard.
@Yooparkeria you are without a doubt the most lowly pathetic piece of shit ever. your reply proves it. just stop digging yourself deeper into shit hole with those pathetic comments. a lowlife nerdy bitch like you dont know shit cause you never lived life you reclusive sick shitbag
@StoniestStoned just by your response is proof enough that you're not going to be a talented lawyer. you're an impulsive name caller. and what the hell is the "just stop digging yourself deeper into shit hole" line supposed to mean? that doesn't even make any sense.
you should be a septic guy cause you're full of shit.
@StoniestStoned yeah bullshit pal. Marine's don't impress me at all and they get paid shit so the jokes on you. And even if you were a marine, you sure don't act like one. your comment reeks of an immature brat that's going nowhere.
What kind of marine puts 8 smiley faces in a youtube comment? yeah you fail. And lawyers are a dime a dozen in America. you're nothing special and never will be. maybe you should sue your mother for making you so stupid! haha, have fun talking with god.
you cant test this because this is dealing with the supernatural which is untestable. It is not science
Nice proof of your false thesis. And aside from that, even that statement can be proved with a combination of science and circumstantial evidence. Here again, the phrase circumstantial evidence is misunderstood.
People need much better education to get it. Instead, they just blindly follow their beliefs fed to them as children.
Anyone who calls someone else an idiot, or says things like "Nice proof of your false thesis" (just so you know) does look like someone with degraded intelligence...
Also, education may help a little, but some of the most educated people in the world are Scientologists (like my uncle, sadly). Maybe you are referring to education that is not college or university, I don't know.
@darkwarrior000 "Also, education may help a little, but some of the most educated people in the world are Scientologists (like my uncle, sadly). Maybe you are referring to education that is not college or university, I don't know"
Sure "could be". I've heard your position, & agreed with it most of my life. I'm trying to get past that, to show that once the info is in front of your nose, it takes a lot more that "what if"s about defective people & their stupid ideas.
@darkwarrior000 What are you going to do about the prophecy? You do not even come close to familiarity.
I agree that Scientology is virtual insanity, but I can articulate their position, to KNOW that it is.
You are still guessing I suppose. Certainly you are guessing about the Bible, as I have heard no single fact from you to indicate you can carry the argument you smugly imply, yet by using irrelevant parallels confusing examples with evidence...you reveal the weakness of *your* case.
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
@darkwarrior000 "Also, education may help a little, but some of the most educated people in the world are Scientologists (like my uncle, sadly). Maybe you are referring to education that is not college or university, I don't know."
This statement is at the root of the emotional impetus for most of the anger in these discussions.
I some times think that people who have loved-ones who, they are convinced have the wrong beliefs, find it difficult if not impossible to "talk sense" with them.
He lives in a country 18 hours away by direct flight. He has cut off ALL communication with his brother because Scientologists believe he owes them money. Any attempt we make to confront him or 'talk sense' with him is cut off at the nub by him. (He will either move away for X days or refuse to remain in contact with them). Do not give me this crap about us being "convinced [he] has wrong beliefs".
I don't think I have enough information from and about your situations to make sense of the statements you are making. I don't know if you are venting and defending, and throwing that down as a gauntlet that I must make sense out of?
I'm sorry for your bad experiences, & if I have somehow made that worse for you, then I am sorry for that too. I don't think it's rational, but you aren't hurting anyone but yourself.
I don't think I have enough information from and about your situations to make sense of the statements you are making. I don't know if you are venting and defending, and throwing that down as a gauntlet that I must make sense out of?
I'm sorry for your bad experiences, & if I have somehow made that worse for you, then I am sorry for that too. I don't think it's rational, but you aren't hurting anyone but yourself.
I don't think I have enough information from and about your situations to make sense of the statements you are making. I don't know if you are venting and defending, and throwing that down as a gauntlet that I must make sense out of?
I'm sorry for your bad experiences, & if I have somehow made that worse for you, then I am sorry for that too. I don't think it's rational, but you aren't hurting anyone but yourself.
@darkwarrior000 So you think "these are the bastards wrecking my family.."
So getting past it to realize that at some point, there must be a reason for their beliefs. If not, then you're doing them a favor to show this (they have no reason).
At the heart of what I'm saying is that families can help each other. There are either reasons, or not. A sincere discussion CAN be a vehicle to a "meeting of the minds".
Then we assume "they have no reason" & attack the only vulnerable targets...
There is, and it is like Christianity, completely illogical.
They can. We have tried. Alot.
Don't use "we", I do not share your views, nor do many others.
And let me be clear, my family has never given a crap about beliefs. We could be satanic for all they care, but what we will not stand for is when a man actively tries to take money from his family, for the sake of religion.
@darkwarrior000 "There is, and it is like Christianity, completely illogical'
Many people say "that's illogical" but what it means literally is that you can't find the logic but can't admit it.
I know you didn't look in the right places.
It's like my question about the table of elements on another planet. It was completely at the root of the conversation, but nobody bothered to find it.
You didn't see the logic because you didn't put forth the required effort.
@darkwarrior000 "There is, and it is like Christianity, completely illogical'
Many people say "that's illogical" but what it means literally is that you can't find the logic but can't admit it.
I know you didn't look in the right places.
It's like my question about the table of elements on another planet. It was completely at the root of the conversation, but nobody bothered to find it.
You didn't see the logic because you didn't put forth the required effort.
@darkwarrior000 When we assume "they have no reason" & attack the only vulnerable targets, we end up with extreme positions. This is "dogma".
Now you have a right to say that the extreme positions were initiated by the theists. This goes back centuries to the cults. Only a cult advocates blind faith, or I should say that only a cult intentionally advocates "blind faith". This infects others though.
So there is too much dogma, blind faith in both camps, & the origin are the cults that advocate
@darkwarrior000 When we assume "they have no reason" & attack the only vulnerable targets, we end up with extreme positions. This is "dogma".
Now you have a right to say that the extreme positions were initiated by the theists. This goes back centuries to the cults. Only a cult advocates blind faith, or I should say that only a cult intentionally advocates "blind faith". This infects others though.
So there is too much dogma, blind faith in both camps, & the origin are the cults that advocate
There is too much dogma, blind faith in both camps, & the origin are the cults that advocate "blind faith" so that the beliefs they promote can weave in ideas that empower the cult.
This is so effective, that the largest cult in history, has still most believing it to be an authentic church.
Roman Catholicism & Islam are both cults based on Paganism.
The theory of Satan is at times used to consolidate all of the ideas that are against God. Some times it is just sin...
Well. So you say you can prove the existence of God using scientific means? Go ahead! Submit your proof in scientific peer review literature! I'm sure you'll win the Nobel Prize, not to mention Discovery will finally have their case for ID in schools.
@thieflord555 It's already been done since the 1970s, the Biblical flood.
I'll find the URL for you. Then what?
What you do not get, what shocked me, was that it really is there to find, but the proliferation of skeptics, allows non-believers the smug sense of "nah, it can't be.
Are you really that stupid? Probably not THAT stupid, but what you ARE doing is regurgitating the same narrative that you just read and agreed with. Why just read and adopt some view without thinking it through? The problem is that today in 2010 people are using statements that were once only marginal, but are now very stupid to state. For example, see Qumran Caves evidence, etc since 1980s. When you repeat statements no longer valid for decades, you look like an idiot.
you cant test this because this is dealing with the supernatural
Now he says that this is just supernatural. What did I say? I said, you can use science to test the biblical explanation for *ID*. He says I need to meet his standards for evidence of anything(s) he specifies? I have to prove that Christ was the son of God, each word from his mouth at an exact time of day, day on the calendar, GPS coordinates, color of clothes, names & ancestors of witnesses etc. Are you that stupid?
The problem here is that these attitudes are so common, that readers will already decide to agree or not By the time I come along and try to wake someone up, no matter what brilliant words I use, no matter how powerful the evidence behind them, I can not make the proverbial horse drink the water of my evidence in this medium. Only those with a predisposition to read with an open mind, only they will gain anything from my words.
In my opinion, if you are good enough, you can make someone open their mind enough to let something in, even if it only just a metaphorical foot in the door.
Rather than asking sincere question, the use of that statement alone makes is almost impossible to prove any single thing because the scope of what is wrong is perhaps too great to teach to someone with a hostile position. IOW, you cant ram your views down the throat of anyone in this environment (comments boxes of a web page). Does that make him or her right? Hell no! Do I have to prove each distinct fallacy in this statement? Of course not.
What makes me angry is how people attack blind faith with their own blind faith.
Any Blind faith is ignorant. Both sides have blind faith believers, who apparently aren't familiar with even their own evidence for their views. Example; you cant test Christ because the hypothesis would be he is the son of god.
This statement alone contains several logical fallacies. There're several thesiss concerning Christ. Many can use scientific tests (evidence) to prove or disprove those theses.
"Blind faith in either view is just ignorant. Attacking people with reasonable views, therefore is ignorant."
Attacking people with reasonable views is not ignorant unless the person with blind faith attacks them because they have reasonable views (do not have blind faith).
As well, statements aren't ignorant unless you don't have the reasoning behind it to prove it.
"As well, statements aren't ignorant unless you don't have the reasoning behind it to prove it"
So statements are ignorant if you don't have the reasoning to prove it? OK.
So you are saying in this environment that the burden of proof lies with the speaker, which is reasonable, but you expect simultaneous proof each time a statement is made, & rather than wait to ask about authentication, you get to call them an idiot till that proof (according to your standards) is given to you?
So you are saying in this environment that the burden of proof lies with the speaker, which is reasonable, but you expect simultaneous proof each time a statement is made, & rather than wait to ask about authentication, you get to call them an idiot till that proof (according to your standards) is given to you?
This is unrealistic, and by your standards, every Christian can call you an idiot from now to the end of your life.
I do not expect simultaneous proof each time a statement is made. I have never called you an idiot. Stop saying I said these things, because I did not.
More specifically, those who say you cant prove God ___ are wrong. I think they might be responding to the original attack that dates back to the days of when society had blind-faith as a cultural value. It was probably appropriate to attack blind faith in this way, & still is.
So then the problem today is that the same attack is used to blindly attack REASONABLE people!
Why do you even follow contentious issues if you only care about joining people who agree with you?
You are either here to learn, in which you should listen first before jumping in, or you are here because you are insecure, and then you join whatever said you already agree with, and you blindly (blind faith) join 1 of the 2 religious views.
Why? Because rather than caring about the truth, most people insert their own views without care about ultimate truth. IOW, if I attack someone for calling a reasonable Christian an idiot, the unreasonable atheist gets angry at me, because they see 2 users contending, and rather than understanding the point, they just support the person who apparently already agrees with them.
The irritating thing about those people I have been contending is that both the Biblical view & the modern atheistic view each have compelling evidence behind them. Both views have logical thinkers behind them, but then the majority of opinion-holders do not understand the rational narratives of either side, they join 1 or the other with blind faith in the Bible, or blind faith in the modern secular public school approved religious view.
Love it RabidApe. I will only add that if you say "I don't know for sure, I could be wrong", then you are more likely an agnostic, not an atheist. I not only admit that I don't know, I also believe that no one does, nor ever will.
Although I don't agree with your view I admire the conviction of which you support your views. However the human mind needs proof before excepting it for truth. To believe by faith is difficult for most people to except. I would enjoy a conversation with you to show that there is sufficient proof that Earth was created some 6,000 years ago and Jesus Christ was born, died and was resurrected for our sins so we might live a eternal life with God in a place called Heaven
I would say I'm agnostic, though I was born into Christianity & still inherit the looming fear of eternal damnation every time I do something I think is wrong (which i guess isn't that bad if it keeps me from being an asshole). God, in my opinion, would be a lot like Q from Star Trek, & if God (Q) is real, then the big bang was a result of an omnipotent being's eternal boredom... perhaps.
"I would say I'm agnostic, though I was born into Christianity & still inherit the looming fear of eternal damnation every time I do"
You are not "born in to Christianity" though some cults teach that you do. Keep in mind that any social group can be labeled as a cult, any social group with distinct..any thing..
But the important thing is that all humans have a conscience, you just have a clearer sense of what you fear.
Don't let the fact that there are so many lies about Christ...
Don't let the fact that there are so many lies about Christ lead you down the wrong path.
Search for yourself, that when you examine completely both sides of the rational evidence, there is a compelling reason to deduce that his claims are true.
Read Simon Greenleaf combined with some Lee Strobel videos (most of the newer material is pretty good, pre-911 videos might be out of date though).
possibly nobody will believe me, but he is closer to a biblical world-view than virtually all Christians I know.
Since you are a gentile, start with Simon Greenleaf, test the theories for Christ (not the bottom feeders you make fun of, but the coherent presentation of facts, & then decide what the evidence leads you to.
Ultimately you can expect to test Christ, & prophecies concerning him, ancient & modern Israel, & Moses.
That is how to build a foundation of knowledge to an informed opinion.
You cant test Christ because the hypothesis would be he is the son of god. You cant test this because this is dealing with the supernatural, which is untestable. It is not science.
Again I stick to my previous statement. No matter how much data you have, you are ultimately using it to back up the hypothesis that a supernatural power created the universe. This is what you are trying to prove, am I right?
The best quote I ever heard regarding this question is this:
The universe must have some thing that transcends (created) it. Either an eternal God created it, or energy somehow created it. IOW, only transcendent energy could have caused the universe...or a God.
BUT. I think that atheist have talked to too many "blind faith" believers that led to their assumption "Aha, all Christians are dumb!"
No such luck.
Sadly, the atheists are almost as dumb as the Christians that they mock.
You still havent addressed the problem. Yes God is a possibility. Or the flying spaghetti monster. How do you test this? Do you see? The nature of your argument, no matter what you say, is that an intelligent being created the universe. While its possible, its not falsifiable. Therefore it isnt science.
And there are few Christian's that actually have a competent knowledge of evolution, but believe in the bible literally. Your last statement is inaccurate and uncalled for.
"Are you saying that you really can't see that your FSM idea has no merit, so you really claim that both your monster and Christ are equal theories?"
They are both equal theories in that they are all possible and can't be proven wrong. For a theory to be scientific it needs to be falsifiable. Can anyone prove that Christ was not the son of god? No. Can anyone prove that the flying spaghetti monster did indeed create the universe? No.
"in that they are all possible and can't be proven wrong"
If you think you are even close, you are in way over your head. There is no logical measure that finds those equal in any way, unless you want to retract all of your statements with really juvenile things like "well, they are both articulated in a common language (English).
Oh ok, if that is good enough for you, that is the level that you understand the world.
What makes Christianity so special? What makes it even more true than the flying spaghetti monster? Please explain it to me without any christian bias.
The "controversy" of Christianity seems to have led to the overwhelming about of marginal and useless data and opinions everywhere. How can I criticize a question like that when my own answers would have been pretty thin till I got serious about it.
What you find is that prophecy, and science (diet, cleansing rituals) are all so numerous that it overwhelms even the believes.
What happens is that in an effort to be complete, they include so many examples that the nonbeliever is
What seems to happen is that in an effort to be complete, they include so many examples that the nonbeliever is thinking "oh, what a bunch of crap".
Big deal they washed their hands (leading to rumors they Jews poisoned water supplies since they cleansing rituals kept then unharmed by the plague + many other epidemics through history).
But what the non-believer needs to see are those related to modern Israel. Those are the clearest IMO & then look at ALL of those for Christ.
The stumbling block I see most (impeding the search for clear prophecies), is that the heart is not in the search, & it seems fruitless.
But if you really want to know, you will find it. That I promise.
I can guarantee you that if you read Simon Greenleaf's book on evidence, even if you do not ultimately agree, there is no way you will ever ask that question again.
This has been my point the entire time. That most people assume as you have, & each speaker adds to the myths.
My point the entire time is that the "street talk" is really where most people learn what they think they know about the Bible. Few people even try to defend it. So having so many dissenters who each don't realize that most of these thoughts are myths leads to the overall impression that there is no evidence to build a "case for Christ".
That most people assume as you have, & each speaker adds to the myths.
But the amazing thing is that modern archeology has led to PROOF
@thieflord555 The Qumran caves also led to the publishing of many heresies (mystical articles that were non-compliant). THIS led to the idea that there are so many competing views, but the whole time there has been a clear doctrine to discern authenticated prophecy. That was Moses "mission". That is why I say "start with Moses" if you want to validate any Christian doctrine. Once you have the discernment doctrines, you can't be deceived by heresy or the confusion in these conflicting views.
@chris2002Rocklin The amazing thing is that modern archeology has led to PROOF.
Here is how clear the prophecy is; it was assumed for centuries by dissenters that the Bible was written much later than it claimed. Its clarity was their refutation, that it was so specific that it had to be fraud.
The Qumran caves also led to the publishing of many heresies (mystical articles that were non-compliant scripturally). THIS led to the idea that there are so many competing views, but the whole time...
Here is one of Thunderf00t's arguments. If the scientific community started accepting the supernatural as an answer to scientific questions, nothing would get done.
"What causes cancer? Magic pixies."
"Why does the sun rise and fall every day? Helios rides in his chariot of light."
"Why are there a variety of species on earth that have striking similarities to each other? God."
As you can see, you are simply replacing one unknown with another, accomplishing nothing.
"Sadly, the atheists are almost as dumb as the Christians that they mock"
If you say that due to your assumption that Atheists mock Christians because of the blind faith believers stereotype, yet failing to recognize the fact that not all Atheists do this, then you are doing the same exact thing you claimed the Atheists are doing to Christians, to Atheists. Which would make you a hypocrite.
So, please recognize that some Atheists do see that there are intelligent Christians.
@EdikShepherd "So, please recognize that some Atheists do see that there are intelligent Christians"
Absolutely, the temptation to generalize gets to me when I run out of characters. Without date. I don't even know if it's "most" atheist, just "most if not all that speak up". The last time I heard anyone acknowledge this before this conversation, was definitely not this calendar year.
But generalizations are never more helpful than taking the time for clarity, so thank you for speaking up.
@thieflord555 "No matter how much data you have, you are ultimately using it to back up the hypothesis that a supernatural power created the universe"
I don't know that I've been able to reconstruct the conversation accurately.
This video is discussing ID vs. evolution. I recall disputing something you said, but my browser is not rendering any dates here, I can not make sense out of the progression (if any) in the conversation.
So explain to me specifically this "extensive claim of history, geography" referring to the miracles performed by Jesus. The specific speeches Jesus gave. Even the fact that none of the hundreds, maybe thousands of gospels agree. Can you really?
You mentioned specifically was "speeches". You say there are contradictions, so you must show this.
What you find is that according to its own doctrine, there are superficial claims that fall apart when examined. The Bible teaches that it can be harmonized, & that people who want to find fault will find it, but falsely. What it teaches is that be design, it can not be forced on someone who wants to deny it.
Which "that"? I can't be expected to articulate precisely both what I need to say & what you say.
You're going to have to do better, or try to become a bit more humble & admit that some of what you said is infinitely more difficult (as in impossible) to prove.
Your answer to that is "well, really nothing can ever be proved".
If that is where this is going, let's just hear it from you. either you were/are wrong, or there is no proof of *any thing*.
@darkwarrior000 people who want to find fault will find it, but falsely"
It's what I call "plausible deniability. The reason we have 12 jurors and not 1, is that we recognize that people process facts differently & we want to be fair to the accused. If there were a jury for the Biblical evidence, it would never be compelling enough for unanimous verdict. This is what I am claiming. A reasonable person would find it compelling. Any given court with any given jury will be on average, split.
On superficial examination, by design, the scoffers can find reasons to reject it. This is to be expected according to the Bible itself.
The Bible by design is not to be used to bully people. Already you have so much abuse, look at the Roman Catholic Church (which was never truly Christian, & any organization as we expect it to be, is not a church, but that is a whole separate discussion). So even though the Bible is what it is, abuse is already a problem.
"This is to be expected according to the Bible itself."
So the Bible defines itself as true and with false contradictions, and that makes it true? This sounds like the classic "the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.".
"The Bible by design is..."
So why is it? The gay people and atheists? Or, god forbid, a gay atheist?
Of course abuse is a problem. It would take a fool to not see that, so I am glad to know I am not talking to one.
@darkwarrior000 "So the Bible defines itself as true and with false contradictions, and that makes it true? This sounds like the classic "the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true."
No. I said that the Bible expects to allow some plausible deniabiltty.
In other words, imagine your parents teaching you that God exists etc. On your 15th birthday, you get to read the prophecy of your life, where God give you your instructions for your life
Why "of course"? That has nothing to do with the discussion to this point. Your thought that is does, supports my point! That the reasons to disbeleive are so extensive that you have lost site of the actual logical reasons to decide on the actual evidence. You forgot that you never really looked.
What amazes me is that (this once included me) atheists spend years smug in the "proof" without ever looking at it! They read/hear the myths about it.
All I see is you claiming to disprove my statements (no support for that). That my statement supports your point (also no support). That I have lost logic. That I never looked.
And then, that atheists do not know the proof but just hear about it. (Not disagreeing with the last statement, but only a few act that way. It would be foolish to judge atheists by them, as some judge Christians by Shirley Phelps-Roper).
If that isn't enough, note that since Greanleaf wrote of his conversion (entirely on the basis of DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE), we now have the modern state of Israel, + many related events that complete prophecies (once claimed to be fraud), but now scientifically proved authentic.
The bottom line is that science can be used to prove the Bible is reliable, which is to say that science can be used to prove it is the most probable truth (incl. statistics). I have proved my thesis.
To quote Robert Downey jr. (loosely):"If one theorizes independent to facts, one molds facts to theories instead of theories to facts."
(Good example is 2012)
For instance, scientists take the Bible and look for a flood (Noah's Ark). They find it, name it plausible, and it is then a fact.
That is a fallacy, and is the only kind of "proof" I have seen to date, so I ask you for proof. You seem intelligent, let's hope you can give me a good source.
Reasonable. And I believe in the Bible.
huiosjr 2 days ago
@huiosjr OMG
huiosjr 2 days ago
I dont intend to start a discussion orsomthing just flying tru, you said that u dont believe in angels etc because ur skeptic right? But have u seen any fossils or creatures that point to Evolution theory? If so, I would like to see them.
Thanks
hasan1429 3 months ago
Well said Rabidape!
FloydMe81 5 months ago
This guy, VenonFangX, is not interested in honest discussion. He is intellectually dishonest.
petion2010 7 months ago
Very well said, my friend!
But perhaps you should listen to those who told you debating VenomFangX is a waste of time. Getting through to your average moderate Christian is a monumental task in itself, but a deluded fruit loop like Venom.....forget dude!!
nosajj12345 7 months ago
Here is the proof. There is an all knowing, all powerful, eternal Maker of all matter in the universe.
The function that hydrogen has inside of life forms along with most of the most common derivatives of hydrogen are working together in life forms according to what a preexisting word orders them to do. All lesser functions have a maker and no lesser function is nearly as technologically advanced or comparable to the functions in life forms. Things work when made & ordered.
watch?v=fE8VO6z4tcg
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon
Hydrogen don't have a supernatural function. actually the FACT that hydrogen has NO maker and moves on it's own, is proof that makers don't exist.
Hydrogen is a derivative of Oxygen, according to your own flawed logic. proving your contradictions.
ALL functions in nature don't have a maker.
inanimated technology is not biology. simple notion.
order? Laws of Thermodynamics: ALL things tend to disorder.
as all kids know.
watch?v=oR5hWbfZsYs
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic Hydrogen only does what it is ordered to do.
No, Oxygen is a derivative of hydrogen. You have it backwards.
Technology is designed. The technology utilized in life forms is something we don't even fully understand yet.
Life forms are ordered by a preexisting word written in and with the function of most of the most common elements on earth and in the universe. It is observable and the observable function in life forms requires a Maker.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon
Nobody DENIES design, they deny intelligent design.
Genetic mistakes are perfectly explaind by evolution, siamese twins, cancer, bacteria, we USE evolution in medicine now, nothing contradicts it everything supports it. I know it would have been awfully tempting in the bronze age for people who don't know anything to make false conclusions, but you have no excuse today.
superhamzah85 4 months ago 2
haha, 66640 Views
26+ more and it shall be 66666!...
=3
TAz69x 7 months ago
good question. Did he ever answer?
estragon9 7 months ago
"I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken" Oliver Cromwell
estragon9 7 months ago
Please watch this website that full with GOD
( ALLAH) name everywhere even in your body. Try to learn how to write ALLAH in Arabic. You see ALLAH is written in your right hand.
Besensible001 8 months ago
This is a great video. Rock on forever, RabidApe.
moosepopper 8 months ago
VenomFang X was an atheist before; so that means that he is open minded. If not he wouldn't have changed his thinking and belief.
Danicicco 11 months ago
@Danicicco He was an atheist just because his parents are. However, his science skills and understanding is very poor. Science is like gibberish to him, and the bible is easy (in comparison). And because of that he chose the easier way....
To put it short, in his mind:
Science say "blablabigbangblablablablaerandommutationblablablabla........" and bible says "God did it". Second statement makes sense, then it's true.
KeistasZmogelis 11 months ago
Sorry, but you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
There is no reason to leave the door open to the possibility of the existence of the Christian God.
Something all knowing, all powerful and encompassing everything, by its very nature becomes pointless as an object of adoration. The adoration is based on qualities and definitions, which are limitations upon the sum of totality.
The concept is meaningless and can be safely disregarded as figments of limited imaginations.
trefod 1 year ago
well said my friend.
JBeezie428 1 year ago
christinity is the worst religion to represnt for gods existence
izlamiztruth 1 year ago
@izlamiztruth i am sorry you think like that. But Christianity is not a religion, it is much more than that. It is a movement of people who have found Jesus Christ as the ultimate reason to live for. Those are really Christians. Sadly there are many fake ones.
Danicicco 11 months ago
@Danicicco What's the definition of religion then? Don't be silly, Christianity IS a religion, and the most popular religion in the world, add that.
KeistasZmogelis 11 months ago
I'm not a Christian, but I know the Bible VERY WELL, in the original language in which it was written - HEBREW. And I ASSURE YOU - THERE IS NOWHERE THAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY THAT THE COSMOS WAS CREATED, as you say, "LESS THAN 10,000 YEARS AGO". Most who call themselves "Christians" are VERY ignorant of their own "Bible".
hisbeatnik 1 year ago
@hisbeatnik The Bible does not say it explicitly, but when you study the chronology of the Bible and the genealogy of men from Adam you will see that the Bible shows a world of thousands of years, not millions.
Danicicco 11 months ago
holy shit...atheist and religious nutjobs are annoying.
avoozl07 1 year ago
......one book i found interesting was "the case for Christ" writen by a former atheist that set out to prove there was no God and poke fatal holes in faith. Just a thought. I will never say there is any one person on this planet that has it all figured out because that in it self would make them God. No one can see the whole picture.
jewel0308 1 year ago
Gravity is also considered a theory. Do you dispute that as well? Please learn what the scientific definition of a theory is before saying "it's JUST a theory".
DaisyMay98 1 year ago
that what i thought keep your fucken mouth shut(leanfiend444)
goldenboy28100 1 year ago
leanfiend444 fuck you to your the fag pussy ass bitch, fuck you and who ever don't like what i said
goldenboy28100 1 year ago
What did the dude formerly known as VenomfangX do in his video? All videos are gone? Must have been bad though?
soldat41ghr 1 year ago
the evolution theory was already disproved. keep up with science and history. history contradicts evolution and so does science. you need to go back to school and LISTEN to earth science and history and study a bit more on dna. and no god didnt create the cosmos less than ten thousand years ago, it was way more than that. i only listened to like 20 seconds and right off the bat it shows that you have no clue of what you are talking about. please study these things before you talk about them.
massmayhem12 1 year ago
@massmayhem12 if you gonna lecture someone then you should at least provide info to prove your claim
I didnt know that this theory was "disproven"
could you enlighten us?
all you're saying is that he is wrong............ how productive
JD3s 1 year ago
@JD3s i never said god existed, but i was saying he is getting the religion wrong. and if you did not know that evolution was disproven then you need to study up on that and science and earth's history. even when i was an atheist i knew it was disproven, not by me but by scientists, thats why its only a theory, if it was proven it would be the evolution law or the law of evolution but its only the theory of evolution or evolution theory, and it was disproven.
massmayhem12 1 year ago
@massmayhem12 Haha buddy, you are a clueless fool.
ACanadian19 1 year ago
@ACanadian19 yeah ok, whatever you say :)
massmayhem12 11 months ago
He dodged the question. Probably by not replying or replying "I *know* I am right"
Am I correct?
IPAndrews 1 year ago
@IPAndrews the answer is in the underbar he said "If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't believe what I believe. Might I be wrong, sure, I just doubt it; as much as you doubt that I am right."
greenelf12 1 year ago
@greenelf12 I'm flat wrong then. Well done. Getting a theist to accept the possibility they might be wrong ain't bad going.
IPAndrews 1 year ago
You look like that actor Corin Nemec.
CelticWarrior1971 1 year ago
both sides are theories whats wrong with believing that god made us to evolve(us being everything in the universe)or vice versa.whats before the big bang.there must have been somthing.i believe that god made us evolve so we evolve to be a god so we can make us to evolve so we evolve to be a god so we can make us to evolve so we evolve to be a god so we can make us evolve so we evolve to be a god so we can make us evolve to evolve into a god to make us evolve so we evolve to godhood to evolve imo
reksub10 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are an atheist, why do you give a shit?
Piddyx 1 year ago
RabidApe you don't believe in GOD then screw you
goldenboy28100 1 year ago
@goldenboy28100 you're a fag
leanfiend444 1 year ago
Anyone who's willing to accept the possibility that they could be wrong has guts. But with one exception. That is, believing in God. Because if someone tells me that I have no guts just because I'm not willing to accept the possibility that there is no god, that's like telling them they have no guts just because they wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle or wear a seat belt. Being scared of hell fire does not make you a sissy. And riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't make you macho.
jityr2 1 year ago
lol crooked glasses = crooked vision.
nagzul 1 year ago
@nagzul lol ad hominem.
demandevidence 1 year ago
@demandevidence don't question my prophecy! ;;o
nagzul 1 year ago
@nagzul you rock dude
demandevidence 1 year ago
I am a believer. I also know that evolution is part of the world and reality. I don't understand these people who try to separate the two. I think that what "RabidApe" is saying is extremely rational, and I appreciate it!
helpmetony 1 year ago
You must be looking in the wrong place because I can see it all around, an I'm by no means "religious".
samcerulean1412 1 year ago
@samcerulean1412
Please tell me what it is that you can see all around? I am fascinated!
lynneatwater 1 year ago
@lynneatwater
Well if you know the nature of reality shown through science its pretty clear that there was some greater influnce in the reality around us to have the world we have today.
The mathmatical chances that all the things we take for granted an how perfectly balanced everything is is alot! less than 1% I know this for sure.
For instance when the univere started... science tell it came from "Nothing" an that it must of had an external cause as its statering cause would be ..
samcerulean1412 1 year ago
well said.
brewerbrian420 1 year ago
This was a rational and balanced extension to debate, but since you are open to debating with people whose only proof is their faith in the text of a book and their arguments that are based on pseudo-science and tendentious logic AT BEST, how can you reasonably expect a rational debate?
You are willing to be wrong. That is the first duty of the scientist and logician. Faith based arguments cannot permit the slightest possibility of being wrong. Buddy, you're pissing in the wind with this one.
NealKlein 1 year ago
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Would you like to have a conversation about the true Existence of God? I heard you say in the video that you are open to discussion and that you could change your mind if you are wrong; correct?
BeholderGuard 1 year ago
people believing stupid crap like religion is all part of evolution, a real atheist understand this
Juntahh 1 year ago
Just because you don't have evidential rpoof of something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Get your head out of religion and into quantum theory and there you will learn about god.
Jammsbro1 1 year ago
@Jammsbro1 I took Quantum Theory, VERY tough courses. I all got A's did pretty good...didn't see any God or Allah in it though...however, didn't see how i would use Quantum crap in my 8am-4pm daily life either LOL
xycoordinatex 1 year ago
This guy basically summed up how I think.
MrSam123ni 1 year ago
your a peedo
simrie 1 year ago
you didnt have to state your athiest. that ugly nerdy face of a lowlife gives away
StoniestStoned 1 year ago
@StoniestStoned Well that wasn't very nice.
fatouche99 1 year ago
@fatouche99 it was fine just fine
StoniestStoned 1 year ago
@StoniestStoned you didn't have to state you're a stoned retard, your comment and username gave it away :) enjoy.
Yooparkeria 1 year ago
@Yooparkeria actually I served two tours in afgahnistan in the Marine Corp and recently finished my masters degree in law so you can rot your lowlife nerdy self in a ditch as you'll never amount to shit. athiests are just plain lowlife mommas boy nerds :) enjoy. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
StoniestStoned 1 year ago
@StoniestStoned that's funny!! somehow being in the Marine corps is supposed to strike awe and admiration from me? please-you guys were getting your shit ruined by no more than a few hyped up muslims armed with assault rifles and land mines. and what kind of marine are you? i thought they were disciplined and respectful? you sure as hell arn't.
oh this might surprise you, but lawyers in America are a dime a dozen. Have fun being a wannabe retard.
Yooparkeria 1 year ago
@Yooparkeria you are without a doubt the most lowly pathetic piece of shit ever. your reply proves it. just stop digging yourself deeper into shit hole with those pathetic comments. a lowlife nerdy bitch like you dont know shit cause you never lived life you reclusive sick shitbag
StoniestStoned 1 year ago
@StoniestStoned just by your response is proof enough that you're not going to be a talented lawyer. you're an impulsive name caller. and what the hell is the "just stop digging yourself deeper into shit hole" line supposed to mean? that doesn't even make any sense.
you should be a septic guy cause you're full of shit.
Yooparkeria 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yooparkeria I'm done with you and I will now allow you to shut the hell up. Bye loser
StoniestStoned 1 year ago
@StoniestStoned yeah bullshit pal. Marine's don't impress me at all and they get paid shit so the jokes on you. And even if you were a marine, you sure don't act like one. your comment reeks of an immature brat that's going nowhere.
What kind of marine puts 8 smiley faces in a youtube comment? yeah you fail. And lawyers are a dime a dozen in America. you're nothing special and never will be. maybe you should sue your mother for making you so stupid! haha, have fun talking with god.
Yooparkeria 1 year ago
12/12
you cant test this because this is dealing with the supernatural which is untestable. It is not science
Nice proof of your false thesis. And aside from that, even that statement can be proved with a combination of science and circumstantial evidence. Here again, the phrase circumstantial evidence is misunderstood.
People need much better education to get it. Instead, they just blindly follow their beliefs fed to them as children.
Search string: deductive reasoning
Thank you
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
Anyone who calls someone else an idiot, or says things like "Nice proof of your false thesis" (just so you know) does look like someone with degraded intelligence...
Also, education may help a little, but some of the most educated people in the world are Scientologists (like my uncle, sadly). Maybe you are referring to education that is not college or university, I don't know.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "Also, education may help a little, but some of the most educated people in the world are Scientologists (like my uncle, sadly). Maybe you are referring to education that is not college or university, I don't know"
Sure "could be". I've heard your position, & agreed with it most of my life. I'm trying to get past that, to show that once the info is in front of your nose, it takes a lot more that "what if"s about defective people & their stupid ideas.
Address the actual claims.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
I am.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 What are you going to do about the prophecy? You do not even come close to familiarity.
I agree that Scientology is virtual insanity, but I can articulate their position, to KNOW that it is.
You are still guessing I suppose. Certainly you are guessing about the Bible, as I have heard no single fact from you to indicate you can carry the argument you smugly imply, yet by using irrelevant parallels confusing examples with evidence...you reveal the weakness of *your* case.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
I have dedicated an enormous amount of time to studying other religions, preferably from the people who are or were a part of those religions.
Tell me the weaknesses of my case.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwarrior000 "Tell me the weaknesses of my case"
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
Is that fair?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "Tell me the weaknesses of my case"
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
Is that fair?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chris2002Rocklin
You have refuted nothing. You simply attacked me or elegantly dodged questions.
"You do not even come close to familiarity."
"You are still guessing I suppose. Certainly you are guessing about the Bible..."
"I some times think that people who have loved-ones who, they are convinced have the wrong beliefs..."
"...you aren't hurting anyone but yourself."
"So you think 'these are the bastards wrecking my family..'"
"I know you didn't look in the right places."
and on and on. :)
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwarrior000 "Tell me the weaknesses of my case"
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
Is that fair?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwarrior000 "Tell me the weaknesses of my case"
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
Is that fair?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwarrior000 "Tell me the weaknesses of my case"
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
Is that fair?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwarrior000 "Tell me the weaknesses of my case"
I thought I had. What I recall (haven't looked since I wrote the earlier comments) is that you simply quoted myths. In fact, you had just "impressions" & out of courtesy I referenced it as "your case".
You don't have one, no offense intended, but if you did actually state some thing that I did not manage to refute, let me know & we'll take it from there.
Is that fair?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "Also, education may help a little, but some of the most educated people in the world are Scientologists (like my uncle, sadly). Maybe you are referring to education that is not college or university, I don't know."
This statement is at the root of the emotional impetus for most of the anger in these discussions.
I some times think that people who have loved-ones who, they are convinced have the wrong beliefs, find it difficult if not impossible to "talk sense" with them.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
He lives in a country 18 hours away by direct flight. He has cut off ALL communication with his brother because Scientologists believe he owes them money. Any attempt we make to confront him or 'talk sense' with him is cut off at the nub by him. (He will either move away for X days or refuse to remain in contact with them). Do not give me this crap about us being "convinced [he] has wrong beliefs".
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "He lives in a country..."
I don't think I have enough information from and about your situations to make sense of the statements you are making. I don't know if you are venting and defending, and throwing that down as a gauntlet that I must make sense out of?
I'm sorry for your bad experiences, & if I have somehow made that worse for you, then I am sorry for that too. I don't think it's rational, but you aren't hurting anyone but yourself.
I hate cults more than anyone.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwarrior000 "He lives in a country..."
I don't think I have enough information from and about your situations to make sense of the statements you are making. I don't know if you are venting and defending, and throwing that down as a gauntlet that I must make sense out of?
I'm sorry for your bad experiences, & if I have somehow made that worse for you, then I am sorry for that too. I don't think it's rational, but you aren't hurting anyone but yourself.
I hate cults more than anyone.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "He lives in a country..."
I don't think I have enough information from and about your situations to make sense of the statements you are making. I don't know if you are venting and defending, and throwing that down as a gauntlet that I must make sense out of?
I'm sorry for your bad experiences, & if I have somehow made that worse for you, then I am sorry for that too. I don't think it's rational, but you aren't hurting anyone but yourself.
I hate cults more than anyone.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 So you think "these are the bastards wrecking my family.."
So getting past it to realize that at some point, there must be a reason for their beliefs. If not, then you're doing them a favor to show this (they have no reason).
At the heart of what I'm saying is that families can help each other. There are either reasons, or not. A sincere discussion CAN be a vehicle to a "meeting of the minds".
Then we assume "they have no reason" & attack the only vulnerable targets...
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
We don't.
There is, and it is like Christianity, completely illogical.
They can. We have tried. Alot.
Don't use "we", I do not share your views, nor do many others.
And let me be clear, my family has never given a crap about beliefs. We could be satanic for all they care, but what we will not stand for is when a man actively tries to take money from his family, for the sake of religion.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "There is, and it is like Christianity, completely illogical'
Many people say "that's illogical" but what it means literally is that you can't find the logic but can't admit it.
I know you didn't look in the right places.
It's like my question about the table of elements on another planet. It was completely at the root of the conversation, but nobody bothered to find it.
You didn't see the logic because you didn't put forth the required effort.
E=MC(squared) = perfect logic.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "There is, and it is like Christianity, completely illogical'
Many people say "that's illogical" but what it means literally is that you can't find the logic but can't admit it.
I know you didn't look in the right places.
It's like my question about the table of elements on another planet. It was completely at the root of the conversation, but nobody bothered to find it.
You didn't see the logic because you didn't put forth the required effort.
E=MC(squared) = perfect logic.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 When we assume "they have no reason" & attack the only vulnerable targets, we end up with extreme positions. This is "dogma".
Now you have a right to say that the extreme positions were initiated by the theists. This goes back centuries to the cults. Only a cult advocates blind faith, or I should say that only a cult intentionally advocates "blind faith". This infects others though.
So there is too much dogma, blind faith in both camps, & the origin are the cults that advocate
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
They have a reason. I don't care if they have no reason. They attack us, so we defend.
Cults often do not advocate blind faith. The ones that are publicized are the ones that do advocate blind faith.
Mainstream is responsible for most blind faith.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwarrior000 When we assume "they have no reason" & attack the only vulnerable targets, we end up with extreme positions. This is "dogma".
Now you have a right to say that the extreme positions were initiated by the theists. This goes back centuries to the cults. Only a cult advocates blind faith, or I should say that only a cult intentionally advocates "blind faith". This infects others though.
So there is too much dogma, blind faith in both camps, & the origin are the cults that advocate
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000
There is too much dogma, blind faith in both camps, & the origin are the cults that advocate "blind faith" so that the beliefs they promote can weave in ideas that empower the cult.
This is so effective, that the largest cult in history, has still most believing it to be an authentic church.
Roman Catholicism & Islam are both cults based on Paganism.
The theory of Satan is at times used to consolidate all of the ideas that are against God. Some times it is just sin...
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
I don't care about your views on Roman Catholicism & Islam.
I don't care about your views on Satan.
I don't care about the views on sin.
Why did you make this comment?
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000
The theory of Satan is at times used to consolidate all of the ideas that are against God. Some times it is just sin & other times it must be Satanic.
Look at all of the war that defames God. What better attack than to point to centuries of killing in the name of God?
Who gains from religious wars? The cults, & anyone that HATES God!
The cults gain power. If there is any spiritual force against God, inspiring war in God's name is the most effective way to attack God.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
No one gains from religious wars except the opposers.
You're preaching. There is no debate if you're preaching.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000
There are many rational reasons to continue to search, & when you do, you can find God.
But it also must be nice to know (if you believe my statements) that any "beliefs" CAN be challenged.
WRT educated people being deceived, you can learn enough about the contentions to show this;
Either you have a reason, or you don't.
Therefore, examine the reason(s), or admit you have none!
Beautiful huh?
It's much better than attacking strangers on the web.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
I refuse to chase after what I cannot prove exists.
I don't give a crap about your statements, not every belief can be challenged.
I always thought that they could.
I do have a reason.
I do examine, you seem blind.
When is it beautiful?
What's better than attacking strangers on the web?
Spreading poison is the way to enlightenment!!!
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
Well. So you say you can prove the existence of God using scientific means? Go ahead! Submit your proof in scientific peer review literature! I'm sure you'll win the Nobel Prize, not to mention Discovery will finally have their case for ID in schools.
thieflord555 1 year ago
@thieflord555 It's already been done since the 1970s, the Biblical flood.
I'll find the URL for you. Then what?
What you do not get, what shocked me, was that it really is there to find, but the proliferation of skeptics, allows non-believers the smug sense of "nah, it can't be.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
11/12
Are you really that stupid? Probably not THAT stupid, but what you ARE doing is regurgitating the same narrative that you just read and agreed with. Why just read and adopt some view without thinking it through? The problem is that today in 2010 people are using statements that were once only marginal, but are now very stupid to state. For example, see Qumran Caves evidence, etc since 1980s. When you repeat statements no longer valid for decades, you look like an idiot.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
10/12
you cant test this because this is dealing with the supernatural
Now he says that this is just supernatural. What did I say? I said, you can use science to test the biblical explanation for *ID*. He says I need to meet his standards for evidence of anything(s) he specifies? I have to prove that Christ was the son of God, each word from his mouth at an exact time of day, day on the calendar, GPS coordinates, color of clothes, names & ancestors of witnesses etc. Are you that stupid?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
9/12
The problem here is that these attitudes are so common, that readers will already decide to agree or not By the time I come along and try to wake someone up, no matter what brilliant words I use, no matter how powerful the evidence behind them, I can not make the proverbial horse drink the water of my evidence in this medium. Only those with a predisposition to read with an open mind, only they will gain anything from my words.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
In my opinion, if you are good enough, you can make someone open their mind enough to let something in, even if it only just a metaphorical foot in the door.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
8/12
Rather than asking sincere question, the use of that statement alone makes is almost impossible to prove any single thing because the scope of what is wrong is perhaps too great to teach to someone with a hostile position. IOW, you cant ram your views down the throat of anyone in this environment (comments boxes of a web page). Does that make him or her right? Hell no! Do I have to prove each distinct fallacy in this statement? Of course not.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
7/12
What makes me angry is how people attack blind faith with their own blind faith.
Any Blind faith is ignorant. Both sides have blind faith believers, who apparently aren't familiar with even their own evidence for their views. Example; you cant test Christ because the hypothesis would be he is the son of god.
This statement alone contains several logical fallacies. There're several thesiss concerning Christ. Many can use scientific tests (evidence) to prove or disprove those theses.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
7/12
What makes me angry is how people attack blind faith with their own blind faith.
Any Blind faith is ignorant. Both sides have blind faith believers, who apparently arent familiar with even their own evidence for their views.
Example; you cant test Christ because the hypothesis would be he is the son of god.
This statement alone contains several logical fallacies. There are several thesiss concerning Christ.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
"This statement alone contains several logical fallacies."
It actually doesn't. It contains one if the hypothesis is assumed to be true before it is declared.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkwarrior000
"It actually doesn't. It contains one if the hypothesis is assumed to be true before it is declared."
Please be more specific.
You may still be confused, but I can't know for sure, as your defensiveness is the only clear, loud thing you are communicating.
With 500 characters at a time, you have clearly protected yourself with unrealistic expectations.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
6/12
Blind faith in either view is just ignorant. Attacking people with reasonable views, therefore is ignorant.
Statements like you cant probe God = ignorant.
You can say, One cant prove God beyond a reasonable doubt or the evidence of God, or the Bible are not compelling enough for me to believe.
There is nothing wrong with that statement.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
Quick correction.
"Blind faith in either view is just ignorant. Attacking people with reasonable views, therefore is ignorant."
Attacking people with reasonable views is not ignorant unless the person with blind faith attacks them because they have reasonable views (do not have blind faith).
As well, statements aren't ignorant unless you don't have the reasoning behind it to prove it.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarri
"As well, statements aren't ignorant unless you don't have the reasoning behind it to prove it"
So statements are ignorant if you don't have the reasoning to prove it? OK.
So you are saying in this environment that the burden of proof lies with the speaker, which is reasonable, but you expect simultaneous proof each time a statement is made, & rather than wait to ask about authentication, you get to call them an idiot till that proof (according to your standards) is given to you?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000
I think I found the root problem here:
So you are saying in this environment that the burden of proof lies with the speaker, which is reasonable, but you expect simultaneous proof each time a statement is made, & rather than wait to ask about authentication, you get to call them an idiot till that proof (according to your standards) is given to you?
This is unrealistic, and by your standards, every Christian can call you an idiot from now to the end of your life.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
I do not expect simultaneous proof each time a statement is made. I have never called you an idiot. Stop saying I said these things, because I did not.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
5/12
More specifically, those who say you cant prove God ___ are wrong. I think they might be responding to the original attack that dates back to the days of when society had blind-faith as a cultural value. It was probably appropriate to attack blind faith in this way, & still is.
So then the problem today is that the same attack is used to blindly attack REASONABLE people!
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
4/12
Why do you even follow contentious issues if you only care about joining people who agree with you?
You are either here to learn, in which you should listen first before jumping in, or you are here because you are insecure, and then you join whatever said you already agree with, and you blindly (blind faith) join 1 of the 2 religious views.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
3/12
Why? Because rather than caring about the truth, most people insert their own views without care about ultimate truth. IOW, if I attack someone for calling a reasonable Christian an idiot, the unreasonable atheist gets angry at me, because they see 2 users contending, and rather than understanding the point, they just support the person who apparently already agrees with them.
How useful is that?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
2/12
Therefore there is no valid reason to attack anyone for those views alone.
What IS attack-worthy is when people are condescending to the other reasonable view.
This leads to an appropriate anger at those people who initiate rude + arrogant attacks.
If you join the conversation after the thread starts, you may choose the wrong person to attack.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
Totally agreed.
You are the second smart person I have found on youtube :)
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
1/12
My position, & its relevance to my comments
The irritating thing about those people I have been contending is that both the Biblical view & the modern atheistic view each have compelling evidence behind them. Both views have logical thinkers behind them, but then the majority of opinion-holders do not understand the rational narratives of either side, they join 1 or the other with blind faith in the Bible, or blind faith in the modern secular public school approved religious view.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
Love it RabidApe. I will only add that if you say "I don't know for sure, I could be wrong", then you are more likely an agnostic, not an atheist. I not only admit that I don't know, I also believe that no one does, nor ever will.
jeffreydes 1 year ago
@jeffreydes This is reasonable & merely indicates an natural skepticism for all things equally.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
Although I don't agree with your view I admire the conviction of which you support your views. However the human mind needs proof before excepting it for truth. To believe by faith is difficult for most people to except. I would enjoy a conversation with you to show that there is sufficient proof that Earth was created some 6,000 years ago and Jesus Christ was born, died and was resurrected for our sins so we might live a eternal life with God in a place called Heaven
DarienChan 1 year ago
Righteous!
I would say I'm agnostic, though I was born into Christianity & still inherit the looming fear of eternal damnation every time I do something I think is wrong (which i guess isn't that bad if it keeps me from being an asshole). God, in my opinion, would be a lot like Q from Star Trek, & if God (Q) is real, then the big bang was a result of an omnipotent being's eternal boredom... perhaps.
jijigagikijiwizgkzz 1 year ago
So begins the cult of Q.
ikenbon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I would say I'm agnostic, though I was born into Christianity & still inherit the looming fear of eternal damnation every time I do"
You are not "born in to Christianity" though some cults teach that you do. Keep in mind that any social group can be labeled as a cult, any social group with distinct..any thing..
But the important thing is that all humans have a conscience, you just have a clearer sense of what you fear.
Don't let the fact that there are so many lies about Christ...
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
Don't let the fact that there are so many lies about Christ lead you down the wrong path.
Search for yourself, that when you examine completely both sides of the rational evidence, there is a compelling reason to deduce that his claims are true.
Read Simon Greenleaf combined with some Lee Strobel videos (most of the newer material is pretty good, pre-911 videos might be out of date though).
Save yourself & then your family.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
possibly nobody will believe me, but he is closer to a biblical world-view than virtually all Christians I know.
Since you are a gentile, start with Simon Greenleaf, test the theories for Christ (not the bottom feeders you make fun of, but the coherent presentation of facts, & then decide what the evidence leads you to.
Ultimately you can expect to test Christ, & prophecies concerning him, ancient & modern Israel, & Moses.
That is how to build a foundation of knowledge to an informed opinion.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
You cant test Christ because the hypothesis would be he is the son of god. You cant test this because this is dealing with the supernatural, which is untestable. It is not science.
thieflord555 1 year ago
Not correct.
You can weigh evidence in a chain. In theory what you say may be true, but in context it would only be true if that was the extent of the data.
It isn't the extent, & I've never heard anyone who both examined, then weighed the evidence then say "you can't test the bible's X".
WRONG.
You have extensive claim of history, geography (notably written long before any map would have allowed fraud), + many other data sources.
You're wrong, because you guess so wrongly.
Don't guess!
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
Comment removed
thieflord555 1 year ago
Again I stick to my previous statement. No matter how much data you have, you are ultimately using it to back up the hypothesis that a supernatural power created the universe. This is what you are trying to prove, am I right?
thieflord555 1 year ago
The best quote I ever heard regarding this question is this:
The universe must have some thing that transcends (created) it. Either an eternal God created it, or energy somehow created it. IOW, only transcendent energy could have caused the universe...or a God.
BUT. I think that atheist have talked to too many "blind faith" believers that led to their assumption "Aha, all Christians are dumb!"
No such luck.
Sadly, the atheists are almost as dumb as the Christians that they mock.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
You still havent addressed the problem. Yes God is a possibility. Or the flying spaghetti monster. How do you test this? Do you see? The nature of your argument, no matter what you say, is that an intelligent being created the universe. While its possible, its not falsifiable. Therefore it isnt science.
And there are few Christian's that actually have a competent knowledge of evolution, but believe in the bible literally. Your last statement is inaccurate and uncalled for.
thieflord555 1 year ago
@thieflord555 It's an interesting question.
Are you saying that you really can't see that your FSM idea has no merit, so you really claim that both your monster and Christ are equal theories?
I need this answer for you to see the flaw in your logic.
Someone did concede that Christ is the most probable, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
How did Christ get in 1st position? Not sure? Have you examined this evidence to know just how strong or weak it is?
This is the key to my point.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
"Are you saying that you really can't see that your FSM idea has no merit, so you really claim that both your monster and Christ are equal theories?"
They are both equal theories in that they are all possible and can't be proven wrong. For a theory to be scientific it needs to be falsifiable. Can anyone prove that Christ was not the son of god? No. Can anyone prove that the flying spaghetti monster did indeed create the universe? No.
thieflord555 1 year ago
@thieflord555 "They are both equal theories"
WRONG!
"in that they are all possible and can't be proven wrong"
If you think you are even close, you are in way over your head. There is no logical measure that finds those equal in any way, unless you want to retract all of your statements with really juvenile things like "well, they are both articulated in a common language (English).
Oh ok, if that is good enough for you, that is the level that you understand the world.
Now I know.
Next...
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
What makes Christianity so special? What makes it even more true than the flying spaghetti monster? Please explain it to me without any christian bias.
thieflord555 1 year ago
@thieflord555
The "controversy" of Christianity seems to have led to the overwhelming about of marginal and useless data and opinions everywhere. How can I criticize a question like that when my own answers would have been pretty thin till I got serious about it.
What you find is that prophecy, and science (diet, cleansing rituals) are all so numerous that it overwhelms even the believes.
What happens is that in an effort to be complete, they include so many examples that the nonbeliever is
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@thieflord555
What seems to happen is that in an effort to be complete, they include so many examples that the nonbeliever is thinking "oh, what a bunch of crap".
Big deal they washed their hands (leading to rumors they Jews poisoned water supplies since they cleansing rituals kept then unharmed by the plague + many other epidemics through history).
But what the non-believer needs to see are those related to modern Israel. Those are the clearest IMO & then look at ALL of those for Christ.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@thieflord555
The stumbling block I see most (impeding the search for clear prophecies), is that the heart is not in the search, & it seems fruitless.
But if you really want to know, you will find it. That I promise.
I can guarantee you that if you read Simon Greenleaf's book on evidence, even if you do not ultimately agree, there is no way you will ever ask that question again.
This has been my point the entire time. That most people assume as you have, & each speaker adds to the myths.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@thieflord555 T
My point the entire time is that the "street talk" is really where most people learn what they think they know about the Bible. Few people even try to defend it. So having so many dissenters who each don't realize that most of these thoughts are myths leads to the overall impression that there is no evidence to build a "case for Christ".
That most people assume as you have, & each speaker adds to the myths.
But the amazing thing is that modern archeology has led to PROOF
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@thieflord555 The Qumran caves also led to the publishing of many heresies (mystical articles that were non-compliant). THIS led to the idea that there are so many competing views, but the whole time there has been a clear doctrine to discern authenticated prophecy. That was Moses "mission". That is why I say "start with Moses" if you want to validate any Christian doctrine. Once you have the discernment doctrines, you can't be deceived by heresy or the confusion in these conflicting views.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin The amazing thing is that modern archeology has led to PROOF.
Here is how clear the prophecy is; it was assumed for centuries by dissenters that the Bible was written much later than it claimed. Its clarity was their refutation, that it was so specific that it had to be fraud.
The Qumran caves also led to the publishing of many heresies (mystical articles that were non-compliant scripturally). THIS led to the idea that there are so many competing views, but the whole time...
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
Here is one of Thunderf00t's arguments. If the scientific community started accepting the supernatural as an answer to scientific questions, nothing would get done.
"What causes cancer? Magic pixies."
"Why does the sun rise and fall every day? Helios rides in his chariot of light."
"Why are there a variety of species on earth that have striking similarities to each other? God."
As you can see, you are simply replacing one unknown with another, accomplishing nothing.
thieflord555 1 year ago
"Sadly, the atheists are almost as dumb as the Christians that they mock"
If you say that due to your assumption that Atheists mock Christians because of the blind faith believers stereotype, yet failing to recognize the fact that not all Atheists do this, then you are doing the same exact thing you claimed the Atheists are doing to Christians, to Atheists. Which would make you a hypocrite.
So, please recognize that some Atheists do see that there are intelligent Christians.
EdikShepherd 1 year ago
@EdikShepherd "So, please recognize that some Atheists do see that there are intelligent Christians"
Absolutely, the temptation to generalize gets to me when I run out of characters. Without date. I don't even know if it's "most" atheist, just "most if not all that speak up". The last time I heard anyone acknowledge this before this conversation, was definitely not this calendar year.
But generalizations are never more helpful than taking the time for clarity, so thank you for speaking up.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@thieflord555 "No matter how much data you have, you are ultimately using it to back up the hypothesis that a supernatural power created the universe"
I don't know that I've been able to reconstruct the conversation accurately.
This video is discussing ID vs. evolution. I recall disputing something you said, but my browser is not rendering any dates here, I can not make sense out of the progression (if any) in the conversation.
Please quote original if you have it.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
So explain to me specifically this "extensive claim of history, geography" referring to the miracles performed by Jesus. The specific speeches Jesus gave. Even the fact that none of the hundreds, maybe thousands of gospels agree. Can you really?
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000
You mentioned specifically was "speeches". You say there are contradictions, so you must show this.
What you find is that according to its own doctrine, there are superficial claims that fall apart when examined. The Bible teaches that it can be harmonized, & that people who want to find fault will find it, but falsely. What it teaches is that be design, it can not be forced on someone who wants to deny it.
So even though it seems like the proof is weak,
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
What I mean to say is: Can you prove to me that Jesus preached where he preached? Can you prove what he said was what is in the Bible?
"claims that fall apart when examined"
Can you find me a harmony between Old Testament God and New Testament God? And "Sins of the Father"? (google that one)
"...it can not be forced on someone..."
Why do people still try?
And where does it teach that?
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "where does it teach that?"
Which "that"? I can't be expected to articulate precisely both what I need to say & what you say.
You're going to have to do better, or try to become a bit more humble & admit that some of what you said is infinitely more difficult (as in impossible) to prove.
Your answer to that is "well, really nothing can ever be proved".
If that is where this is going, let's just hear it from you. either you were/are wrong, or there is no proof of *any thing*.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chris2002Rocklin
The 'that' is: "The Bible teaches that it can be harmonized, & that people who want to find fault will find it, but falsely. "
I hope you didn't mean to quote me in "well, really nothing can ever be proved".
...I don't think I have ever said that...ever...
Anyways,
what is it that I have said that is "infinitely more difficult (as in impossible) to prove"?
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 people who want to find fault will find it, but falsely"
It's what I call "plausible deniability. The reason we have 12 jurors and not 1, is that we recognize that people process facts differently & we want to be fair to the accused. If there were a jury for the Biblical evidence, it would never be compelling enough for unanimous verdict. This is what I am claiming. A reasonable person would find it compelling. Any given court with any given jury will be on average, split.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
The judging must be up to one, lest political correctness find its way into our judicial system.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000
On superficial examination, by design, the scoffers can find reasons to reject it. This is to be expected according to the Bible itself.
The Bible by design is not to be used to bully people. Already you have so much abuse, look at the Roman Catholic Church (which was never truly Christian, & any organization as we expect it to be, is not a church, but that is a whole separate discussion). So even though the Bible is what it is, abuse is already a problem.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chris2002Rocklin
"This is to be expected according to the Bible itself."
So the Bible defines itself as true and with false contradictions, and that makes it true? This sounds like the classic "the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.".
"The Bible by design is..."
So why is it? The gay people and atheists? Or, god forbid, a gay atheist?
Of course abuse is a problem. It would take a fool to not see that, so I am glad to know I am not talking to one.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "So the Bible defines itself as true and with false contradictions, and that makes it true? This sounds like the classic "the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true."
No. I said that the Bible expects to allow some plausible deniabiltty.
In other words, imagine your parents teaching you that God exists etc. On your 15th birthday, you get to read the prophecy of your life, where God give you your instructions for your life
.
That would suck, huh?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
I retract my earlier statement, I should not have made it.
Any text that expects to allow plausible deniability in such a way should not be a text.
I don't see the relevance of your last metaphor.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000 "Of course abuse is a problem"
Why "of course"? That has nothing to do with the discussion to this point. Your thought that is does, supports my point! That the reasons to disbeleive are so extensive that you have lost site of the actual logical reasons to decide on the actual evidence. You forgot that you never really looked.
What amazes me is that (this once included me) atheists spend years smug in the "proof" without ever looking at it! They read/hear the myths about it.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
All I see is you claiming to disprove my statements (no support for that). That my statement supports your point (also no support). That I have lost logic. That I never looked.
And then, that atheists do not know the proof but just hear about it. (Not disagreeing with the last statement, but only a few act that way. It would be foolish to judge atheists by them, as some judge Christians by Shirley Phelps-Roper).
This is one big fallacy.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
@darkwarrior000
If that isn't enough, note that since Greanleaf wrote of his conversion (entirely on the basis of DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE), we now have the modern state of Israel, + many related events that complete prophecies (once claimed to be fraud), but now scientifically proved authentic.
The bottom line is that science can be used to prove the Bible is reliable, which is to say that science can be used to prove it is the most probable truth (incl. statistics). I have proved my thesis.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin
To quote Robert Downey jr. (loosely):"If one theorizes independent to facts, one molds facts to theories instead of theories to facts."
(Good example is 2012)
For instance, scientists take the Bible and look for a flood (Noah's Ark). They find it, name it plausible, and it is then a fact.
That is a fallacy, and is the only kind of "proof" I have seen to date, so I ask you for proof. You seem intelligent, let's hope you can give me a good source.
You have not proved a thesis.
darkwarrior000 1 year ago