Thread: Question for athiests...

Originally Posted by spockman

Morality can exist without God. Objective morality cannot.

And there is a difference between searching for evidence which can back a particular belief, (which you definitely can do with religion. And it is illogical.) and looking at the evidences of a particular religion and seeing support for it.

What do you consider as objetive morality?

A universe with it's own nature, that is God, whose nature can define everything- including good and evil.

Originally Posted by spockman

A universe with it's own nature, that is God, whose nature can define everything- including good and evil.

Good and Evil , is a human invention, created out of the mind, and humans try to link it to and object or action, the thing is Good and Evil isn't real.

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

Good and Evil , is a human invention, created out of the mind, and humans try to link it to and object or action, the thing is Good and Evil isn't real.

This is, my friend, the point where we share the mutual ideas

Originally Posted by Unelias

This is, my friend, the point where we share the mutual ideas

Heh I noted something else. Saying something is good or evil is judging it's deciding the nature of something which is diferent with making an observation. Example of an observation:

context, there's a fruit infront of you..
That is an apple... ( observation )

if you ask why is it an apple? the person will start describing the object with characteristics, but concretely there's no answer for that question... it's because it is.

Example of judging
context, a guy killed his sister.

That guy is a bad person.

Why is that guy a bad person? here you'll start explaining the persons actions but here there's a hidden message where the person that's explaining asumes you'll understand he's a bad person. when you judge person you give a value to a person and discriminate, when you observate you look for objective characteristics of why he killed his sister.

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

Good and Evil , is a human invention, created out of the mind, and humans try to link it to and object or action, the thing is Good and Evil isn't real.

Hmm. But why? What I mean to say is, why couldn't the universe have a nature to it, (that could be called God,) that has different biases towards certain things? Why not?

(This is not an argument for any particular vein of thought. Just questioning why it is often assumed that the nature of existance has to be neutral.)

Firstly, you mis-quoted me a lot here. Many of the things that have my name are not from me. Not a good demonstration of your ability to pay attention.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Firstly, you're showing your ignorance of science by that very statement. You cannot prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that something cannot exist, because it would mean that we would have to be everywhere all at once in order to prove that, and it is an impossibility.

That was not what I was saying. If you pay attention, you would see that I was saying it is not possible because there is blatant proof otherwise. It is not that it cannot be disproved but it already is disproved.

Evidence That Humans Have Evolved From Chimpanzee's and More (Science Direct);
+ Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence*

Evidence of Humans Evolution From Africa Derived from Skeletal Fossil Evidence (Science);
+ Human Origins

The above are peer-reviewed science journals. You may not have access to them as they might require membership or university alumni association.

People believed that all swans were white not so long ago, did you know that? They've never seen black swans. Does that mean black swans don't exist? There are many things we know now which we had no evidence of many hundreds of years ago. We did not know there were galaxies outside our own, does that mean they don't exist? If the existence of a thing is dependant on our knowledge of it, this would be a strange world we live in, wouldn't it?

There was no Adam and Eve. Deal with it.

And you show your own close-mindedness, something you like to accuse Christians of, when you made the claim that "There is no evidence for Adam and Eve because they do not exist and could not exist."

I just disproved you.

There is no Adam and Eve. (As proven above).

You are wrong.

Live with it.

Archaelogy clearly does not prove Mormons to be right!

If you are going to reply, at least read my sentences. I did not say they proved Mormons right, I said that even you said it proves Mormons wrong but you cannot accept that it proves you wrong.

Hypocrite.

And I love the way you throw in dinosaurs in there, like what has it got to do with anything? BTW, in case you're ignorant of the fact, the Bible documents the existence of dinosaurs in Job.

Yeah and the bible also says that stars fall from the sky and giants live on moving mountains (literally - NOT metaphorically).

Unfortunately, what you are talking about, is a reference probably to Job 40:15-24. This is open to also being interpreted as hippopotamus, wildebeast, or even a crocodile.

Furthermore, archaeology still proves you wrong. Humans and dinosaurs could not and did not live together at the same time (unless you are referring to mosquito's or crocodiles or something).

Are you seriously one to hold that the earth is less than 10k years old? Especially after just debating Mormonism via archaeology?

You utilize the Camrbian Explosion as defense for yourself and yet say these ridiculous things? If you need evidence of the earth being older;

+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...idence&f=false

I could also repeat a video I have given to you before about the age of the earth - but apparently you avoid reading peoples proofs when they give it.

Firstly, I am not defending anything. I am just pointing out the sillyness of your argument that because museums did not contain the bones of Adam and Eve they did not exist. I think even a secondary school kid can see the cosmic hilarity of that kind of reasoning. Do museums contain the bones of every single person that has lived on this earth? I mean, what kind of leaky logic is that?

They do not need the bones of Adam and Eve as the premise of the idea has been proven wrong.

It is not something that is magical and cannot be disproved. It is disproved.

Get over it.

I brought up the Cambrain explosion because I knew something about it, it shows life in all diversity in fully formed bodies at the same time. It shows that life began instantaneously and did not evolve from some primordial soup. Creationists have proof, where's the proof from evolutionists? Every proof they had tried to concoct (peking man, etc.) were all proven to be hoaxes or improper conclusion. BTW, this is accepted by all scientists, not just Creationist scientists.

Ohhh ok, so now you can try to quote archaeology to try and defend yourself. I see.

Typical hypocrite.

Either way, this still proves nothing if not only reinforce how wrong you are.

If you "actually knew something" of the Cambrian explosion, you would know that it did not create everything in one big jump; it created many of the typical animals we know. But not everything.

Thus, evolution and natural selection is still evident and entropy functions the diversity (oops, no more dodo bird).

Even wikipedia can help you out here;
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

You know what amazes me about aethiest, it is the utter lack of intellectual honesty or reasoning. Propaganda? What propaganda? You say evolution has proof (I'm referring to macro interspecies evolution), yet provide none to back your facts?

This sentence is so damn hypocritical it deserves its own thread to discuss how stupid it is.

First of all, you say we are lacking intellectual honesty and yet here you are completely ignoring points, mis-quoting people, failing to acknowledge key questions, taking things out of context, and quoting the bible. Do you know what circular logic is? We ask you to prove the basis of the bible and you use the bible to prove itself.

But we should provide evidence and facts? You have provided nothing but meandering brainwashed regurgitation from what you were told by your preacher - or the bible quotes. Both just as bad.

Furthermore, we have provided evidence and proof.

Pay attention.

You claim I've been lied to on many levels, yet do not state what specifically is a lie. And no we do not see anything here, that is the problem, you make statements with no credible evidence to back your statements.

How about this;

+ You use archaeology to rebuke Mormonism
- Yet you reject archaeology and how it rebukes adam and eve

+ You ask for evidence and proof
- Yet you provide non from yourself - not a single link, video, or picture.

+ You ask for support for statements
- Yet you provide non for yours but circular logic (proving the bible's truth by quoting the bible).

Originally Posted by kingerman

And what is that supposed to proof? We created the conditions 1 millioneth of a second after the Universe was created? You don't have a problem with that supposition? How does anyone know what the conditions were exactly 1 millioneth of a second after Creation? Was anyone there?
And basing conclusions based on that supposition??

Are you saying that we cannot know anything unless we are physically and temporally there in the exact moment of its occurrence?

In that case, you do not even know when or if you were born.

You want to talk about stupid prepositions - look at what you are presenting.

If we lived our lives basing on the idea that you cannot know anything unless you were physically there at the moment and temporally then you could never;
- Prove someones murder
- Demonstrate how medicine works
- Know who your parents are
- Know where you live
- Be precise about what you ate yesterday - oh wait, not even that, an hour ago.

If we have the capability to reproduce the conditions of something and come to the same result, then that is the scientific method of subjectively learning a resolution of another scientists (see my Scientific Method linked in my signature for more).

Obviously you know nothing about science and did not pay attention to the video because it clearly states how we know what you asked.

Again, pay attention.

What do I think.. I think when someone says "in the process of being discovered as we speak." It really means, (in this case) we are looking for a way to sell the the "Emperor" (the general public) a set of new cloths that only the righteous can see. But first we must package it in a way that all who seek to unravel are package can not do so..

I am saying that we do not know, but we are still learning and inquiring. Researching and studying.

Are you saying that this is not possible?

You video has all the signs of a classic swindle. You have a pitch man creating a problem. Like I have an inheritance stuck in the bank of Mogadishu that I just can't get too. Next he pitches a solution like: all I need is 25,000 dollars to pay the fees and taxes. in this case "The great formula" Something that only a hand full of people on this planet can truly decipherer. Then he tells you no matter how complicated it may seem, it doesn't take a mathematician to use it. He shows how a 25,000 dollar investment and a little trust will get you half of a 10,000,000 inheritance.. But Here the hitch (the limited time offer the part that creates desire in the mark to act now)

Not my fault if you are too stupid to understand physics.

There is a element in short supply (Higgs particle) but rest assured Everything else is in place and if you don't buy in now someone else will.

What the hell are you talking about? He did not ask for money at all.

Are you paying attention or just desperately trying your best to argue things you are making up?

He did not ask for money and the experiments are already underway.

Science used to be about observation and discovery.. Now according to your you tube clip, it is about creating a theory and then "discovering" the elements (like higgs particles and neutrinos) to complete a theory.

THEY ARE TRYING TO DISCOVER WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT MOMENT AND IT IS HYPOTHESIZED THAT IT IS THE HIGGS!!

PAY ATTENTION!

You are obviously a pathetic person who cannot argue anything because now you are just making shit up and twisting things as much as you can.

This really looks like a man reaching for straws while drowning.

You are desperately clinging to your faith in the face of undeniable evidence.

It is evident in your desperate and illogical arguments; ad hominems, straw-mans, red herrings. All illogical fallacies pulled out in desperation to cling to what you thought was right.

Too bad you are wrong.

To me it's like saying I'm going to build a car, and as complicated as that sounds I am simply going to "find" naturally occurring part to complete this project, but on a way way more complicated level than just building a car.

This clearly demonstrates your ignorance to evolution.

Evolution does not say it happens like this, it happens over time.. slowly.. and..

Dear Richard Dawkins - do I really need to lecture you on how evolution works?

Why am I asking? I'll probably just make a thread...

Originally Posted by kingerman

Emprically proven? Please post a link to an academic scientific journal that has been critically peer-reviewed and published, that such fetishes are inborn. I am not aware that one exists, so I'd like to know where you got this idea. I know the pro-homosexual scientists want to prove this very much (how can you want to prove something before you know it exists?) but so far have not yet suceeded.

First of all, if you need subjective evidence; I have a fetish and I do not like it. I do not choose it. However, I must accept it because I cannot be rid of it. Not with any psychology. Perhaps with surgery (because it is a part of your brain) - but that is all. I am not gay, but I do have a fetish. So, if you need subjective evidence (as it seems you do), I am it.

Otherwise:

Homosexuality in Animals;

A Comparison of LH Secretion and Brain Estradiol Receptors in Heterosexual and Homosexual Rams and Female Sheep. Sciene Direct;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d57ca07e932fe3

Homosexuality in Humans

A neuroendocrine predisposition for homosexuality in men. Springer Netherlands.
+ http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1176x7289822289/

Sexual Orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain. Neurobiology.
+ http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.full.pdf

Male Homosexuality: The Adolescent’s Perspective. Pediatrics
+ http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...urcetype=HWCIT

Abnormalities of Male-Specific FRU Protein and Serotonin Expression in the CNS of fruitless Mutants in Drosophila. Journal of Neuroscience;
+ http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content...urcetype=HWCIT

An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Science Direct.
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d21363fa9ce91d

The association between the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality and other markers of human sexual orientation. Biology Letters.
+ http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.o...urcetype=HWCIT

Sexual Differentiation of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis in Humans May Extend into Adulthood. Journal of Neuroscience;
+ http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content...urcetype=HWCIT

Need more?

No, we are saying that God sets the standards of morality, because He is Creator, not us. Outside of God, why would morality even exist? Yet we know it does, because people instinctively know right from wrong, until their consciences are seared by sin.

See "What is the onus..?" for how we can have morality without God.

Furthermore, your evidence for innate sin is from flawed circular logic.

You are wrong again.

If we all evolved from a soup of mud, what point would there be morality? We'd just do everything we can to survive, to be selfish, and to destroy others so as to reap maximum benefit for ourselves..

Only someone who is ignorant to mankinds altruistic nature would say such a thing.

It is actually an evolutionary gene to be altruistic in humans as it is beneficial for our survival. Think of how we survive as civilizations as opposed to individuals.

See "What is the onus..?" in my signature for further morality without God.

Hitler was an athiest. In fact he was strongly occultic, and there are tons of historical documentaries on this very fact. He had a team of Tibetan monks in his employ in the SS. He initially used the Roman Catholic church to gain control over the populace, but he was no Christian.

Hitler is Confirmed Christian;
+ Historian Bradley F. Smith: "Alois insisted she attend regularly as an expression of his belief that the woman's place was in the kitchen and in church....Happily, Klara really enjoyed attending services and was completely devoted to the faith and teachings of Catholicism, so her husband's requirements worked to her advantage. "Bradley F. Smith: Adolf Hitler: His Family, Childhood and Youth Stanford/California, 1967 p. 42

Furthermore, are you considering that I have already said that not all Atheist are good nor are Christians.

However, Atheist are more often good. As opposed to Christians which are the majority if convicted criminals.

In addition to, a vast majority of those on death row convert to Christianity.

Also, a vast majority of convicted criminals are religious to begin with.

Also, they are not very well educated.

By your reasoning, the state should jail the parents for the crimes of their children because the parents not only made the child, they also taught him. So if your child rebels against you, and abandons you in your old age, it is also your fault? No need to discipline children then.

According to Deuteronomy, you should kill rebellious teens.

You must agree then.

Of course they had political agendas. I'm just refuting your point that aethiests were good people, we have on record in history two good examples of that.

I am good for the sake of being good. What about me?

On the crusades, again it is understandable that you would classify those who perpetrated those things in the name of Christianity as Christians. They are not. They were perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church, who burned at the stake and slaughtered numerous Christian saints in times gone past, as predicted in Revelations that they would. Christ clearly teaches us that no one can justly do such a thing and still claim to be Christian. However, there are many deluded souls that still do that today.

Ohh, right.. okay..

Oh, uhm.. yeah hitley and stalin.. uhh they weren't really aethesits either, they were impoasoeters and uhhh they went too far and out o the morality that aehtsits do. ermm so they dont count.

Don't be stupid. That was the lousiest defense ever and you know it. I do not feel I should point out why because it is like saying, "Nuh uhh".

As I said, we're not judged by our own standards. We're judged by the standards of the One who judges, and it's the only standard that is relevant when we stand trial before Him.

Oh? Do you mean;

- Ti
- Muhammed
- Charles Manson
- Buddha

I am not sure which you are referring to because there are so many Gods to choose from. How did you pick yours again..?

Coincidentally there are numerous interviews of criminals on death row, armed robbers who killed people, serial killers and rapists of children, etc. when interviewed, also thought that they were good people.

Oh.. let us not forget that they are mostly Christian.

And I will respond and say that if one were truly searching, you'd look at and consider evidence from both sides. You are not truly searching when you already have made a conclusion in your heart and mind, as your arguments clearly show. Searching implies curiosity, inquisitiveness, and an openess to consider all points.

Now you want to be curious and inquisitive!

What happened to before? When you said that scientists are not inquisitive and curious?

What happened to the LHC that is exploring the past of the creation of the universe?

What about the fossils that archaeology is discovering and questioning?

+++++++++

Your intellectual dishonesty is only defeated by your insurmountable hypocrisy. Your sanctimonious attitude towards others is epitomized by your circular logic by proving your statements with your own statements and beliefs. You accuse others of being dubious and deceitful and yet you blatantly avoid direct questions, points, and proofs. You deliberately extrapolate comments out of context for the sake of exposing a completely vapid and arbitrary argument that the authors are not making.

You are the testament to hypocrisy.

Better yourself. You may find you can learn a lot if you actually pay attention. Considering you are a hypocrite, all you have to do is what you are saying.

~

Eh, there are many ways to interpret the Bible and still be literal.
Most of the Jewish interpretations are the ones considered to be more scientifically viable.

But yeah, king, not saying there aren't good arguments for your cases, (you have touched/argued on many of them,) BUT you've got to look at the other persons side and try to understand it. And you are opening yourself up to being berated by throwing out words like ignorant, implying agendas, as well as generalizing atheists. I know where you are coming from. I get it. But it would help to know where others come from, too.

Sorry if I'm not as active in this discussion as I have been in similar discussions of the past, this conversation has just gone down a road I'm not that interested in right now.

Also, how do insults add to the argumentation? I don't know, Onus, it comes off as more abrasive than debatable. Kind of detracts from some of your points IMO.

Originally Posted by spockman

Also, how do insults add to the argumentation? I don't know, Onus, it comes off as more abrasive than debatable. Kind of detracts from some of your points IMO.

I realize that usually it is a good idea to be righteous and be the higher road. It is better to display a better behaviour than the one you are opposed to.

Though, in this aspect, I have not gone down that road yet.

What I have said is pretty much proven by him.

Which insults are you talking about?

He is a hypocrite. Look at the thread, I have even shown it. It is abundantly clear how hypocritical he is.

I apologize for being forthcoming. However, I do not feel I have surpassed my breaking point - I will tell you when I do.

Perhaps if you be specific about the insults you are speaking of then I will know if I was in the wrong and apologize or stay steadfast. I know I have said some strong statements, but they have been supported (I did a heck of a lot of referencing for that post to dammit.)

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I realize that usually it is a good idea to be righteous and be the higher road. It is better to display a better behaviour than the one you are opposed to.

Though, in this aspect, I have not gone down that road yet.

What I have said is pretty much proven by him.

Which insults are you talking about?

He is a hypocrite. Look at the thread, I have even shown it. It is abundantly clear how hypocritical he is.

I apologize for being forthcoming. However, I do not feel I have surpassed my breaking point - I will tell you when I do.

Perhaps if you be specific about the insults you are speaking of then I will know if I was in the wrong and apologize or stay steadfast. I know I have said some strong statements, but they have been supported (I did a heck of a lot of referencing for that post to dammit.)

~

I can see why using hypocrite has its place.

Eh, I just don't think words like idiot and such have much of a place.

Originally Posted by spockman

I can see why using hypocrite has its place.

Eh, I just don't think words like idiot and such have much of a place.

I actually never said idiot. But, I think you may be referring to "My God you are dumb."

I honestly believe he is dumb and I have provided evidence that religious people often have lower intelligence quotients.

Disregarding that, I will remove that comment I said anyway as it obviously deviates attention from my actual points.

I should note that I am considering leaving it be with kingerman as it seems he might actually be too hypocritical or intellectually incompetent to discuss with. I do not know him personally, but it is possible that he may have a disability.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I do not know him personally, but it is possible that he may have a disability.

~

I think it's called being a creationist.

Coincidentally there are numerous interviews of criminals on death row, armed robbers who killed people, serial killers and rapists of children, etc. when interviewed, also thought that they were good people.

Strangely enough, most of them seem to believe it was the will of God that commanded them to commit such a crime. Lucky us, we have someone to push our responsibility on! Hoorraaaay!

Kingerman, you already have a rope on your neck and you don't seem to understand it. Maybe you should really have a conversation with your Beloved One, because you are faced with loads on evidence, yet you don't seem to respond to it or register it. Only solution is a serious brain damage, which causes delution or then you are just way too retarded, not able to understand simple sentences.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I think it's called being a creationist.

Look, this is ignorance in itself. It really frustrates me how people assume that just because you believe in a God you haven't considered and analyzed your beliefs as much as anyone else.

Some of the most intelligent people I know are religous/Christain. Some aren't. That's how it goes.

I understand the general atheist mind-sets. I wish most anti-creationists would do the same.

And guys, kingerman is young. I am, too, and so understand as much as anyone here should understand the phase of trying to soldify your opinions. Usually this includes using lots of arguments you have heard used before by people older than yourself. If some of those arguments don't work, well, its part of the learning process, right?

I know lots of people think you should keep quiet until you are totally competent. I don't know about that-"Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people's faces."~RB At the very least, he is looking for reasons and hopefully will learn more stuff along the way and understand how to look at things/himself unbiased. At the most he is putting himself out there even if he gets beaten down. It happens.

Originally Posted by spockman

Look, this is ignorance in itself. It really frustrates me how people assume that just because you believe in a God you haven't considered and analyzed your beliefs as much as anyone else.

I said creationist, not Christian. Although I do think that belief in the bible as the word of god borders on delusional, I generally keep that to myself and focus on creationists. It's because they deny a mountain of evidence to support their beliefs.

I also don't care if his beliefs are well thought out or not. I don't care how long he's held them and I don't care how smart he is. He's stupid enough to be a creationist - he could have an IQ of 195 for all I care and I still wouldn't call him smart.

Originally Posted by spockman

I know lots of people think you should keep quiet until you are totally competent. I don't know about that-"Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people's faces."~RB At the very least, he is looking for reasons and hopefully will learn more stuff along the way and understand how to look at things/himself unbiased. At the most he is putting himself out there even if he gets beaten down. It happens.

I agree with this. Ideas that can't be put on public display are not ideas worth having. But on the other hand, what is the point of putting your ideas out there if not to get feedback on them. When you're just going around saying the same thing repeatedly and not listening to arguments, you deserve to get beat down. He should take it like an adult and change his opinion.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I said creationist, not Christian. Although I do think that belief in the bible as the word of god borders on delusional, I generally keep that to myself and focus on creationists. It's because they deny a mountain of evidence to support their beliefs.

Okay, you are saying non-evolutionary Creationist I assume? Not just creationist in general?

I agree with this. Ideas that can't be put on public display are not ideas worth having. But on the other hand, what is the point of putting your ideas out there if not to get feedback on them. When you're just going around saying the same thing repeatedly and not listening to arguments, you deserve to get beat down. He should take it like an adult and change his opinion.

I'm saying that getting beat down will teach you to look better at yourself eventually.

Originally Posted by spockman

Okay, you are saying non-evolutionary Creationist I assume? Not just creationist in general?

I wasn't aware of any other kind. If they reject evolution by physical means then I'm talking about them. If you believe in a god, it's fine to believe that god has something to do with it in the same sense that you believe that god has something to do with an object falling: It's all just physics. If you want to see god working through physics, I think it's silly but I have no fundamental objection to it.

Originally Posted by spockman

I'm saying that getting beat down will teach you to look better at yourself eventually.

I suppose I think that getting your ideas beat down will persuade you to change them and hence look better at yourself eventually. And if your ideas can't be beat down, then they're fine. This is called science.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Evidence That Humans Have Evolved From Chimpanzee's and More (Science Direct);

1. Are the evidences like the similarities of the skull of a chimpanzee and the skull of a human a heavy proof that we really came from monkeys?
First off, we DEFINITELY did not come from monkeys. If you believe in evolution, shame on you for believing this. Why? It is said that we SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR with monkeys; we did not come from monkeys. And, by the way, a chimpanzee is not a monkey. A chimp is an ape. Anyway, going on, I know that there are estimates of 94%-99% of DNA similarities or so that we share with chimpanzees.


2. Do you think that the theories about monkeys and humans made by him are worth believing?
I believe that scientific fact and the Bible coexist and can be used to explain each other.


3. What are the other evidences that can really prove that we came from monkeys?
Well, once again, we didn't come from monkeys... But if you look at the behavior patterns as well, it's also quite similar. There are things that we share with apes in terms of behavior and structure that hardly any if any animals share. The DNA, skeletal structure, and behavior...


Confused because it seems I took both sides? From the New Testament, we already know that Jesus speaks in parables and doesn't always say directly what he's trying to convey. I also have watched documentaries on such about the connections between the Bible and historical discoveries, as well as scientific facts. I believe that God works through science, or at least, does so sometimes.

Also, I like to think of things this way. Say there's a potter and clay. The potter constructs a clay bowl out of the clay. Did he not then make the bowl? Couldn't God have molded us as well? Aside from that, he also created the clay to be molded and gave life to that clay. From there, he shaped us into who we are.


Last of all, I'm going to say that I really don't know. This is what I believe in right now. If you believe in science and such, I think you still should be open to some doubt on everything anyhow; science is not fact, it's theory that is agreed upon. But theories come and go. Think of the heliocentric theory. And then light -- particle, wave, or both? And quantum mechanics -- if you aren't confused, then you probably haven't truly understood it yet. In which, you don't know the why or the how and such, but you know the results. And, quite frankly, I see results in Christianity.

The Bible, meanwhile, can be thought of in a manner similar to poetry. What does the author truly mean? Which parts are symbolism and which parts truly do occur? In a poem, sometimes it's very difficult to comprehend. Sometimes, only the author can know. And sometimes, you've just got to accept that.

Originally Posted by O'nus

archaeology

http://dejnarde.ms11.net//archa.htm

Originally Posted by O'nus

Homosexuality in Animals;

Only sentient creatures, those capable of differentiating consciously between right and wrong, are capable of sinning. Therefore, humans, and only humans, by virtue of Adam & Eve having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, are capable of sinning. It's really a simple concept if you only bear in mind that sinning is not just a behavior, but an intent.

Originally Posted by O'nus

According to Deuteronomy, you should kill rebellious teens.

Try reading the whole bible instead of just the parts you want to see. Then u will see the truth.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh.. let us not forget that they are mostly Christian.

Just because they claim they are christian,do they actually live a christian life.(Going to church,reading bible,fellowship etc)And by the way just because you said a prayer once in your life does not mean you are going to heaven.

kingerman breaks all the records.


"I/the bible/idiot priest/whatever says so therefore I'm right and you're wrong."

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

kingerman breaks all the records.


"I/the bible/idiot priest/whatever says so therefore I'm right and you're wrong."

No can do I'm sorry if people actually disagree with you!

This is just going way too self-repeating.

Is someone keeping a gun on your head and you are writing these things out of desperation kinger?

Originally Posted by kingerman

[IMG].

In good irony religious people are usually the ones that complain about oppression. Specifically in this thread, neither me nor anyone else talked about oppression, just about you stupidly ignoring points and throwing fallacies all around.

Originally Posted by kingerman

1. Are the evidences like the similarities of the skull of a chimpanzee and the skull of a human a heavy proof that we really came from monkeys?

I have the decency to read your posts, the least you could do is show it back and read mine.

The last time I even said the word monkey was last year in January;
+ http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...&postcount=113

First off, we DEFINITELY did not come from monkeys. If you believe in evolution, shame on you for believing this. Why? It is said that we SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR with monkeys; we did not come from monkeys. And, by the way, a chimpanzee is not a monkey. A chimp is an ape. Anyway, going on, I know that there are estimates of 94%-99% of DNA similarities or so that we share with chimpanzees.

Not only did I already give you evidence that we are descents from Chimps but I also gave DNA evidence for it too.

What evidence will you actually consider? I have given you multiple scientifically peer-reviewed journal articles.

What evidence do you have to see in order to be proven wrong that I have not already provided?

2. Do you think that the theories about monkeys and humans made by him are worth believing?
I believe that scientific fact and the Bible coexist and can be used to explain each other.

Well obviously that is not true because I have given you evidence and you completely ignored it.

What evidence do you have to see in order to be proven wrong that I have not already provided?

3. What are the other evidences that can really prove that we came from monkeys?
Well, once again, we didn't come from monkeys... But if you look at the behavior patterns as well, it's also quite similar. There are things that we share with apes in terms of behavior and structure that hardly any if any animals share. The DNA, skeletal structure, and behavior...

Once again, I never even said the word monkey and have not said it for over a year.

Obviously you are not reading my posts. I have the respect to read yours - I expect the same in return.

What do you call someone who does not show the respect to listen to what you say but forcefully talks to you and demands you acknowledge them?

Last of all, I'm going to say that I really don't know. This is what I believe in right now. If you believe in science and such, I think you still should be open to some doubt on everything anyhow;

Science; the quest of knowledge through experimentation, doubt, and falsification. See my "Scientific Method" link in my sig for further details. This is what science is.

science is not fact, it's theory that is agreed upon.

Tell us how you define fact that is not science.

But theories come and go. Think of the heliocentric theory. And then light -- particle, wave, or both? And quantum mechanics -- if you aren't confused, then you probably haven't truly understood it yet. In which, you don't know the why or the how and such, but you know the results. And, quite frankly, I see results in Christianity.

Are you deliberately ignoring the significant force in opposition to academic inquiry? It was religion that opposed the heliocentric theory and it is religion that is opposed to the majority of all scientific inquiry (surgery, blood transfusions, stem cell research, etc.).

You say you see results in Christianity? Christianity has not done anything for knowledge inquiry other than deter it.

The Bible, meanwhile, can be thought of in a manner similar to poetry. What does the author truly mean? Which parts are symbolism and which parts truly do occur? In a poem, sometimes it's very difficult to comprehend. Sometimes, only the author can know. And sometimes, you've just got to accept that.

You can say the samething about Ovid's metamorphoses but that does not necessitate anything supernaturally truthful about it.

http://dejnarde.ms11.net//archa.htm

You're going to have to be a little specific with this article because it seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

Ovid's metamorphoses has a lot of historical accuracies as well that are proven via archaeology (eg. mountain ranges). Does this mean that the rest of it is true? Of course not.

Only sentient creatures, those capable of differentiating consciously between right and wrong, are capable of sinning.

I just gave you evidence that proves this wrong.

What evidence do you have to see in order to be proven wrong that I have not already provided?

Therefore, humans, and only humans, by virtue of Adam & Eve

There was no Adam and Eve.

What evidence do you have to see in order to be proven wrong that I have not already provided?

having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, are capable of sinning. It's really a simple concept if you only bear in mind that sinning is not just a behavior, but an intent.


Try reading the whole bible instead of just the parts you want to see. Then u will see the truth.

You completely miss the point. Pay attention.

If you accept one part of the book, you have to accept all parts of the book.

Have I not demonstrated to you that I have read the whole bible?

What evidence do you have to see in order to be proven wrong that I have not already provided?

Just because they claim they are christian,do they actually live a christian life.(Going to church,reading bible,fellowship etc)And by the way just because you said a prayer once in your life does not mean you are going to heaven.

Oh whatever, here's the "they don't count" response again. You can do better than this. At least Atheists admit that there are Atheists who are assholes. Why is it that Christians constantly say, "Oh they don't count, they're not really Christian" but then hypocritically point out "evil" Atheists? Is there a better definition of hypocrite?

What evidence do you have to see in order to be proven wrong that I have not already provided?

Atheists. You are not oppressed. STFU already

You honestly believe that a minority group in North America and in many other parts of the world are not oppressed? Are you really that blind to the world?

I should note though that, in the academic world, I have not a single shred of opposition yet.

What evidence do you have to see in order to be proven wrong that I have not already provided?

~