A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(19-06-2014 04:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  As far as being slaves, a man is a slave to whatever he serves, honors, and obeys. We are all slaves to something or someone, for we all serve something or someone.

Not those with healthy well-rounded personalities. You clearly have an addictive personality, and have traded one addiction/obsession for another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addictive_personality


(19-06-2014 04:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am a slave. I am a bondservant of Christ Jesus.

Kinky.

(19-06-2014 04:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have traded a cruel taskmaster for the Lover of My Soul who inspires me to love with the love He has placed within me.

Kinkier yet. Blush

I knew I guessed right. Religion for you is a replacement addiction. Hope it serves you well. Maybe some day you'll actually be able to grow up. Thumbsup

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-06-2014, 09:50 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(19-06-2014 04:35 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The Bible does stand on its own merits.

[Image: colin-farrell.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
19-06-2014, 09:55 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(19-06-2014 04:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:14 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Seriously man.. Who the fuck are you trying to convince here?

I find what I do here rewarding and fulfilling. I would find it thus even if no one here ever agreed with anything I said.

I am not here to convince the dogmatic irreligious of anything. Such people's minds are already made up.

[Image: Scarecrow.jpg]


Quote:
(19-06-2014 08:14 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Tossing around your ridiculous fantasies hoping they will convince your intellectual superiors?

Saying the Bible is comprised of ridiculous fantasies no more makes it so than me saying God is real makes Him so.[quote]

What makes it so, is the fact that it's comprised of ridiculous fantasies.

[quote]
And in view of the abundance of ad hominem attacks and lack of engagement with my arguments,

The lack of engagement is YOURS, which is why you get beat up.



Quote: I would not say that those here who resort to such means are my intellectual superiors.

It's your Dunning-Krueger kicking in.


Quote:
(19-06-2014 08:14 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  You probably came here thinking "I'll show those stupid atheists."

Not at all. I do not think anyone here is "stupid" at all.


But you think you are smarter than everyone else here, when in fact your can't think your way out of your own ass.


Quote:
(19-06-2014 08:14 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  You might think we are hopeless and without purpose and that you can herd us into a flock but you'll find no slaves here.

I think no one here is hopeless or without purpose either. Nor do I think I can herd you into a flock.

As far as being slaves, a man is a slave to whatever he serves, honors, and obeys. We are all slaves to something or someone, for we all serve something or someone.

You speak for yourself only.


Quote:
(19-06-2014 08:14 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Or is it you that needs convincing? Are you here because deep down you are aware that you are a slave, property of antiquated ideal? Perhaps you desire freedom? If this is the case you have come to the right place...

I am a slave. I am a bondservant of Christ Jesus. I have traded a cruel taskmaster for the Lover of My Soul who inspires me to love with the love He has placed within me.

You're a looney.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
19-06-2014, 10:08 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(19-06-2014 05:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 12:43 PM)Impulse Wrote:  If your omnipotent gawd had wanted to communicate something to us either directly or through inspired works, this thread wouldn't exist because every one of us would already understand gawd's meaning. An omnipotent being wouldn't fail. That's all that really matters so your thread is moot.

Your argument assumes that everyone here would already understand what it is that God is trying to communicate to them.

What reason do you have for asserting this? At what age would humans understand what God was trying to communicate to them?

Your mythical omnipotent fairy tale monster would be able to figure it out by virtue of its omnipotence.


Quote:You also assume that because some here claim to not be privy to this knowledge, that therefore they never will.

Why assume this?

If your mythical fairy tale monster were omnipotent, its wishes would be hard-wired in our brains.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
19-06-2014, 11:01 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(18-06-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Buddy Christ briefly mentions plants being created before light/photosynthesis, light being created before the sun and alluded that these somehow indicated contradictions. Instead of addressing a strawman, I will allow him to formulate an argument for me to interact with that demonstrates that the Genesis account indeed tells us that plants were created before light and that light was created before the sun and that this constitutes a contradiction.

The bible claims creation of light, plants, and the sun in that order. One contradiction lies in the impossibility of light without the sun, or other stars. There are no other light sources in space and the thermonuclear fusion that causes them to shine is contingent on their existence. We must have stars and light together, or neither.

(18-06-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Secondly, since Buddy was wrong about the moon not being a light, then his argument that God's omnipotence/omniscience seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written which itself was based on his erroneous understanding of the term "מָאוֹר" is, as it stands, groundless.

The moon is not a light source and is never referred to in a way that implies it. Mirrors reflect lights, but no one refers to them as lights themselves. Buddy was exactly right and you are very much wrong.

The writers of the bible were ignorant of stars, what they actually are, and how they emit light. The best explanation at the time in which they wrote down their myths was that their creator god must have created them to shine as seen from Earth. They were likewise ignorant of the moon's status as a mere reflector of the sun's light. When the moon shone, they were bathed in a pale light. What person wouldn't assume the moon is a light source if merely observing it with their own eyes? Both errors are consistent with the time period in which the bible was written and they both support Buddy's point that the scriptures are limited in scope.

Obvious and understandable mistakes in a supposedly infallible book are easily and painlessly explained unless you have a vested interest in insisting on their divine truth. It is only when you make the assumption that everything within its pages is absolutely true that the contradictions are so important. They are the most obvious and simple means of pointing out what an untenable hypothesis that is.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

(18-06-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The answer to his question is in the very verse he quoted.

"And God said...."

It does not say: "And the Gods or gods said...."

There is one God.

You clumsily and dishonestly sidestepped the obvious and unavoidable point Buddy made. You have proved to everyone here that you are intelligent enough not to have missed the entire point by accident. Shame on you.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

According to scripture, god had assistance in creating human beings from a being him/herself already in the image of god and at least capable of such creation. It is by no means a stretch to call such a being a "god". That being the case, there can't have been only one god.

(18-06-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Buddy has given us no reason(s) to think that if God were caring, He would have made a world void of the possibility of man being able to exercise his volitional capacities in a manner that was contrary to the revealed will of the One who endowed him with said volitional capacities. The burden is on him to support this assertion.

Anyone who happens to have lived long enough to experience this innate contradiction could easily support Buddy's points. We possess free will, or the ability to make decisions (ironically we have no choice but to have it Wink). Our nature, supposedly granted to us by god, is not always in harmony with said god's commandments. We are "created sick yet commanded to be whole". We possess the ability to ignore god's laws, but according to the gospel, not so forever. Our "free will" becomes a joke the moment you throw in the punishments of hell as a consequence for disobedience.

(18-06-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Here Buddy states that "the world" is "empty" but gives no reason for thinking it so.

He also states that there are only 3 people in existence. Once again, he gives no reason for thinking this is so. In fact, he contradicts himself when he says that there are only 3 people in existence. Now Adam and Eve make 2, Cain would make 3. But if Cain sleeps with his wife then there are at least 4 people in existence, not 3. His wife was obviously a woman who was a descendant of Adam and Eve.

None of this speculation makes any difference because it is based on a mythological tale invented as an explanation for the existence of the world. Dr. Francis Collins, a well known believing Christian and also a very successful physician and geneticist and the head of the famous Human Genome Project, when asked how many human beings would be required to breed our current level of diversity, responded "It would take at least 10,000". He explains this in his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. The Genesis story is just that, a story, and allegory of, as he puts it, of an "a spiritual and moral nature".

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
20-06-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(19-06-2014 07:13 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 05:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Your argument assumes that everyone here would already understand what it is that God is trying to communicate to them.

What reason do you have for asserting this? At what age would humans understand what God was trying to communicate to them?

You also assume that because some here claim to not be privy to this knowledge, that therefore they never will.

Why assume this?

I assert, not assume, only that an omnipotent god could communicate in a way that would be understandable to anyone - which is automatically true by the meaning of omnipotence.

I agree.

God could communicate in a way that would be understandable to anyone.

What is your point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(19-06-2014 07:29 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 04:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I find what I do here rewarding and fulfilling. I would find it thus even if no one here ever agreed with anything I said.

Sounds kind of self serving and selfish there Jeremy. It is all about your ego and nothing else.

To you it would sound that way. And yes I am edified by what I do, but I do not do it for that reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(19-06-2014 07:46 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 02:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...
to say nothing of the TBE (traumatic brain injury) Weeping

Yiah, and et ifficts our spilleng

(19-06-2014 04:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ...
I am not here to convince the dogmatic irreligious of anything. Such people's minds are already made up.

Translation:
Against those who have come to reject theistic claims through logic and reason, passive-aggression is my only weapon.
I am here to prey on the vulnerable.

(19-06-2014 04:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ...
As far as being slaves, a man is a slave to whatever he serves, honors, and obeys. We are all slaves to something or someone, for we all serve something or someone.
...

Speaking as a qualified Expert (with badges and everything) in Service Management, I feel it is my duty to point out the obvious mistake here...

Servant is to service as slave is to slavery.

The former is necessary for a civilised society.
The latter is an indicator of an uncivilised society.


(19-06-2014 04:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am a slave. I am a bondservant of Christ Jesus. I have traded a cruel taskmaster for the Lover of My Soul who inspires me to love with the love He has placed within me.

Shocking

I had a physical reaction to this.

Physical slavery often created a traumatic cognitive dissonance in that the slave was forced to love their object of hate... usually through fear of punishment.

For those of us who are free, it is painful to watch a slave defend their owner's purpose, practices and actions.

Actual slavery has largely been abolished. Abolishing mind-slavery will take longer but will go the same way eventually.

Don't give up the fight, my friends.

Knowledge is the key that will unlock the chains.

Yes

I am free. I am free to choose to serve Christ.

You are not free to choose to serve Him. Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 01:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:46 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Yiah, and et ifficts our spilleng


Translation:
Against those who have come to reject theistic claims through logic and reason, passive-aggression is my only weapon.
I am here to prey on the vulnerable.


Speaking as a qualified Expert (with badges and everything) in Service Management, I feel it is my duty to point out the obvious mistake here...

Servant is to service as slave is to slavery.

The former is necessary for a civilised society.
The latter is an indicator of an uncivilised society.



Shocking

I had a physical reaction to this.

Physical slavery often created a traumatic cognitive dissonance in that the slave was forced to love their object of hate... usually through fear of punishment.

For those of us who are free, it is painful to watch a slave defend their owner's purpose, practices and actions.

Actual slavery has largely been abolished. Abolishing mind-slavery will take longer but will go the same way eventually.

Don't give up the fight, my friends.

Knowledge is the key that will unlock the chains.

Yes

I am free. I am free to choose to serve Christ.

You are not free to choose to serve Him. Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin.

This is purely antagonistic. No reasonable person with an at all comprehensible definition of "sin" can truly believe that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
20-06-2014, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 20-06-2014 04:05 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
Wink RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  One contradiction lies in the impossibility of light without the sun, or other stars. There are no other light sources in space and the thermonuclear fusion that causes them to shine is contingent on their existence. We must have stars and light together, or neither.

This is false for several reasons.

1. The initial expansion of the space-time manifold released all the matter that would comprise the universe. The matter rushing apart consisted of such elementary particles such as negatively charged electrons, positively charged positrons, neutrinos and photons which are produced when an electron's higher orbital falls back to its normal orbit thus releasing a packet of energy from its fall from high energy to normal energy. This is how light is produced and all of this was taking place way before the formation of stars.

2. Steven Weinberg who has a Nobel laureate in physics describes this when he says: "At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence, the temperature of the universe was about a hundred thousands million (10^11) degrees Centigrade. This is much hotter than in the center of even the hottest star...One type of particle that was present in large numbers is the electron, the negatively charged particle that flows through wires in electric currents and makes up the outer parts of all atoms and molecules in the present universe. Another type of particle that was abundant at early times is the positron, a positively charged particle with precisely the same mass as the electron. In the present universe positrons are found only in high-energy laboratories, in some kinds of radioactivity, and in violent astronomical phenomena like cosmic rays and supernovas, but in the early universe the number of positrons was almost exactly equal to the number of electrons. In addition to electrons and positrons, there were roughly similar numbers of various kinds of neutrinos, ghostly particles with no mass or electric charge whatever. Finally, the universe was filled with light. This does not have to be treated separately from the particles - the quantum theory tells us that light consists of particles of zero mass and zero electrical charge known as photons. (Each time an atom in the filament of a light bulb changes from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy, one photon is emitted. There are so many photons coming out of a light bulb that they seem to blend together in a continuous stream of light, but a photoelectric cell can count individual photons, one by one.) Every photon carries a definite amount of energy and momentum depending on the wavelength of the light. To describe the light that filled the early universe, we can say that the number and the average energy of the photons was about the same as for electrons or positrons or neutrinos...The proportions were roughly one proton and one neutron for every thousand million electrons or positrons or neutrinos or photons. This number - a thousand million photons per nuclear particle - is the crucial quantity that had to be taken from observation in order to work out the standard model of the universe. The discovery of the cosmic radiation background discussed in Chapter 3 was in effect a measurement of this number. - Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe; (Basic Books,1988); p 5

3. Speaking of the evidence for this immense light and energy present during the early expansion, Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

So from the above, we see that you are not only mistaken but that Genesis gives us a spot on account of the very early universe that scientists have only recently come to authenticate through empirical observation.

And just think, some ignorant goat-herder knew all of this thousands of years ago.

I wonder how he knew that? BlinkYes

Now you are beginning to see why I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  The moon is not a light source and is never referred to in a way that implies it. Mirrors reflect lights, but no one refers to them as lights themselves. Buddy was exactly right and you are very much wrong.

The moon is a luminary i.e. a celestial body that casts light upon the earth. That is how the word מָאוֹר is used in the Hebrew scriptures in this context. It casts light on the earth which makes it a "light". The scripture never states that the moon is a celestial body that produces light via thermonuclear fusion. If it had said that, you would have a point.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  The writers of the bible were ignorant of stars, what they actually are, and how they emit light. The best explanation at the time in which they wrote down their myths was that their creator god must have created them to shine as seen from Earth. They were likewise ignorant of the moon's status as a mere reflector of the sun's light. When the moon shone, they were bathed in a pale light. What person wouldn't assume the moon is a light source if merely observing it with their own eyes? Both errors are consistent with the time period in which the bible was written and they both support Buddy's point that the scriptures are limited in scope.

Genesis never states that the moon is a source of light in itself. You are guilty of eisegesis, or reading into the text something that is not there. Your argument depends on this. Genesis never states that the moon is a separate source of light or a source of light in itself. It simply says it is a "light". It is a light in that it reflects the light of the Sun which is a star that produces light via thermonuclear fusion. Thus the moon is a luminary or "light". When you walk outside at night and the moon is visible, the moon reflects the light of the sun on your face when you look up at it. Thus the scripture refers to it as "the lesser light" because the light it casts upon objects is less intense and bright than the light of the sun due to it being a reflection.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Obvious and understandable mistakes in a supposedly infallible book are easily and painlessly explained unless you have a vested interest in insisting on their divine truth. It is only when you make the assumption that everything within its pages is absolutely true that the contradictions are so important. They are the most obvious and simple means of pointing out what an untenable hypothesis that is.

Nothing you have said thus far shows the Genesis account is not spot on and accurate in what it records.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  You clumsily and dishonestly sidestepped the obvious and unavoidable point Buddy made. You have proved to everyone here that you are intelligent enough not to have missed the entire point by accident. Shame on you.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

According to scripture, god had assistance in creating human beings from a being him/herself already in the image of god and at least capable of such creation. It is by no means a stretch to call such a being a "god". That being the case, there can't have been only one god.

I guess you are unaware that the doctrine of the trinity is not the doctrine that there are three Gods, but God in three persons? Facepalm

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Anyone who happens to have lived long enough to experience this innate contradiction could easily support Buddy's points. We possess free will, or the ability to make decisions (ironically we have no choice but to have it Wink). Our nature, supposedly granted to us by god, is not always in harmony with said god's commandments. We are "created sick yet commanded to be whole". We possess the ability to ignore god's laws, but according to the gospel, not so forever. Our "free will" becomes a joke the moment you throw in the punishments of hell as a consequence for disobedience.

Adam and Eve were not created sick and commanded to be whole so this is a strawman.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  None of this speculation makes any difference because it is based on a mythological tale invented as an explanation for the existence of the world.

Prove it.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Dr. Francis Collins, a well known believing Christian and also a very successful physician and geneticist and the head of the famous Human Genome Project, when asked how many human beings would be required to breed our current level of diversity, responded "It would take at least 10,000". He explains this in his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. The Genesis story is just that, a story, and allegory of, as he puts it, of an "a spiritual and moral nature".

You mean "an allegory".

This is also a fallacious appeal to authority. For while I will grant that Francis Collins is what we would both agree, a leading geneticist, and authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority, in this particular case is not a reliable argument for establishing facts.

It is clear that Francis Collins assumes certain things that are unproven when utilizing molecular timescales to arrive at the number of 10,000.

Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom points out:

"Evolutionary scientists have shown in mathematical simulations that to achieve the genetic diversity of modern humans the starting initial population would need to be greater than two people. Most estimates put the number around 10,000. However, as discussed previously, these studies are based on assumptions about the past. For evolutionary scientists, this includes assumed evolutionary relationships, assumed mutation rates, and assumed generation times (the time between parents and off-spring does not vary). They are arbitrarily assuming evolutionary processes to try to prove evolutionary processes, which is a fallacy. If the assumptions are wrong, then the mathematical simulations will not give an accurate initial population size necessary to generate today’s human genetic variation." -Georgia Purdom, “Were Adam and Eve Real People,” chapter 20 of How We Know the Bible is True volume 2, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

In fact, far from being in dispute with the Bible, modern genetic discoveries actually support biblical history! This consistency is seen in the fact that the human genome—for all its diversity—actually has far less diversity than would be expected if humanity were really as old as evolutionists claim.

Dr. Purdom explains:

"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).

The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent." - Georgia Purdom, “Were Adam and Eve Real People,” chapter 20 of How We Know the Bible is True volume 2, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine). They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.” - Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, “Genetic Variation, Classification and 
‘Race’,” Nature Genetics 36 (2004):S28–S33.


In light of the above it seems that your responses fail to demonstrate that the Bible is inaccurate in what it records.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: