Would seeing the sea part make you believe in God?

[August Borms]

This thread is hilarious!


I'm glad that christianity is dying out here in Flanders though

[Robert]

We are refuting a specific claim that the Bible does not encourage violence and massacres. That has been conclusively demolished, move on to the next item.

I'm refuting a specific claim that God is not good because of these things. Indeed God does support violence in some cases. Like I support the british/canadian/usa invasion in 1944.

So you'd prefer a moral code that resulted in periodic conquest and genocide, despotism, slavery, and not even the pretence of equal rights?

I do not prefer genocide at all. But I hope you won't pretend that genocide doesn't happend these days anymore. Hitler Germany anyone? Milosovic anyone?

About dstpotism and slavery, I'm happy with the current system we have, but not every form of despotism or slavery is wrong.

If you have a good master as a slave, who gives you work, food and a roof above your head, you can have a pretty happy live.

Don't mix up every form of slavery with cruel slavery.
The first slave-master Uncle Tom (From the book) had was a good master.

But again, I don't think we should get back to slavery in these days again.

Destpotism is good as long as the despot is a noble leader. If he's not, he's not doing a better job than a corrupt democratic chosen leader. I think democracy is the best system we have, but don't make the system look too good, because it's not. It's more the system of the loudest voice.

Equal rights?
I don't know, I think it's good for women, but it's not good for children, and for that reason for our society.
I'm happy that my wife studied, and will take a job.

But we shouldn't praise the equal rights too much.
Eventhough equal rights are good, and I support it, it comes with much problems.

Conclusion, you're right and you're not right.
Every system has it's pro's and it's contra's.
Our system is the one I love and I'll fight for it, but it's pretty arrogant to claim that the old systems were worse then ours. I've been in Uganda, and I can tell you that the people that live 'in ancient ages' were as happy, if not happier, than we are.

Who is this God person anyway? I've never met him before.

He's the one that makes the sun raise every morning.
Or did you think that was an accident?

It would be, if the judge could be reasonably assumed to exist.

old argument: a creation requiers a creator. I never met the creator of my watch (old argument alert) but I'm sure he does exist. Pherhaps mine was made mechanical, but there has every been a creator who desinged the watch I'm wearing.

CyberShy

[Robert]

I'm glad that christianity is dying out here in Flanders though

it's indeed a good thing that egoism, individualism, capitalism and all those good systems start to take it over. :rolleyes!:

[GeneralTacticus]

Those guys 6000 years ago knew more than what you know. Back then, only the strong and smart survived. Look at the pyramids! They required an incredible knowledge of construction and architecture to be made.

Knowledge which is available today.

People were not idiots back then, and they didn't make stuff up. And if they did, it wouldn't be accepted by millions of people today.

So you assume that if it were false, no-one would believe it? Millions of people believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth fairy. Does that make them real? Hell, millions of people believe in Allah. Does that make him real?

Dates were measured differently then, so maybe the world isn't exactly 6000 years old. But it's somewhere in that area. And the Flood probably did cover the whole world. I mean, if God can flood the world, he can make the water go away too. No problem for Him. And circumcision if for cleanliness, not religious purposes. In Romans, we are told that what matters is the heart, not the physical body.

At least you don't try to dress up fundamentalism in scientific clothing.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you.

Maybe you missed the point. It is YOU who does not understand evolution.

Nope. If the theologists did say that the bombings were wrong, people wouldn't do them. I have only seen encouragement from the Muslims to suicide bombers.

Theologists have very little influence on people like the PA, Hamas, Al-aqsa Martrys brigade, etc, the ones that actually carry out the suicide bombings.

It is very difficult to twist religion into evil purposes unless it relies on people, who all make mistakes, to make the rules. That is why we use the Bible, not fallible humans, to explain what God wants of us.

Yet the Bible mentions nothing of the kind of things that happen today. Is there anything there about, say, cocaine? No! Why? because cocaine didn't exist when it was written. You cannot have a functional religion without people interpreting it. And, as you said, when people interpret it, they manipulate it.

Why do you believe science reports blindly? Isn't that the same as what you claim I do?

Because science changes. Science is a self-checking device. It isn't an ancient, static book written thousand sof years ago.

I don't know Arabic, but I do know that Muslim priests do consider the suicide bombers to be martyrs and they go to heaven. That is enough to be considered encouragement. I would read the Koran if I knew the language. Christianity has never been an excuse to kill people. It is so clearly against what the Bible teaches. Although some might try to use Christianity as a shield for their wrongdoings, they know deep down inside that they are wrong.

How the hell do you know that? People like Torquemada had the full support of their Church, which represented their religion. They would have had no reason to think they were doing wrong.

God told them that they would be killed because of their sins, and they didn't listen. Fair and square. God tells us not to kill each other because we are idiots who would do that for no reason. Samson was just doing what God told him to do. God warned the Philistines and they ignored Him. He showed them that He wouldn't allow that.

well, you seem to have erased that incosistency. Next time just say that God loves only those who do as he says. Much like any other tyrant of history, though the other's have at least certified their existence.

[King of Rasslin]

"So you assume that if it were false, no-one would believe it? Millions of people believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth fairy. Does that make them real? Hell, millions of people believe in Allah. Does that make him real?"

No one believes in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Quit comparing God to that. The Allah example is how people try to make their own god and ignore the true God.

"Because science changes. Science is a self-checking device. It isn't an ancient, static book written thousand sof years ago."

You don't need to fix what isn't broken. Science changes because it isn't perfect, but the Bible doesn't need to be changed because it is perfect.

I'm going to bed now. Maybe you will be another guy who accepts God while on his deathbed, "just in case." :rollseyes:

[Jack the Bodiless]

Those guys 6000 years ago knew more than what you know. Back then, only the strong and smart survived. Look at the pyramids! They required an incredible knowledge of construction and architecture to be made. People were not idiots back then, and they didn't make stuff up. And if they did, it wouldn't be accepted by millions of people today.

OK, so now Ra is real, and Osiris is real, and Horus is real... after all, the people who built the Pyramids weren't idiots, and they didn't make stuff up.

These same people also managed to maintain an unbroken historical record despite being underwater for a while (according to the Flood story). So they invented submarines and scuba gear also. And special waterproof paints. And even though they "didn't make stuff up", being underwater wasn't worth mentioning.

And when the Tower of Babel incident occurred, they kept on writing in the same language, even though they didn't understand it anymore (God scrambled the languages). How did they do that?

[August Borms]

Originally posted by CyberShy

I'm glad that christianity is dying out here in Flanders though

it's indeed a good thing that egoism, individualism, capitalism and all those good systems start to take it over. :rolleyes!:

You're starting to sound like a communist

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, and I suppose that you're one of those people who think that the universe popped out of one particle that popped out of nothing, that live evolved from one microbe into all the diversity we have these days and the universe became what it is right now because of the big bang.

I have no idea how the Universe was created. I don't think it's possible to know.

*gasp* simplistic way of debating.
I prefer to use valid arguments instead of this kind of arrogant crap mister Tacticus. I know you think you're better and wiser and more inteligent than we are. Now get to the point please. Mr Arrogant Agnost Atheist Whatever.

I tend to get quite pissed at people who try to parade their religion as being an irrefutable fact based on a book which would only have relevance if their religion was in fact true. Circular logic, you see.

And what makes you believe science that much?
Don't you think that the scientific knowledge will be laughable in 200 years? They'll laugh at everyone who's still stucked in the stone age that were the 20th and 21th century.

The scientific knowledge we have now? Very probably, yes. That's the whole point about science: it moves on. The theories of a few hundred years ago are laughable today. But science is still there.

Decades scientists have claimed that we humans started to exist 1 to 3 millions of years ago.
Now someone find one single incomplete skull, and suddenly all those theories are concidered wrong. What makes you think that the current theories will last for more than 50 decades?

See above.

What makes you believe that a scientist who claims a skull is 7 millinos year old is right? Who's going to check it? You believe him on his blue eyes, don't you?

Are you claiming that I am a Nazi?

Again such an ancient way of debating.
Christian people did bad things, thus christianity is bad.

I am debating with Rasslin, who claims that Muslims do bad things, therefore Islam is bad. I'm trying to show him that his argument is false.

Please don't make me start another 'MAO, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Kim' argument mister humanist atheist.

Atheism is not and has never been a politcal philosophy. Religious fundamentalism is.

the darwin's observations are as absolute as the flat earth theory. Darwin had no ideas about DNA and genetics. While the current theory is all about DNA and genetics. Only Darwin's concept 'everything from one organism' still stands, but the argumentation has completely changed.

So science has moved on. Darwin is not a 'prophet' who should be uncritically believed. The observations I am referring to were the ones about the birds on the islands: they were all adapted to the island upon which they lived.

And about christianity without evidence. You must be pretty lacking any form of news. Do you know what happened in 1948?

No, what was it?

Did you ever really read and understand revelations and other prophecies in the bible that are currently being fullfilled?

What ones are these?

Tortured for all eternity? The definition of hell is being separated from God, which really can be seen as torture. But not the physical torture you are imagining.

Who is Satlin?

Stalin. A spelling error.

No, just the facts. If you don't believe in God, you go to hell.

What makes you think they are facts?

Because he made you and he wants you to serve Him as you should. You owe him everything, especially after He would give him son to save you.

If I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe he made me, therefore, I feel no obligation to him for that.

By the way, hundreds of people saw Jesus ascend. How can you deny that?

How do you know, outside of the Bible?

I'm beginning to wonder why I even argue with you, but... For one, we don't blow each other up. Christians are not terrorists. I don't like what you are saying.

Tell that to the Irish.

I'm refuting a specific claim that God is not good because of these things. Indeed God does support violence in some cases. Like I support the british/canadian/usa invasion in 1944.

I am not arguing with you about that. Your argument is different from Rasslin's. I am arguing with him.

I do not prefer genocide at all. But I hope you won't pretend that genocide doesn't happend these days anymore. Hitler Germany anyone? Milosovic anyone?

No, I am not pretending that it doesn't happen any more. Just that it is not accepted any more. Tell me, what happened to the Nazis? What happened to Milosevic? And compare that with what happened to the Assyrains, the Romans, the Babylonians, and virtually every other ancient empire that has existed.

If you have a good master as a slave, who gives you work, food and a roof above your head, you can have a pretty happy live.

Don't mix up every form of slavery with cruel slavery.
The first slave-master Uncle Tom (From the book) had was a good master.

But there is no guarrantee that your master will be good. If I had the choice of a good life as a slave or a horrible one as a free person, I would pick slavery, but I would prefer a good life as a free person.

Destpotism is good as long as the despot is a noble leader. If he's not, he's not doing a better job than a corrupt democratic chosen leader. I think democracy is the best system we have, but don't make the system look too good, because it's not. It's more the system of the loudest voice.

Again, there is no guarrantee that the despot will be good. Moreover, a bad despot has no limitation to his power and therefore will do far more damage than a bad democrat.

Conclusion, you're right and you're not right.
Every system has it's pro's and it's contra's.
Our system is the one I love and I'll fight for it, but it's pretty arrogant to claim that the old systems were worse then ours. I've been in Uganda, and I can tell you that the people that live 'in ancient ages' were as happy, if not happier, than we are.

I was posting that in response to you saying that atheism has caused a huge number of problems, seemingly by being in the same time perod as said problems. I was pointing out that when religion ruled supreme the problems were much worse.

He's the one that makes the sun raise every morning.
Or did you think that was an accident?

No, I thought it was a result of the Earth rotating so that it faced the sun. Silly me.

old argument: a creation requiers a creator. I never met the creator of my watch (old argument alert) but I'm sure he does exist. Pherhaps mine was made mechanical, but there has every been a creator who desinged the watch I'm wearing.

Old counter-argument: who created the creator?

Those fossils are incomplete, how can you tell by looking at one single incomplete skull that humans were walking straight 7 millions years ago. Who's going to check them?

When new evidence comes up, the old theories that no longer work are discarded, and new theories are created to fit the available facts. You seem to think science should be dogma. That goes against the whole point of it.

it's indeed a good thing that egoism, individualism, capitalism and all those good systems start to take it over. !

What's wrong with individualism and capitalism?

[GeneralTacticus]

You don't need to fix what isn't broken. Science changes because it isn't perfect, but the Bible doesn't need to be changed because it is perfect.

And why is the Bible perfect?

No one believes in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Quit comparing God to that.

No-one is a fanatical 'Easter-bunnyist' or 'Santaist', but yes, people do believe in them. I used to.

The Allah example is how people try to make their own god and ignore the true God.

But millions of people believe in Allah, shouldn't it therefore be true by your own logic?

I'm going to bed now. Maybe you will be another guy who accepts God while on his deathbed, "just in case."

Maybe I will. I doubt it though.

[Lemmy]

ok, i'm just gonna argue the most hilarious points here...

The way people say "God is what you make him to be" is why there are Hindus and Muslims corrupting our world.

WTF??? did you do any research into these religions at all??
And i suppose you think Buddha is a god? (whom you may or may not believe in)

Dates were measured differently then, so maybe the world isn't exactly 6000 years old. But it's somewhere in that area. And the Flood probably did cover the whole world. I mean, if God can flood the world, he can make the water go away too. No problem for Him. And circumcision if for cleanliness, not religious purposes. In Romans, we are told that what matters is the heart, not the physical body.

where have you been the last century???
Where do i begin....first, there are the dinosaur skeletons, it has been proved that these are tens of millions of years old, now that is a lot more than 6000
Now off course you're gonna ask : Why do you believe these scientists by their word?
Because they have proved it with techniques i could recreate if i wanted to, they measured the radioactivity of the materials, and because they know the radioactive decay of suh a material, they can most accurately say how old something is.

Decades scientists have claimed that we humans started to exist 1 to 3 millions of years ago.
Now someone find one single incomplete skull, and suddenly all those theories are concidered wrong. What makes you think that the current theories will last for more than 50 decades?

yes, theories change when new evidence is foudn, but if someone finds evidence that humans existed 20000 years ago, for example a full human skeleton which has been dated with the technique described above, there is no possible evidence you can find that will say humans that did not exist 20k years ago.
You can only find evidence to support theories that humans first appeared earlier than 20k, not later.

Those guys 6000 years ago knew more than what you know. Back then, only the strong and smart survived. Look at the pyramids! They required an incredible knowledge of construction and architecture to be made. People were not idiots back then, and they didn't make stuff up. And if they did, it wouldn't be accepted by millions of people today.

Those guys that build the pyramids believed in Egyptian gods, do you believe in them too then?

Why do you believe science reports blindly? Isn't that the same as what you claim I do?

No, everything that science claims, i can go and test for myself, if science says fire is hot, i can test it by putting my hand in the fire.
If science says that in a vacuum objects would accelerate with 9.8 m/s while falling down, i can test that.
If a priest says god is real, i can't test that.

Oh, and I suppose that you're one of those people who think that the universe popped out of one particle that popped out of nothing, that live evolved from one microbe into all the diversity we have these days and the universe became what it is right now because of the big bang.

there are only theories about how the univers is created, while it is generally accepted by scientists that in was created by the Big Bang, and i don't think it inculded only 1 particle in those theories, now i chooose to believe that over the Creation theorie, because those scientist have proven other things to be right before.

[Robert]

Now off course you're gonna ask : Why do you believe these scientists by their word?
Because they have proved it with techniques i could recreate if i wanted to, they measured the radioactivity of the materials, and because they know the radioactive decay of suh a material, they can most accurately say how old something is.

They only know how radioactivity decays over about 1000 years. That's about 0,01% of the time that passed since the dinosaurs lived, according to these scientists.
I doubt that that theory is accurate.

yes, theories chance when new evidence is foudn

And sometimes it makes the entire theory absolute.
And most of the uncheckable theories appear to be BS when they are checkable. When the first moonlander landed, their appeared to be no meters of dust, while the scientists were sure about the existance of meters dust. But now they were proved wrong, they made a new theory so their old-moon theory would still stand.

Of course untill we can actually check out the new theorie as well.

Most theories are made up to make it possible to believe in an old earth and evolution. Of course scientists want to date a skull to be millions of years old, otherwise the entire evolution theory won't be right anymore. That's not objective scienctific work, that's working to the requested answer.

And nobody can check it, since we were not there when the skull was 'buried'.

No, everything that science claims, i can go and test for myself, if science says fire is hot, i can test it by putting my hand in the fire.
If science says that in a vacuum objects would accelerate with 9.8 m/s while falling down, i can test that.
If a priest says god is real, i can't test that.

But you can't test evolution, big bang, the appearance of life, the appearance of mammals.

there are only theories about how the univers is created, while it is generally accepted by scientists that in was created by the Big Bang. and i don't think it inculded only 1 particle in those theories

The Big Bang was not the beginning.
The Big Bang was the result of the implotion of all the materials of a former universe or something.

According the theories the big bang is only the beginning of THIS universe, like your birth was the begginning of you, not of the entire humanity.

But it's ofcourse BS to believe that everything came without any reason out of the complete nothing.
There must be something extra-universal being.

because those scientist have proven other things to be right before.

They have also been proven wrong on very much things before as well!

[Robert]

ok, i'm just gonna argue the most hilarious points here...

always that arrogant atheistic way of thinking........
Objective? No way. Fanatic Religious atheistic, indeed.

[Lemmy]

They only know how radioactivity decays over about 1000 years. That's about 0,01% of the time that passed since the dinosaurs lived, according to these scientists.
I doubt that that theory is accurate.

hmm, yes, you can doubt if you want, even if there is more evidence supporting this, then the existence of God.

And sometimes it makes the entire theory absolute.
And most of the uncheckable theories appear to be BS when they are checkable. When the first moonlander landed, their appeared to be no meters of dust, while the scientists were sure about the existance of meters dust. But now they were proved wrong, they made a new theory so their old-moon theory would still stand.

yes, and when they are checked, new better theories replace them, that is the nature of science, learning more and more to eventually get it perfectly right. But there aren't just theories in science, a lot of things are already proven as facts, nothing will ever change that. Nobody claims theories are facts untill sufficient scientific evidence is found to support the theory.
Every theory is based on a number of facts, you cannot totally disregard any theory because you find a bit of new evidence, because then you would have to ignore previously proven facts.

Of course untill we can actually check out the new theorie as well.

Most theories are made up to make it possible to believe in an old earth and evolution. Of course scientists want to date a skull to be millions of years old, otherwise the entire evolution theory won't be right anymore. That's not objective scienctific work, that's working to the requested answer.

And nobody can check it, since we were not there when the skull was 'buried'.

I think it's the other way around, theories are made up, because there was evidence found that he Earth is a lot older than previously thought, and there is evidennce found of evolution.

[Lemmy]

always that arrogant atheistic way of thinking........
Objective? No way. Fanatic Religious atheistic, indeed.

oh come on, you don't really believe the earth is ~6000 years old do you?

[Jack the Bodiless]

They only know how radioactivity decays over about 1000 years. That's about 0,01% of the time that passed since the dinosaurs lived, according to these scientists.
I doubt that that theory is accurate.

Astronomers can see that radioactive decay rates have not changed significantly for billions of years. Changes in the forces governing radioactive decay rates would also affect the energy of photons produced by nuclear fusion in distant stars. This has not happened.

You doubt that this is accurate because it contradicts a book of Caananite fairytales?

And most of the uncheckable theories appear to be BS when they are checkable. When the first moonlander landed, their appeared to be no meters of dust, while the scientists were sure about the existance of meters dust. But now they were proved wrong, they made a new theory so their old-moon theory would still stand.

This is a VERY old creationist lie. The Apollo astronauts found exactly the thickness of moon dust they had expected to find. An initial, wildly inaccurate estimate had been revised many years before. This argument was busted about forty years ago.

Most theories are made up to make it possible to believe in an old earth and evolution. Of course scientists want to date a skull to be millions of years old, otherwise the entire evolution theory won't be right anymore. That's not objective scienctific work, that's working to the requested answer.

Another lie. There is NO evidence that the Earth is YOUNG. And many fossils can be dated from the stuff they're buried in. A fossil buried beneath a 5-million-year-old layer might be older than that, but it cannot be younger.

But you can't test evolution, big bang, the appearance of life, the appearance of mammals.

Yes, you can.

Evolution is happening right now, it can be observed.

The light from the Big Bang can still be seen with the right instruments (the Penzias/Wilson observations, COBE etc).

The chemistry of the early Earth can be investigated by mixing chemicals that would have been available then (from comets etc) and seeing what happens.

The appearance of mammals can be seen in the fossil record.

However, most importantly, we can see that the Bible is bunk. There was no Great Flood. The sequence of the fossil record is totally incompatible with Genesis. And so on. And on, and on...