The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[KevanG]

[YT]_04S0fYU7FI[/YT]

Here.

 

[jaymes_e06]

I liked your post rodhulk it is very thoughtful and insightful. Though I do no believe in everything from the Bible believe it was divinely inspired. Hopefully people won't quickly dismiss your argument.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I liked your post rodhulk it is very thoughtful and insightful. Though I do no believe in everything from the Bible believe it was divinely inspired. Hopefully people won't quickly dismiss your argument.

Rather hard not to, if I'm being honest.

 

[rodhulk]

Sorry if this has been posted in the last page or two already, didn't catch it in my initial perusal, but is there an easy link to that Nye/Ham debate? Would love to watch that.



Sorry, just had to point out how silly this assertion is. So you can "know" something by looking at how something "may actually be" something based on a loose (and I use the word "loose" loosely) correlation without a single direct bit of evidence linking the two together. You're basically saying "if you squint really hard it kind of looks like this.... PROOF!"

That's your opinion. The relation between the Bibles words about the heavens (or universe) and the big bang are very identical and too much for me to ignore.

 

[Doctor Evo]

What a cop-out in the face of all the holes in evolution's theocratic assertions

Which are...?

 

[MrsKent26]

I'm not an atheist "basher," but then again, I do NOT base my beliefs on the presuppositions of Ken Ham. Hey, he's a nice guy, but Ken is woefully lacking when it comes to empirical Reasons to Believe in the Messiah.

I see his "arguments" as the thesis and the atheist's arguments as the antithesis. Both are subjectuive at best, but it seems that Ken's insistence that his biblical presuppositions are the end all for the unbeliever is lacking when it comes to both logic and reason.

Although he was the epitome of a gentleman during the "debate," Bill Nye failed miserably as far as his presentation of the Science and or scientific facts to buttress his beliefs in evolution and an extremely LONG time line for the age of the earth or universe, but you know what, Ken Ham also failed just as miserably as far as the Christian perspective.

As for me, I am sick of people asserting that the Bible can't be proven empirically. What a cop-out in the face of all the holes in evolution's theocratic assertions.

Not trying to start a thread war, just saying that Ken Ham is not my voice, speaker, or advocate of choice as far as relating Biblical truths to unbelievers are concerned.

I don't know about others, but I have never taken offense to anything said when someone is behaving like an "atheist basher." Not once in my life. To me, religion is make believe. Any debates I have about it are simply for conversation and to attempt to understand why others believe what they believe. I don't worry too much about "winning" these debates because, to me, the winner is already apparent. My mind won't ever change. I would never be offended when someone bashes me for not believing in something I consider akin to a fantasy tale. My mind will not go there and if people want to bash me for it...I am unconcerned. This isn't intended to offend anyone; it's just how I feel.

 

[Doctor Evo]

With Doctor Evo, I tried with him too, but he turned it sour and now makes it like I'm the bad guy.

I did no such thing, and I was planning on leaving this alone, but I really can't now.

I attempted to address your original comment, but you failed to recognize the attempt. When I responded to another one of your posts - a completely separate post, making a completely separate point - you used that as a basis upon which to discontinue the entire conversation.

I even went so far as to re-address your previous post in the most explicit manner possible.

I don't know why you have such a problem with discussing multiple subjects simultaneously (it seems to be common practice on message boards), but your objection was childish at best, and indicates not indignation at some imagined breach of etiquette, but an unwillingness to engage in intellectually honest discourse. It was quite obvious that you were ill-prepared to answer the questions I was asking.

This doesn't make you a bad guy, but to pretend that I was guilty of any sort of foul in this matter is entirely dishonest.

 

[Doctor Evo]

God created things so they can reproduce "after their kinds" as per Genesis 1:24. I believe this refers to the variation within natural kinds, roughly what biologists refer to families, and that this has happened, allowing for great diversification since the flood and ark. I believe this is the limit to what we see in evolution and so the common ancestor does not exist. Evolutionists will disagree that this is the limit to what evolution brings forth, but check the links further on down or simply google it and check some creationists answers to the question since you'll probably get enough evolutionists giving their details to back up their position.

Two problems immediately come to mind here:

1) There needs to be a mechanistic explanation for the upper taxonomic limit preventing continued divergence. Once genetic exchange is effectively reduced to zero (see: speciation), there is no reason that further divergence should be limited.

2) "Families," and indeed ANY taxonomic level under the Linnaean system of classification (beyond the level of species), are almost entirely arbitrary. They are not based on any sort of biological reality and are largely a tool of convenience. The designation of "kinds" is at least equally arbitrary.

 

[regwec]

I liked your post rodhulk it is very thoughtful and insightful.

I don't know about others, but I have never taken offense to anything said when someone is behaving like an "atheist basher." Not once in my life. To me, religion is make believe. Any debates I have about it are simply for conversation and to attempt to understand why others believe what they believe. I don't worry too much about "winning" these debates because, to me, the winner is already apparent. My mind won't ever change. I would never be offended when someone bashes me for not believing in something I consider akin to a fantasy tale. My mind will not go there and if people want to bash me for it...I am unconcerned. This isn't intended to offend anyone; it's just how I feel.

That's exactly how I feel, too. In addition, I tend to feel genuinely sorry for people who have devoted their lives to such fantasy. It seems particularly cruel when you reflect that we live in the free world in the post Enlightenment age, where there is no obligation to bend the knee to anybody's imaginary supernatural being.

But, that's their right.

 

[The End]

For those who are open and seeking the truth, the Bible does hold up to the tests that are brought to it. After a few words to begin, I've copied and pasted a post that shows a lot of evidence that I believe leads to the truth.

You can know that (perhaps from Romans 1:20, that what has been clearly made gives man no excuse to not believe):

Is that the sort of thing you find compelling, out of curiosity? Well, it says right here in the book that we're without excuse!

God did indeed spread out the heavens as per Isaiah 40:22. You can see that the big bang may actually be an act of God.

The EXACT same passage has been used to support the idea that the Earth is flat.

40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

That aside, its a grave mistake to try to find scientific facts in poetic metaphors.

40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things [the stars], that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

But stars DO die. So you have to reinterpret the poetic metaphor so it means something else.

God created things so they can reproduce "after their kinds" as per Genesis 1:24. I believe this refers to the variation within natural kinds, roughly what biologists refer to families, and that this has happened, allowing for great diversification since the flood and ark. I believe this is the limit to what we see in evolution and so the common ancestor does not exist.

Okay, this is the problem.

You title your post with phrases like, "for the seeker of truth", and that sort of thing. Do you consider yourself a seeker of truth? Because, what you've said here is directly contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the other apes have 24. Human chromosome 2 is a fused chromosome from chimp chromosomes. It's a telemere to telemere fusion, the centromeres show that they are from chimp chromosomes. This is overwhelming evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/pdf/pnas01070-0197.pdf
http://vega.sanger.ac.uk/Homo_sapie...ion=AC009336.13.1.175667;t=OTTHUMT00000359252

This was brought up in a trial against 'intelligent design' proponents.

Scientist and christian Ken Miller explains how that went.

[YT]zi8FfMBYCkk[/YT]

If someone wants to say "god just did it that way" to reject the common ancestor, they're inventing a much more complex explanation, than the natural explanation. See Occam's Razor.

So you see, if you want to interpret Genesis literally, Genesis is WRONG, it does not hold up to reality, the genuine and honest seeker of truth has to reject the Genesis account.

Evolutionists will disagree that this is the limit to what evolution brings forth, but check the links further on down or simply google it and check some creationists answers to the question since you'll probably get enough evolutionists giving their details to back up their position.

Doesn't matter. Flat earthers give detailed explanations for their position.

http://www.tfes.org/

People that believe Earth to be the centre of all celestial bodies, give detailed explanations for their position.

http://galileowaswrong.com/

They can dress up their positions with scientific jargon. They even believe that they have biblical support for their positions.

But they, like creationists, do not publish anything for review in scientific journals! The creationists do no experiments, they do no tests, they do not put forward claims with testable definitions or methods of falsification.

Here's another thing. Creationists, at least the professional ones, they lie. They have to, out of necessity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/more-lying-creationists/

They frequently lie. They frequently 'quote mine'.

Whenever I've brought up human chromosome 2, sometimes a creationist has copy/pasted an article from AIG. It's interesting just to actually read it, and look at the sources, because what you find is that they'll use sources that support evolution, and they're just quote mining the bits that they think can be twisted to support their position, outside of the quote's context. It's a trick to sort of say, "look, we're using scientific sources", but its inherently dishonest to use a source to back up your position when that source does not come to the same conclusion.

That's what they do. And they rely on their followers to not check.

Psalm 104:6-9 tells us through various translations that "mountains rose".... and that the flood waters would never flood the earth again, hence why we know that there is not enough water to flood over everything - which adds a little extra food for thought on God's amazing revelations in the Bible. How would the writer have known this back then, that there isn't enough water to flood over the whole earth, if it wasn't for God?). And this "mountains rose" is exactly what is taught by scientists/evolutionists to answer why some sea life fossils are found on mountain tops. Of course the timeline would probably be vastly different between the Bible's account and evolution's account, but the Bible has got this teaching correct.

Psalm 105:5 supports the geocentrists (Earth is stationary therefore doesn't orbit the sun).

There is no evidence that there was ever a global flood. So again, you have a conflict between reality and the passages you're referring to. The passages don't say there isn't enough water, it just says it won't happen. The passage can just be written by a person that thinks god favors the human race and won't kill everybody off again like he did in the flood. There's nothing amazing in that. And even if this person believed there wasn't enough water to flood the Earth, wouldn't that just be a simple observation, albeit from their limited perspective? Again, not amazing.

Familiarize yourself with the sort of fallacious thinking that leads a person to think "a person could only have known this if god (the most powerful being in all of existence) revealed it to them". This is a sort of Argument from Ignorance. Could there be other, more likely explanations?

The Bible is full of amazing evidence that it's words are true and I hope you can see the beauty of it. If you're searching for the truth, I believe the Bible teaches it. Amen. The copied/pasted link is below:

Quite honestly, I find it very shallow, particularly when people try to draw scientific truths from it. I find the things that we know about the universe and where we come from through science to be so much more fulfilling. Watch Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, some time.

For the seeker of truth:

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Psalm 14:1: "The fool says in his heart, "there is no God.""

Psalm 10:4 "In his pride the wicked man does not seek him in all his thoughts, there is no room for God."

Okay, let's play a hypothetical game.

Imagine a cult.

Imagine the sort of dogma a cult would have.

Wouldn't you design the dogma at the outset, to contain a narrative that says the people that don't follow the cult are fools? Wouldn't the dogma say that people that don't follow the cult are wicked? Wouldn't be in the best interest of the cult, to prevent members from questioning and leaving the cult, to say these sorts of things?

Also, that god's qualities are invisible and yet his nature can be seen, that's a contradiction, and its an excuse to ignore the distinct absence of god.

As has been presented over the last couple of pages in this thread, one can see these scriptures "come to life" quite clearly by many in this thread. God has revealed things that show that his divine qualities are seen, but you need to look openly (and if you are an evolutionist, get out of the evolution box) and look at the world around you.

I'll "get out of the evolution box" when there is evidence that evolution is somehow wrong, and not before.

Israel is a skeptics worst nightmare. The fulfilled prophecies with that nation cannot be overlooked. If one overlooks Israel, then I would think that especially Romans 1:20 and Psalm 10:4 rings true for them. Israel is for real and she is of God.

If Israel is of god, a militaristic nation that's been brutalizing Palestinians for generations, I want nothing to do with god. And in regards to the prophecies around Israel, these are usually quite shallow, and like much of the bible there are contradictions, and things that don't match with reality.

Ezekiel 28:24 And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD. (28:24-26)
Ezekiel prophesies that Israel will reside in its homeland safely and securely, never again to fight neighboring nations.
(28:24) "There shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD."

(28:26) "And they shall dwell safely therein ... yea, they shall dwell with confidence."


It hasn't worked out that way at all.

34:28 And they shall no more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beast of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid.

It hasn't worked out that way for Israel.

Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

David had been dead for 400 years.

You could go on all day, man, pointing out these contradictions and falsehoods.

Ya kind of have to pick and choose, when it comes to the bible, and dishonestly ignore the things that don't match up.

In regards to the rapture, you know how many people have believed we're in the end times, and for how long, and believing they've had biblical support? Goes all the way back to the times of Jesus. 2000 years later, still hasn't happened yet. It bothers me that there's people horny for the end of the world. They want it to happen. Such people are dangerous, as if they ever had any measure of power they could drive a self-fulfilling prophecy. Beware of the confirmation bias that allows people to reinterpret poetic metaphors of the bible to support "the end is nigh!!!", they've literally been doing it for centuries.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting..."

Oh, if the BIBLE says that its good for teaching then it must be so.

The mental backflips that someone has to do, to convince themselves the bible has no contradictions and has no errors, its too much, if someone is actually familiar with the bible and wants to claim that then they are too far gone.

Let's take an example that AIG tries to find excuses for.

This seems to come into conflict with the concept of an all-loving god.

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. (Joshua 6:21)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/10/27/contradictions-slaughter-at-jericho

AIG summary: They had it coming.

No, seriously, they had it coming. They were idolaters, sodamites, engaged in beastiality, sorcery, and child sacrifice. Child sacrifice, in particular, is awful. But you're seriously telling me, that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful god can't think of a better resolution than to command the wholesale slaughter of everyone? Young and old?! You're expected to suspend too much disbelief to swallow that crap. You have to sacrifice your brain, your ability to reason and think, to swallow this barbaric, archaic nonsense. It's so much more likely that these are just stories told by a primitive people in the desert. That people have to do these sorts of mental backflips to hold onto their literal interpretation is a grave sign of how badly they've been indoctrinated.

There are some good creation websites you can visit to learn more about why the creation model of how life came to be does indeed stand up with evolution. Remember, evolution is not the only door that answers the question on how we are here today. Since everybody is responsible for themselves, I invite you to check these out and be open to the truth the Bible presents. And be open to God who does give us reasons to believe in him. I ask you to taste the goodness of God, and he will lead down the correct path. The correct path is found in Jesus. Jesus saves!

http://www.icr.org/

www.answersingenesis.com

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

http://www.pnas.org/

 

[regwec]

British Prime Minister does God.

This is a rare occurrence over here, and probably reflects a desire to appease a Christian minority that may have been alienated by the recent legalization of same-sex marriage.

In general, I think politicians should keep their beliefs to themselves, but I do agree with what he says about freedom of conscience being an important right that should be protected.

 

[squeekness]

Interesting, thanks. It's heartening to see someone who is able to identify the fact that the effusion of time may have led to some parts of the book being less useful or meaningful than they once might have been.

May I ask whether you consider the various miracles described in the text to be factual, or metaphorical, or otherwise "literary"?

Well, I wasn't there when they happened so I cannot say with 100% accuracy that they did, lol. But I want to believe they did, especially the Jesus healings. The way I see it if God is capable of coming down to us as a human then why would it be so impossible for him to walk on water? I would think the harder thing would be NOT using you power all the time and getting carried away.

It was CLEARLY a bazillion years ago. Oh woe to you crazy religious nuts.

Sorry, I forgot to consult my latest National Geographic hee hee.. I know they gave a number in there somewhere....

 

[childeroland]

Survey finds Americans more skeptical of the Bible

A new poll finds a sharp increase in the number of Americans who consider the Bible merely the teachings of men rather than the word of God.

The fourth annual State of the Bible survey was conducted just over two months ago by the Barna Group for the American Bible Society.

It found that while about one in five Americans continues to read the Bible at least four times a week and view it as divinely inspired, an equal percentage doubt the Bible's relevance and authority. That's almost twice the percentage of those who were skeptical of the Bible in 2011.

The survey found the greatest increase in indifference toward the Bible was among Americans between the ages of 18 and 29.

Spokesman Geof Morin said the American Bible Society hopes to reach more of that generation through their cellphones with daily verses and Bible studies.

Society President Roy Peterson said he hopes more Americans will turn to the Bible to "make sense of life" and reverse what many see as the nation's "moral decline."

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Good, we're actually moving forward as a society.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The survey found the greatest increase in indifference toward the Bible was among Americans between the ages of 18 and 29.

The Millennial Generation.

 

[regwec]

I think texting verses to the kids is the wrong approach. Despite being an atheist (as one or two of you may have noticed), I quite like looking at a big, hefty KJV. I think the appeal is in its archaic language, and in its status as a kind of relic of a former time. Flashed up on a cellphone, it just becomes like any other spam.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Sorry DE, I am not blowing up a perfectly good atheism thread to argue tit-for-tat the tenets of the Biblical account of creation versus the tenets of the big bang theory's account of creation. Suffice to say, if I were an atheist today, I would simply treat the Biblical assertions as a theory, and then compare them versus the big bang theory's assertions. As an atheist, one could then give each individual theory the scientific scrutiny they deserve and let the chips fall where they may.

No please. We atheists love tit-for-tats.

Biblical assertions aren't theory. Evolution is a theory. Remember in science, the word theory doesn't mean a hunch, or a baseless claim.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think texting verses to the kids is the wrong approach. Despite being an atheist (as one or two of you may have noticed), I quite like looking at a big, hefty KJV. I think the appeal is in its archaic language, and in its status as a kind of relic of a former time. Flashed up on a cellphone, it just becomes like any other spam.

I forget who said it, it might have been Hitchens, but translating the Bible to English may have been the worst decision Christians ever made. It completely demystifies it.

 

[regwec]

You're right, and the story of the translation of the bible into English is quite remarkable, as is the poetry of the early-modern English used in the KJV. The Vulgate version was full of inaccuracies, anyway, not that it really matters.

 

[SV Fan]

I forget who said it, it might have been Hitchens, but translating the Bible to English may have been the worst decision Christians ever made. It completely demystifies it.

Why do you think the RC Church burned you at the stake if you owned a even a page from the bible.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Sorry DE, I am not blowing up a perfectly good atheism thread to argue tit-for-tat the tenets of the Biblical account of creation versus the tenets of the big bang theory's account of creation. Suffice to say, if I were an atheist today, I would simply treat the Biblical assertions as a theory, and then compare them versus the big bang theory's assertions. As an atheist, one could then give each individual theory the scientific scrutiny they deserve and let the chips fall where they may.

Evolution is a wholly separate issue from the big bang from a scientific perspective. Secondly, the Biblical account of creation isn't a theory - at least not a scientific theory. To use that word to describe both the accounts offered in Genesis and the explanations offered by the Big Bang theory is misleading.

Finally...why not argue these points? That's what this thread is for. Such exchanges are welcomed and encouraged.

This is beginning to look like my exchange with rodhulk all over again...

 

[Marvolo]

Well to be fair, I doubt Marvolo calls them brainwashed to their face.

I try to politely remind them that they only believe what they believe because they were born into it, and had they been born in say, Indonesia, they would be faithful Muslims. I've actually gotten a number to concede that point.

Exactly. I dont call them brainwashed or indoctrinated. Im not that mean. I just point out what you have pointed out. If they were raised muslim they'd be muslim. Or hindu. Or buddhist. Or catholic. Etc. etc. Its a form of indoctrination no matter how you spin it. If you have to drill it into children to make it stick then there is a problem there. But its also a cultural thing, and I do believe culture should be allowed to spread so it brings me back to a conundrum. Indoctrination should be stopped, but culture should be preserved and allowed to flourish. There just isnt an easy answer to solvig the problems in religion.

One solution is to recognize that you dont have to believe 100% of bible and the dogma to be a part of your culture's religion. Religion should be about culture and community. Not making laws and telling people they will burn in hell if they dont do exactly what someone tells them to. Dont teach kids to believe or burn in hell. I think Baptists can be pretty nutty and I dont agree with them on a number of things. But I was raised Baptist and its a big part of my family and local culture so I do enjoy being a part of that community. Thats what religion should be about. Community and culture.

 

[Hobgoblin]

So the Louisiana state legislature wants to make the Bible the official state book. Anyone know if a state can do that? I'm sure the federal government couldnt declare it to be the national book.

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/st...26e69567b2/LA--State-Book-Bible/#.U0cBa4XABix

 

[Marvolo]

So the Louisiana state legislature wants to make the Bible the official state book. Anyone know if a state can do that? I'm sure the federal government couldnt declare it to be the national book.

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/st...26e69567b2/LA--State-Book-Bible/#.U0cBa4XABix

I honetly dont mind this as long as they dont try to make legislature based on it and shove it down everyone's throat. Its an important book in human history. Probably the most important. Having it as a state book isnt a bad thing. It just depends on what the political agenda is.

On another note, Ive been reading the Quran. Specifically the Oxford World Classics english version. Its interesting to say the least. Im on Sura 40 Ghafir (The Forgiver).

 

[KevanG]

The bible belt has it's own ideas on everything and will do it anyway just because then spend the next twenty years avoiding having to change anything back.

Is that the sort of thing you find compelling, out of curiosity? Well, it says right here in the book that we're without excuse!

Spoiler

The EXACT same passage has been used to support the idea that the Earth is flat.

40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

That aside, its a grave mistake to try to find scientific facts in poetic metaphors.

40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things [the stars], that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

But stars DO die. So you have to reinterpret the poetic metaphor so it means something else.




Okay, this is the problem.

You title your post with phrases like, "for the seeker of truth", and that sort of thing. Do you consider yourself a seeker of truth? Because, what you've said here is directly contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the other apes have 24. Human chromosome 2 is a fused chromosome from chimp chromosomes. It's a telemere to telemere fusion, the centromeres show that they are from chimp chromosomes. This is overwhelming evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/pdf/pnas01070-0197.pdf
http://vega.sanger.ac.uk/Homo_sapie...ion=AC009336.13.1.175667;t=OTTHUMT00000359252

This was brought up in a trial against 'intelligent design' proponents.

Scientist and christian Ken Miller explains how that went.

[YT]zi8FfMBYCkk[/YT]

If someone wants to say "god just did it that way" to reject the common ancestor, they're inventing a much more complex explanation, than the natural explanation. See Occam's Razor.

So you see, if you want to interpret Genesis literally, Genesis is WRONG, it does not hold up to reality, the genuine and honest seeker of truth has to reject the Genesis account.





Doesn't matter. Flat earthers give detailed explanations for their position.

http://www.tfes.org/

People that believe Earth to be the centre of all celestial bodies, give detailed explanations for their position.

http://galileowaswrong.com/

They can dress up their positions with scientific jargon. They even believe that they have biblical support for their positions.

But they, like creationists, do not publish anything for review in scientific journals! The creationists do no experiments, they do no tests, they do not put forward claims with testable definitions or methods of falsification.

Here's another thing. Creationists, at least the professional ones, they lie. They have to, out of necessity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/more-lying-creationists/

They frequently lie. They frequently 'quote mine'.

Whenever I've brought up human chromosome 2, sometimes a creationist has copy/pasted an article from AIG. It's interesting just to actually read it, and look at the sources, because what you find is that they'll use sources that support evolution, and they're just quote mining the bits that they think can be twisted to support their position, outside of the quote's context. It's a trick to sort of say, "look, we're using scientific sources", but its inherently dishonest to use a source to back up your position when that source does not come to the same conclusion.

That's what they do. And they rely on their followers to not check.



Psalm 105:5 supports the geocentrists (Earth is stationary therefore doesn't orbit the sun).

There is no evidence that there was ever a global flood. So again, you have a conflict between reality and the passages you're referring to. The passages don't say there isn't enough water, it just says it won't happen. The passage can just be written by a person that thinks god favors the human race and won't kill everybody off again like he did in the flood. There's nothing amazing in that. And even if this person believed there wasn't enough water to flood the Earth, wouldn't that just be a simple observation, albeit from their limited perspective? Again, not amazing.

Familiarize yourself with the sort of fallacious thinking that leads a person to think "a person could only have known this if god (the most powerful being in all of existence) revealed it to them". This is a sort of Argument from Ignorance. Could there be other, more likely explanations?




Quite honestly, I find it very shallow, particularly when people try to draw scientific truths from it. I find the things that we know about the universe and where we come from through science to be so much more fulfilling. Watch Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, some time.






Okay, let's play a hypothetical game.

Imagine a cult.

Imagine the sort of dogma a cult would have.

Wouldn't you design the dogma at the outset, to contain a narrative that says the people that don't follow the cult are fools? Wouldn't the dogma say that people that don't follow the cult are wicked? Wouldn't be in the best interest of the cult, to prevent members from questioning and leaving the cult, to say these sorts of things?

Also, that god's qualities are invisible and yet his nature can be seen, that's a contradiction, and its an excuse to ignore the distinct absence of god.



I'll "get out of the evolution box" when there is evidence that evolution is somehow wrong, and not before.



If Israel is of god, a militaristic nation that's been brutalizing Palestinians for generations, I want nothing to do with god. And in regards to the prophecies around Israel, these are usually quite shallow, and like much of the bible there are contradictions, and things that don't match with reality.

Ezekiel 28:24 And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD. (28:24-26)
Ezekiel prophesies that Israel will reside in its homeland safely and securely, never again to fight neighboring nations.
(28:24) "There shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD."

(28:26) "And they shall dwell safely therein ... yea, they shall dwell with confidence."


It hasn't worked out that way at all.

34:28 And they shall no more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beast of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid.

It hasn't worked out that way for Israel.

Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

David had been dead for 400 years.

You could go on all day, man, pointing out these contradictions and falsehoods.

Ya kind of have to pick and choose, when it comes to the bible, and dishonestly ignore the things that don't match up.

In regards to the rapture, you know how many people have believed we're in the end times, and for how long, and believing they've had biblical support? Goes all the way back to the times of Jesus. 2000 years later, still hasn't happened yet. It bothers me that there's people horny for the end of the world. They want it to happen. Such people are dangerous, as if they ever had any measure of power they could drive a self-fulfilling prophecy. Beware of the confirmation bias that allows people to reinterpret poetic metaphors of the bible to support "the end is nigh!!!", they've literally been doing it for centuries.



Oh, if the BIBLE says that its good for teaching then it must be so.

The mental backflips that someone has to do, to convince themselves the bible has no contradictions and has no errors, its too much, if someone is actually familiar with the bible and wants to claim that then they are too far gone.

Let's take an example that AIG tries to find excuses for.

This seems to come into conflict with the concept of an all-loving god.

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. (Joshua 6:21)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/10/27/contradictions-slaughter-at-jericho

AIG summary: They had it coming.

No, seriously, they had it coming. They were idolaters, sodamites, engaged in beastiality, sorcery, and child sacrifice. Child sacrifice, in particular, is awful. But you're seriously telling me, that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful god can't think of a better resolution than to command the wholesale slaughter of everyone? Young and old?! You're expected to suspend too much disbelief to swallow that crap. You have to sacrifice your brain, your ability to reason and think, to swallow this barbaric, archaic nonsense. It's so much more likely that these are just stories told by a primitive people in the desert. That people have to do these sorts of mental backflips to hold onto their literal interpretation is a grave sign of how badly they've been indoctrinated.



http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

http://www.pnas.org/

The mic has been dropped.