The point I believe he was trying to make, AND DID..For all you skeptics that claim that the New Testament was fabricated by the disciples. Although the Bible contains many stories of miracles, it also includes doctrines that the average male would not have included, if they were making up a religion... For example, in other religions, heaven consists of males engaging in eternal sex with multiple virgins. However, in the Bible there are no sexual relationships inheaven, but believers are "married" to Jesus. Realistically, no males I know of would ever make up the Christian concept of heaven... To make the picture complete, the members of the Church are described as being female. How insulting that would be to the average male ego? Another doctrine that would be considered offensive in first century Jewish culture is the virgin birth of Jesus. In addition, first century Jewish culture considered women to be unreliable witnesses, making the discovery of the empty tomb by women unlikely to have been fabricated. The leaders in the Bible are presented realistically, with all their faults and shortcomings. When presenting themselves, most people tend to tell about their positive traits, eliminating negative traits, such as drunkenness, adultery, and murder. The inclusion of the good and the bad of God's leaders indicate that the biblical accounts are not just fabricated stories IMO.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
When did people stop living unto they were 800 + years old?
- Thread starter Dawkinsrocks
- Start date
Werbung:
This seems to me to be the heart of the debate.
When an none believer approaches science, can he/she -- are they able to... seriously consider evidence that points to special creation?The answer is NO. They truly CAN NOT consider creation as even possibly true. It is ruled out before he starts.
Consider the following situation.. When you, as a serious Christian debate with an atheist, as the atheist builds his case against the existence of God, can you -- is it even possible for you .. to seriously consider that he might be right? Again the answer is NO. You might listen politely. You may try in to answer (refute) his line of reasoning. But you are not able to consider that he might possibly be right. Your presuppositions ( faith) disable you from even considering any evidence that might lead to the conclusion that there is no God. Why? Because you know otherwise.
Now what about creation? Is it a natural process? No, it was a miracle. A special discontinuous event. As such, is SC subject to normal empirical evaluation? The scientific method? No!
Matthew 15:36,37And He took the seven loaves and the fish and gave thanks, broke [them] and gave [them] to His disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitude. …So they all ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets full of the fragments that were left..
If a scientist, even a Christian presuppositionlist, were given a piece of this fish to study, what would he find?
At the very start he would know by simple observation, that the sample was, lets say, several years old. He would not have to resort to carbon dating.. Would he be correct according to the scientific method?Yes! Whatever else was true about the sample, he could be sure that the fish had been spawned, hatched and grew to maturity, caught, cleaned, cooked and served.
Would he be correct?
No! The fish was only moments old. It was created there on the spot.
What else might he find?
Well, he may find several anomalies. Perhaps the levels of mercury would be far below the norm. Maybe there would be no cell damage or parasites as one might expect in a three year old fish. This might confuse him, but it would not shake his original presupposition as to the approximate age of the fish. Heknow's that it is at least several years old.
These are the kind of anomalies we find when we study creation.
Now consider the wine at the marriage of Cana of Galilee.
John 2:6-10
There is no scientific method ..not even a "Christian" one .. that could discover the true nature of the wine, bread and fish. I won't belabor the point. These two examples may serve to illustrate what we are dealing with when we discuss Miracles.
What would it take to get this scientist to accept that the fish, and loaves and the wine were only moments old? It would take a new source of authority. Something outside his own limited reference point. It would take a revelation by God to open his blind eyes and his closed mind.
Is this not what is at issue in this debate? On whose authority do we base what we know? Where do we turn to know what is and is not possible? If we limit ourselves to the things we can observe by the scientific method, we must rule out miracles.
Creation was a miracle. It is by "faith" that we believe what we believe. (Heb 11:3) Modern unbelieving scientists areblind fools. This is not at all meant as name calling. It is a clear statement of fact... Unbelieving science is literally unable, (and morally unwilling, but that's another subject) to evaluate the evidence. They will not, they can not, know the truth. Their presuppositions disqualify them before they start... Lets not be too impressed with people who are morally and intellectually unable to consider even the possibility of special creation. No matter how much "evidence" is plopped in front of their noses, they are unable to seriously consider it as even possible.....
When an none believer approaches science, can he/she -- are they able to... seriously consider evidence that points to special creation?The answer is NO. They truly CAN NOT consider creation as even possibly true. It is ruled out before he starts.
Consider the following situation.. When you, as a serious Christian debate with an atheist, as the atheist builds his case against the existence of God, can you -- is it even possible for you .. to seriously consider that he might be right? Again the answer is NO. You might listen politely. You may try in to answer (refute) his line of reasoning. But you are not able to consider that he might possibly be right. Your presuppositions ( faith) disable you from even considering any evidence that might lead to the conclusion that there is no God. Why? Because you know otherwise.
Now what about creation? Is it a natural process? No, it was a miracle. A special discontinuous event. As such, is SC subject to normal empirical evaluation? The scientific method? No!
Matthew 15:36,37And He took the seven loaves and the fish and gave thanks, broke [them] and gave [them] to His disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitude. …So they all ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets full of the fragments that were left..
If a scientist, even a Christian presuppositionlist, were given a piece of this fish to study, what would he find?
At the very start he would know by simple observation, that the sample was, lets say, several years old. He would not have to resort to carbon dating.. Would he be correct according to the scientific method?Yes! Whatever else was true about the sample, he could be sure that the fish had been spawned, hatched and grew to maturity, caught, cleaned, cooked and served.
Would he be correct?
No! The fish was only moments old. It was created there on the spot.
What else might he find?
Well, he may find several anomalies. Perhaps the levels of mercury would be far below the norm. Maybe there would be no cell damage or parasites as one might expect in a three year old fish. This might confuse him, but it would not shake his original presupposition as to the approximate age of the fish. Heknow's that it is at least several years old.
These are the kind of anomalies we find when we study creation.
Now consider the wine at the marriage of Cana of Galilee.
John 2:6-10
Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." ... When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, etc."
There is just no such thing as instant wine. You gotta have grapes, wine presses, and most important to our discussion time -- many years in fact.There is no scientific method ..not even a "Christian" one .. that could discover the true nature of the wine, bread and fish. I won't belabor the point. These two examples may serve to illustrate what we are dealing with when we discuss Miracles.
What would it take to get this scientist to accept that the fish, and loaves and the wine were only moments old? It would take a new source of authority. Something outside his own limited reference point. It would take a revelation by God to open his blind eyes and his closed mind.
Is this not what is at issue in this debate? On whose authority do we base what we know? Where do we turn to know what is and is not possible? If we limit ourselves to the things we can observe by the scientific method, we must rule out miracles.
Creation was a miracle. It is by "faith" that we believe what we believe. (Heb 11:3) Modern unbelieving scientists areblind fools. This is not at all meant as name calling. It is a clear statement of fact... Unbelieving science is literally unable, (and morally unwilling, but that's another subject) to evaluate the evidence. They will not, they can not, know the truth. Their presuppositions disqualify them before they start... Lets not be too impressed with people who are morally and intellectually unable to consider even the possibility of special creation. No matter how much "evidence" is plopped in front of their noses, they are unable to seriously consider it as even possible.....
Just folksy stuff; it goes down well with the peasants. There are more interesting bits.
It's not thatI don't want to talk about it - I just think it is too important to talk about aimlessly.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Cash call, your efforts at reason at least set you apart from most of the religious oafs on this board but none of what you write alters the fact that the bible is a collection of myths and legends, inaccuracies, lies, viciousness, discrimination and ignorance
The sun does not go round the earth
Snakes cannot talk to humans
Virgins do not get pregnant
Dead people do not come back to life
People do not live to 800 years of age
Nobody built a wooden boat big enough to house two of every species on earth
The world did not flood
It is not loving to ask one of your followers to murder his son to prove a point
There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of god
The fact that some of the bible represents good life lessons does not make the book any more factual than Shakespeare's writings which also contain good life lessons
Clever and clear minded people find religion ridiculous which is why the vast majority of the royal society are atheists
The sun does not go round the earth
Snakes cannot talk to humans
Virgins do not get pregnant
Dead people do not come back to life
People do not live to 800 years of age
Nobody built a wooden boat big enough to house two of every species on earth
The world did not flood
It is not loving to ask one of your followers to murder his son to prove a point
There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of god
The fact that some of the bible represents good life lessons does not make the book any more factual than Shakespeare's writings which also contain good life lessons
Clever and clear minded people find religion ridiculous which is why the vast majority of the royal society are atheists
Your position is one of total negativity. There is no evidence to support atheism. There are no ‘proofs’ that God does not exist. The entire atheist argument rests on the absence of any evidence whatsoever.
At the least the Christian has the Bible, two thousand years of Christian history, various and sundry Christian denominations, prayer books, liturgical worship standards, and the support of history.These are things that can be seen, handled, examined and analyzed.
What do you have the to offer in evidence of your position?Attacks on the Bible, Christian history, the various denominations, prayer and worship and history. Your only defense is an attack.You cannot offer anything in support of you position except your own doubts.The only way that his position is in any way intellectually defensible is in the abstract – you can argue that it is at least possible that God does not exist.Your entire argument rests on that possibility. Moreover, and this is key, it depends on your possibility being theonly possibility.
Guys like Stephen F. Hawking cannot say there are no evidences for God, because Hawking cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world.
At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be sufficient evidences presented in the future.
If your intellectually honest, you will acknowledge at this point that you have lost the debate, since your only alternative is to deny that there may indeed be evidence as-yet undiscovered -- which then becomes the foundation of his argument. Spelled out in words, it would read like this:My position is that I know beyond all possible doubt that which is unknowable, based on a total lack of evidence in support of my position. My argument would be, The age and existence of the Bible, the historical failure to stamp it out, together with the faith and inspiration it has engendered, and the billions of people that believe it -- all qualify as hard evidences that can be examined, debated and interpreted, but not refuted, since all exist in the real world and can be demonstrated.
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" (1 Peter 3:15)
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Stop doing that it is retarded
There is no onus on atheists to prove god doesn't exist
Trying to use this to assert that he does just makes you sound even more ridiculous
Can you prove unicorns don't exist?
No you can't so by your reasoning they do exist
That is how mad your view is
But I suppose if you fo believe people lived to 800 there is little point trying to reason with you
At least you prove how screwed up your brain has to be to buy the fairy tales of religion
There is no onus on atheists to prove god doesn't exist
Trying to use this to assert that he does just makes you sound even more ridiculous
Can you prove unicorns don't exist?
No you can't so by your reasoning they do exist
That is how mad your view is
But I suppose if you fo believe people lived to 800 there is little point trying to reason with you
At least you prove how screwed up your brain has to be to buy the fairy tales of religion
There is no onus on atheists to prove god doesn't exist..So why keep trying?Can you prove unicorns don't exist? How anyone could compare unicorns to the bible is beyond me..
Come off it - of course it isn't! There is lots of beautiful poetry and art about unicorns. You know perfectly well that there are no unicorns, all the same, though there is such a thing as a rhinosaurus. You do not waste time, however, using the exisxtence of the second to prove the existence of the first, because it is obvious nonsense. To keep up the fantasy that the Old Testament is somehow equivalent to a scientific document (which no Christian has ever believed) you have to resort shameless games with what you know to be true, in a way that disgraces your obvious desire to follow the way (truth) put forward by Jesus. Do think seriously about where you are going! People who go in for such nonsense end up backing 'crusades' or supporting the nazis of 'Israel' in deliberately murdering the ' little ones' Jesus so cared about. If one believes in a hell (as I do not) it is obvious where such shameless scoundrels will spend eternity.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Cash call you can't prove unicorns don't exist
Therefore you are committed by your 'reasoning' to accept they do
Or are you even too unhinged to apply your own reasoning consistently?
And even if god did exist he would be the evil creator of Satan who he loves much more than people
A vicious baby killer
A mass abortionist
A genocidal maniac
A crass ignoramus
A fascist with insecurity issues
A tyrant
A green eyed monster
A torturer
Therefore you are committed by your 'reasoning' to accept they do
Or are you even too unhinged to apply your own reasoning consistently?
And even if god did exist he would be the evil creator of Satan who he loves much more than people
A vicious baby killer
A mass abortionist
A genocidal maniac
A crass ignoramus
A fascist with insecurity issues
A tyrant
A green eyed monster
A torturer
Lets you and I go thru your heroes book one chapter at a time..Now don't get mad, I can prove every word...
Chapter 1 of Richard Dawkins' book,The God Delusion uses all the classic disreputable techniques that Dawkins has complained about in his dealings with certain creationists. He misrepresents Christian understanding of God and the role of evidence and faith. In addition, he quotes from unnamed sources, representing them as standard examples of religious believers, when they are obviously not mainline. Dawkins mistakenly categorizes conflicts as being religious in nature, when, in reality, none of the disputes involve any theological issues at all. In fact, the examples all involve political power struggles of groups that just happen to be from different religious affiliations. He fails to to point out the atheists who have committed even greater atrocities. Finally, Dawkins lies outright about how the U.S. courts are protecting "hate speech" on the basis of "religious freedom," when the cases were judged not to be hate speech, nor even religious speech. Despite its popularity ,this has to be Richard Dawkins' most poorly written book to date.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
I don't claim that Dawkins created the world
I don't claim that if you don't worship him you will go to hell
But I do claim he exists and that anyone can see this not just lunatics who hear voices in their heads
Your ability yo reason is severely impaired and your efforts at compensation through verbosity are transparent
I don't claim that if you don't worship him you will go to hell
But I do claim he exists and that anyone can see this not just lunatics who hear voices in their heads
Your ability yo reason is severely impaired and your efforts at compensation through verbosity are transparent
Richard Dawkins' second chapter is a rambling 43-page rant against theism. Instead of writing a real introduction about "the God hypothesis," Dawkins immediately goes into a long list of the supposed faults of Yahweh, including, jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. And all that is just part of the first sentence! Of course, there are no attempts to substantiate any of the claims by giving examples. In fact, he must have been your teacher because you both love to point out examples where God judges those who do evil (as if we humans would never stoop so low to do such things by making laws, having police, judges and jails). How dare God judge evil... Dawkins won't tell you that the reason why God told the Israelites to wipe out entire populations was because they were burning their own children as sacrifices.... Maybe you and Mr. Dawkins would have preferred that we still have those people around so that he could offer your own sons and daughters as a burnt offering.
Dawkins throws out a statement that he doesn't even attempt to support:This book will advocate an alternative view, any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything comes to existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution... Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion;
Well, if one assumes that everything is contingent upon the universe, then, of course, God is a delusion. However, by defining God as such, Dawkins doesn't even address the God of Christianity and Judaism, who is clearly stated as having created the entire universe. It is You and Dawkins who are delusional if you think you can define God differently from Christianity and then claim that he has disproved His existence....
its funny watching dawkins try to explain his thinking. so desperate.
hard to picture people parting with cash to get a book of his. perhaps he should stick to genes flying out of a body and.acting upon other bodies.
Werbung:
95 % of dawkinrocks post are about things a lot of people care dearly about..So I assume from his alias Dawkins is a hero of his..
Similar threads
