Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2015, 10:57 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Oh FFS!

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
16-07-2015, 11:13 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
I'm glad you brought that up. This link should answer a lot of those questions in a way that I would explain it. http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 11:21 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 10:56 PM)Grave Wrote:  By saying that God can't exist with sin I may have been misleading on what was meant. God has to tolerate sin to accomplish his purpose with mankind. I'm sorry for it sounding like he literally cannot be if sin exist. I have to remember I'm talking with atheist so I can't say it the way I understand it. Sin (evil) is a direct automatic opposite of good. God declared what was good and therefor anything against that is bad (evil or sin whatever you want to call it) by default. There has to be evil for there to be good. Now, in all of the instances that God is in the presence of sin, it is on earth with Jesus. Jesus was Gods gift to mankind. God was in spirit inside of Jesus and that part of
Jesus which was 100% God had to tolerate sin in order to further his purpose for mankind. That's the love he has for his creation. He was willing to manifest himself in the form of man just so that he could tolerate sin for a short time to fulfill his purpose for mankind. When Jesus died on the cross and he actually took the sins of the world on himself, Gods spirit left the body of the man because he had taken all the sins of mankind on him. That's why Jesus asked, "Father why hast thou forsaken me?" Once the cleansing of sins was complete, he returned to the body and Jesus was resurrected from the grave. He then ascended to heaven. The reason he did it knowing how it would turn out is because he loves us. He has given us this life. It is a gift. He could have just said screw it and not made us because he knew what would happen but then we wouldnt get to experience life freely and he wouldn't receive any gratification. Making robots who are forced to serve him is not what he wanted he wanted a people willing to do so.

I thought god already did say "screw it" once when he did the flood. Remember that heartwarming story? Why not just wipe everything out again out and start over?
Ya'know, for a god he sure can't create for shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
16-07-2015, 11:38 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
He is but he wants to save as much of his creation as he can. His love for us is amazing. He wiped out everyone but one man and his family and then man just reverted back its old ways again. This time he will do away with evil altogether and set up a new heaven and a new earth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 11:40 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 11:38 PM)Grave Wrote:  He is but he wants to save as much of his creation as he can. His love for us is amazing. He wiped out everyone but one man and his family and then man just reverted back its old ways again. This time he will do away with evil altogether and set up a new heaven and a new earth.

When? How?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 12:20 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 10:56 PM)Grave Wrote:  By saying that God can't exist with sin I may have been misleading on what was meant. God has to tolerate sin to accomplish his purpose with mankind. I'm sorry for it sounding like he literally cannot be if sin exist. I have to remember I'm talking with atheist so I can't say it the way I understand it. Sin (evil) is a direct automatic opposite of good. God declared what was good and therefor anything against that is bad (evil or sin whatever you want to call it) by default. There has to be evil for there to be good. Now, in all of the instances that God is in the presence of sin, it is on earth with Jesus. Jesus was Gods gift to mankind. God was in spirit inside of Jesus and that part of
Jesus which was 100% God had to tolerate sin in order to further his purpose for mankind. That's the love he has for his creation. He was willing to manifest himself in the form of man just so that he could tolerate sin for a short time to fulfill his purpose for mankind. When Jesus died on the cross and he actually took the sins of the world on himself, Gods spirit left the body of the man because he had taken all the sins of mankind on him. That's why Jesus asked, "Father why hast thou forsaken me?" Once the cleansing of sins was complete, he returned to the body and Jesus was resurrected from the grave. He then ascended to heaven. The reason he did it knowing how it would turn out is because he loves us. He has given us this life. It is a gift. He could have just said screw it and not made us because he knew what would happen but then we wouldnt get to experience life freely and he wouldn't receive any gratification. Making robots who are forced to serve him is not what he wanted he wanted a people willing to do so.


You're going to need to back-peddle waaaaaaaay faster than that lol, because your non-answers just spawned about 100 more questions. Let's just sample a few.

Quote:God declared what was good and therefor anything against that is bad (evil or sin whatever you want to call it) by default
Then why didn't he let the people he created know what was good and what was evil before it was too late? Why would he keep these people clueless so that he would be tempted/tricked by a talking snake/satan?

There's also this Bible verse: (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)--"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
What do you suppose God was saying here? Did God create evil/sin or did he not?

Quote:The reason he did it knowing how it would turn out is because he loves us.
Really? He knowingly created flawed people who would maim and butchered each other for thousands of years is the action of love? This is reasonable to you?

Quote:When Jesus died on the cross and he actually took the sins of the world on himself, Gods spirit left the body of the man because he had taken all the sins of mankind on him
All the sins? Are you sure? Check history, man. People were killing each other long before, up to, during, immediately after, and long after Jebus's supposed "sacrifice".

What about the sins of the people in China or India? They were sure as the sun sinning long before, at that period, and long after that period as well. Didn't God know that there were people in China and India?

Seems to me all of God's solutions mentioned in the bible were not very well thought out? None of them have worked at all. Wait, let me correct myself, according to the Bible, Gods only solution is killing; hmm let's see drowning, bear, stoning, turning a woman into salt, and burning. Is God simply a very dim fella?

Quote:He could have just said screw it and not made us because he knew what would happen but then we wouldnt get to experience life freely and he wouldn't receive any gratification
You sir just belittled your own god. A god who knowingly creates flawed beings so that they would suffer immeasurably, and this god would find gratification from this horrible situation... A situation that he cannot fix.

None of this really matter though. Until you can prove that a god actually exist, we're simply discussing the actions of a myth. No different than the discussion of "Who is the strongest, Hulk, Thor, or Hercules?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like xieulong's post
17-07-2015, 12:37 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 11:38 PM)Grave Wrote:  He is but he wants to save as much of his creation as he can. His love for us is amazing. He wiped out everyone but one man and his family and then man just reverted back its old ways again. This time he will do away with evil altogether and set up a new heaven and a new earth.

Then what happens if people starts sinning again after this new heaven and earth? What happened to free will? What then, was the point of his supposed "sacrifice" on the cross? Why not get rid of evil back then? What do you mean this time? When? This God guy keep screwing up. I wonder how many time will he hit ctrl+alt+del?

He's going to get rid of all evil this time? Didn't you say earlier that you can't have good with out evil? Is God killing himself permanently, this time?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes xieulong's post
17-07-2015, 02:34 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 11:13 PM)Grave Wrote:  I'm glad you brought that up. This link should answer a lot of those questions in a way that I would explain it. http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html

Oh, goody - a link to a fundamentalist site.

The theology is a made-up, inconsistent, inhuman, cruel, and sadistic pile of crap.

It is sad that you have swallowed those lies and are wasting your life.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
17-07-2015, 02:38 AM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2015 02:51 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 11:13 PM)Grave Wrote:  I'm glad you brought that up. This link should answer a lot of those questions in a way that I would explain it. http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html

For the record, if you hit the "reply" button at the bottom of the post you're responding to, rather than the "reply to thread" button at the bottom of the page, it will automatically quote the forum-goer that you're responding to. This makes it a lot easier for us to figure out who it is that brought up something that you're glad was brought up, and what it is you're glad they brought up. Without that, we're stuck trying to figure out who you're talking to and what you're talking about, and that's rarely easy and sometimes impossible to figure out from context.

.... and oh, gee golly whiz, a link. Nothing says "let's engage in a conversation" quite like a link. Sigh. Okay, fine. I vaguely remember the gotquestions site as being trite, but I might be confusing it with another trite Christian site (there are SO MANY), so I'll give it a (potentially redundant) look. Quoting the site text here for others to reference and under fair use rules (purpose of review and critique). Some formatting may be lost. Full-text quote first, then I'll break it down point by point.

Quote:Question: "With all of the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?"

Answer: There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God. The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well? Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.

This being the case, why should theology—the study of God—be any different? Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions? Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used? First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion. Here is a good framework to use:

1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.

2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus visited North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.

3. Existential relevancy—the belief system should address the big questions of life described below and the teachings should be accurately reflected in the world in which we live. Christianity, for example, provides good answers for the large questions of life, but is sometimes questioned because of its claim of an all-good and powerful God who exists alongside a world filled with very real evil. Critics charge that such a thing violates the criteria of existential relevancy, although many good answers have been given to address the issue.

The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:

1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose for life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?

But how does one go about applying this framework in the pursuit of God? A step-by-step question/answer approach is one of the best tactics to employ. Narrowing the list of possible questions down produces the following:

1. Does absolute truth exist?
2. Do reason and religion mix?
3. Does God exist?
4. Can God be known?
5. Is Jesus God?
6. Does God care about me?

First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not), and we end up either an agnostic, unsure if we can really know anything, or a pluralist, accepting every position because we are not sure which, if any, is right.

Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is. Some say there is no such thing as absolute truth, but taking such a position becomes self-defeating. For example, the relativist says, “All truth is relative,” yet one must ask: is that statement absolutely true? If so, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why consider it? Postmodernism affirms no truth, yet it affirms at least one absolute truth: postmodernism is true. In the end, absolute truth becomes undeniable.

Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite. Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible. This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false. Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.

The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.

This leads us to the next question of whether reason/logic can be used in matters of religion. Some say this is not possible, but—why not? The truth is, logic is vital when examining spiritual claims because it helps us understand why some claims should be excluded and others embraced. Logic is absolutely critical in dismantling pluralism (which says that all truth claims, even those that oppose each other, are equal and valid).

For example, Islam and Judaism claim that Jesus is not God, whereas Christianity claims He is. One of the core laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. Applying this law to the claims Judaism, Islam, and Christianity means that one is right and the other two are wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God. Used properly, logic is a potent weapon against pluralism because it clearly demonstrates that contrary truth claims cannot both be true. This understanding topples the whole “true for you but not for me” mindset.

Logic also dispels the whole “all roads lead to the top of the mountain” analogy that pluralists use. Logic shows that each belief system has its own set of signs that point to radically different locations in the end. Logic shows that the proper illustration of a search for spiritual truth is more like a maze—one path makes it through to truth, while all others arrive at dead ends. All faiths may have some surface similarities, but they differ in major ways in their core doctrines.

The conclusion is that you can use reason and logic in matters of religion. That being the case, pluralism (the belief that all truth claims are equally true and valid) is ruled out because it is illogical and contradictory to believe that diametrically opposing truth claims can both be right.

Next comes the big question: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say “no.” While volumes have been written and debates have raged throughout history on this question, it is actually not difficult to answer. To give it proper attention, you must first ask this question: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? In other words, how did you and everything around you get here? The argument for God can be presented very simply:

Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.

You cannot deny you exist because you have to exist in order to deny your own existence (which is self-defeating), so the first premise above is true. No one has ever demonstrated that something can come from nothing unless they redefine what ‘nothing’ is, so the second premise rings true. Therefore, the conclusion naturally follows—an eternal Being is responsible for everything that exists.

This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (denied by all current empirical evidence) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

Now, this conclusion says nothing about what kind of God exists, but amazingly enough, it does do one sweeping thing—it rules out all pantheistic religions. All pantheistic worldviews say that the universe is God and is eternal. And this assertion is false. So, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and all other pantheistic religions are ruled out as valid belief systems.

Further, we learn some interesting things about this God who created the universe. He is:

• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

This Being exhibits characteristics very similar to the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which interestingly enough, are the only core faiths left standing after atheism and pantheism have been eliminated. Note also that one of the big questions in life (origins) is now answered: we know where we came from.

This leads to the next question: can we know God? At this point, the need for religion is replaced by something more important—the need for revelation. If mankind is to know this God well, it is up to God to reveal Himself to His creation. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all claim to have a book that is God’s revelation to man, but the question is which (if any) is actually true? Pushing aside minor differences, the two core areas of dispute are 1) the New Testament of the Bible 2) the person of Jesus Christ. Islam and Judaism both claim the New Testament of the Bible is untrue in what it claims, and both deny that Jesus is God incarnate, while Christianity affirms both to be true.

There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity. From the voluminous number of ancient manuscripts, to the very early dating of the documents written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (some only 15 years after Christ’s death), to the multiplicity of the accounts (nine authors in 27 books of the New Testament), to the archaeological evidence—none of which has ever contradicted a single claim the New Testament makes—to the fact that the apostles went to their deaths claiming they had seen Jesus in action and that He had come back from the dead, Christianity sets the bar in terms of providing the proof to back up its claims. The New Testament’s historical authenticity—that it conveys a truthful account of the actual events as they occurred—is the only right conclusion to reach once all the evidence has been examined.

When it comes to Jesus, one finds a very curious thing about Him—He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jesus own words (e.g., “Before Abraham was born I AM”), His actions (e.g., forgiving sins, accepting worship), His sinless and miraculous life (which He used to prove His truth claims over opposing claims), and His resurrection all support His claims to be God. The New Testament writers affirm this fact over and over again in their writings.

Now, if Jesus is God, then what He says must be true. And if Jesus said that the Bible is inerrant and true in everything it says (which He did), this must mean that the Bible is true in what it proclaims. As we have already learned, two competing truth claims cannot both be right. So anything in the Islamic Koran or writings of Judaism that contradict the Bible cannot be true. In fact, both Islam and Judaism fail since they both say that Jesus is not God incarnate, while the evidence says otherwise. And because we can indeed know God (because He has revealed Himself in His written Word and in Christ), all forms of agnosticism are refuted. Lastly, another big question of life is answered—that of ethics—as the Bible contains clear instructions on how mankind ought to live.

This same Bible proclaims that God cares deeply for mankind and wishes all to know Him intimately. In fact, He cares so much that He became a man to show His creation exactly what He is like. There are many men who have sought to be God, but only one God who sought to be man so He could save those He deeply loves from an eternity separated from Him. This fact demonstrates the existential relevancy of Christianity and also answers that last two big questions of life—meaning and destiny. Each person has been designed by God for a purpose, and each has a destiny that awaits him—one of eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. This deduction (and the point of God becoming a man in Christ) also refutes Deism, which says God is not interested in the affairs of mankind.

In the end, we see that ultimate truth about God can be found and the worldview maze successfully navigated by testing various truth claims and systematically pushing aside falsehoods so that only the truth remains. Using the tests of logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and existential relevancy, coupled with asking the right questions, yields truthful and reasonable conclusions about religion and God. Everyone should agree that the only reason to believe something is that it is true—nothing more. Sadly, true belief is a matter of the will, and no matter how much logical evidence is presented, some will still choose to deny the God who is there and miss the one true path to harmony with Him.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-reli...z3g7qjJjWn

Quote:Question: "With all of the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?"

Also, how can I know if the answer is "none of them"? I mean, there's no guarantee that any one of them has to be right, is there? If you say some flavor of Christianity is the right one, then obviously there must have been no right one at some point in history (say, oh, 4000 years ago). So it's theoretically possible that none of them are right. This question's phrasing seems to be assuming that at least one is correct, and while it's too early in the conversation to rule that out, it's also too early to rule out the alternative that none are correct.

Also, while I'm going to vet this site on its merits or lack thereof, something tells me that this site, or the rational approach it is trying to present itself as following, is not what led you to belief in the first place.

Quote:Answer: There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God. The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

Already I'm suspicious. With disciplines like math, people might have trouble arriving at the answer, but it's pretty easy to check your work, and to check the work of others, and determine if they got the right answer by a valid method. You can get a strong consensus on these points after the fact, and I say this as a math teacher. In stark contrast, theologians at large can't agree on what a valid method is, can't check each others' work to agree who's right and who's wrong, and can't generate a strong consensus on these points. If this were not the case, we would not be arguing over, say, free will versus predestination after centuries, or at the very least most of the theologians would agree that the answer is still unknown. This is not the reality we observe. (Small groups of like-minded theologians, of course, can form a consensus.)

Quote:How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason?

Depending on the type of scientist and the type of lab, it would be hilarious, awesome, and/or terrifying.

Quote:Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well?

Not a good analogy. The physician is working with a well-established and thorough knowledge-base of medicine, chemistry, and pathology. We're looking at how to begin establishing such a base, rather than work off of an existing base.

Quote:Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.

Except for homeopaths! And chiropractors! And faith-healers! And...

Quote:This being the case, why should theology—the study of God—be any different? Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions? Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used? First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion.

My snark aside, I'm actually with them so far.

Quote:Here is a good framework to use:

1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.

Okay, inconsistency is a reasonable way for ruling out false beliefs... which, by the way, should answer your earlier question about why some of us are so interested in looking at what the Bible says where and how it differs with this or that or how people act when we don't believe it's true. We're examining it for inconsistencies (among other things). I'm on board with this.

But also, what a blatant misrepresentation of Buddhism! The end goal of Buddhism is to reduce and eliminate suffering, and part of the process for doing this is the elimination of MATERIAL desires! The desire to eliminate suffering is NOT a material desire. If this is the quality of examination I can look forward to on this site, then I am not impressed.

Quote:2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus visited North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.

So similarly, if there's no proof, archeological or otherwise, of the Exodus or the Flood or Sodom and Gommorrah, or the dead walking and darkness falling following the crucifixion of Jesus, or even the existence of Jesus, you will regard it with the same skepticism as you regard the Book of Mormon? Good to know! What if there's strong empirical evidence AGAINST, say, genetic divergence of all species from a single point and a single boat-full of samples in the Middle East following a world-wide flood just a few thousand years ago? That would be grounds to reject the religion, correct? I can get on board with this criteria!

Quote:3. Existential relevancy—the belief system should address the big questions of life described below and the teachings should be accurately reflected in the world in which we live. Christianity, for example, provides good answers for the large questions of life, but is sometimes questioned because of its claim of an all-good and powerful God who exists alongside a world filled with very real evil. Critics charge that such a thing violates the criteria of existential relevancy, although many good answers have been given to address the issue.

..... waitwhuhuh? Okay, I'm pretty sure this criteria for determining something about the existence of god is bullshit. It's like saying, "no theology is relevant unless it tells me whether dadaism is art or anti-art", and "if this religion doesn't tell me anything about dadaism, then it must be false!" Bullshit. It's either true or it isn't. If that's relevant in some other way, great! If not... well, not so great, but no less true or untrue. I'll reserve judgement until I see what the criteria are, but I suspect this is an overly-narrow interpretation of things.

Also, obvious pro-Christian bias is obvious. No such comments about "good answers" were made with regards to Mormonism or Buddhism, even when in the case of Buddhism an obvious answer (to a completely bullshit criticism) quickly presented itself.

Quote:The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:

1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose for life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?

Okay, all these things would be nice to know, but placing them as a criteria for determining which notion of gods (if any? is "if any" a valid question? why hasn't it been asked yet?) is correct is just pulling stuff out of your ass. For example, if there was some deistic god that doesn't give a shit about what we do, what would then stop us from making an INCORRECT judgement against deism because it provides no basis for ethics? It's a criterion which can quite clearly lead to the wrong answer, put there for no reason other than.... what IS the reason, again? Because we'd feel good if we got an answer from it?

Also, WHY do we have to get answers about, say, ethics and origins and stuff from theology? I can see ALL of these things having answers to which some type of god might exist, but not apply!

Origins: The universe was made by natural causes. Some time later a god showed up and said, "oh, hey, a universe, I'm going to set up shop here and interact with the local intelligences". Which also suggests that origins can be accounted for outside of theology.

Ethics: Former example of deism. Also a god who gives evil commands like 90% of the stuff in the old testament. (And don't give me that new covenant crap. If it's evil now then it was evil back then too.) Also, why can't ethics arise from purely humanistic principles? Or a non-deity supernatural element like the Tao?

Meaning: ... wait, purpose? WHOSE purpose? I've got a purpose for my life. Maybe there's a god with a purpose for my life. Maybe it's the same purpose and maybe it ain't. What if there's a god who doesn't care about manipulating us around to one end or another, but simply looks out for us?

Destiny: Maybe the god doesn't have an ultimate plan. Maybe that god's just watching to see how things play out.

ALL of these are examples of possible gods and religions that, if they existed, would be incorrectly eliminated by these criteria. This is NOT a foundation for knowledge or correct discernment. It smells a lot like an ass-pulled rationalization for making a beeline towards a pre-determined conclusion with a bare minimum of actual thought.

Also, why ONLY THESE existential questions? Why not, "What is beauty", or "Can this provide a clear and definitive answer to the brain-in-vat problem"? Their selection seems completely arbitrary as well as completely pointless. (Well, arbitrary and pointless if one is seeking the truth. If one's steering towards one's pet answer without a care whether it's true, then it makes sense.)

OH YEAH, I remember this site.

Quote:But how does one go about applying this framework in the pursuit of God? A step-by-step question/answer approach is one of the best tactics to employ. Narrowing the list of possible questions down produces the following:

1. Does absolute truth exist?
2. Do reason and religion mix?
3. Does God exist?
4. Can God be known?
5. Is Jesus God?
6. Does God care about me?

0. Will any of these terms be defined?

Quote:First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not), and we end up either an agnostic, unsure if we can really know anything, or a pluralist, accepting every position because we are not sure which, if any, is right.

Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is.

Correspondence theory. Got it.

... note the assumption of an underlying, objective reality for truth to correspond to. Without that, there is no truth, at least not under this definition.

Quote:Some say there is no such thing as absolute truth, but taking such a position becomes self-defeating. For example, the relativist says, “All truth is relative,” yet one must ask: is that statement absolutely true? If so, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why consider it? Postmodernism affirms no truth, yet it affirms at least one absolute truth: postmodernism is true. In the end, absolute truth becomes undeniable.

The road-runner tactic. Further proof that there is no god. It's not about seeking truth, it's about straw-manning and twisting other positions into parodies of themselves. My earlier concerns about the misrepresentation of Buddhism return a hundred-fold.

Quote:Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite. Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible.

Actually, in my math background, I've worked with number systems where 4 doesn't exist and 2 + 2 = 1. (Any 2nd-year college student on a math track has seen these... 3rd-year at the latest.) I can also provide empirical examples of real-world situations where 1 added to 1 yields 1. This doesn't disprove absolute truth in principle, but the example sucks. This is what happens when we leave the first 5 years of childrens' math education to teachers who majored in English or History or Art or Child Development and let them just throw up their hands in confused frustration and tell the kids "because math's just always true!"

I'd be curious how this model of reality held up to, say, fuzzy logic, or a multiverse model.

Quote:This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false.

Contrary to the claims proven true, at least. You don't get a win for Unsubstantiated Claim B just because it's bundled in the same religion as Substantiated Claim A. But I guess I have my answer about what happens if descent from Noah's Ark is proven false.

... er, wait, I don't. What constitutes proof again? Do they get to override science with "but that existential bullshit criteria we slid in there because reasons!" They never did set ground rules for which of those three standards has priority.

Quote:Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.

Well, TECHNICALLY statements about desires can be made true by having those desires and false by not having them, but I'll give a slide. True in general even if I can form a few edge cases to the contrary.

Oooh! Does this mean that the desire to have existential questions answered doesn't make certain theologies true or false? Does it? Does it? No? Crap. Confused now.

Quote:The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.

BULLSHIT.

Okay, let's go through these one-by-one.

Agnosticism is a position about whether one knows the truth on a subject (usually the existence of a god), and also whether that is knowable. It is not a question about whether an absolute truth exists at ALL, just about whether that knowledge is accessible and has been accessed. In agnosticism, it is quite possible for the truth to be out there and not known to us.

Postmodernism (in the philosophical sense) isn't fully-defined, but focuses on questioning basic assumptions and identifying where they break down. This does not necessarily reject absolute truth. If anything, it seeks it with a burning passion that immolates elemental misconceptions.

Relativism rejects the idea that SOME things (such as ethics) fall in the category of absolute truth, but does not reject absolute truth in total. A relativist still thinks a rock is a rock.

And skepticism? Skepticism isn't even a claim or a world view. It's a methodology. And it doesn't reject absolute truth either, except in the most extremist minority variant. (Even then, it would be better-described as rejecting knowability or certainty of most absolute truths.)

And this website, which you say represents your views on epistemology? It very blatantly lies about ALL of them in order to dismiss them. That, or it so poorly examined them as to be genuinely ignorant of their basic definitions, and on the basis of that ignorance dismissed them. Either way... would you accept this straw-man or dismiss-what-you-don't-comprehend approach as a valid method of dismissing Christianity? If not, why the special treatment?

Quote:This leads us to the next question of whether reason/logic can be used in matters of religion. Some say this is not possible, but—why not?

The inability of the religious to logic good is a bit like gravity. We KNOW things don't fall up, but we can't really explain why they can't. But okay, occasionally we run into someone who is religious and halfway logical. I'll allow the possibility in principle.

... also, I'm getting a bit irked by the conflation of the term "religion" with a variety of other things. I don't really think it's going towards an equivocation fallacy, but I don't like the imprecision. There's better words for the meaning being employed.

Quote:The truth is, logic is vital when examining spiritual claims because it helps us understand why some claims should be excluded and others embraced.

HUZZAH!

Quote:Logic is absolutely critical in dismantling pluralism (which says that all truth claims, even those that oppose each other, are equal and valid). For example, Islam and Judaism claim that Jesus is not God, whereas Christianity claims He is. One of the core laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. Applying this law to the claims Judaism, Islam, and Christianity means that one is right and the other two are wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God. Used properly, logic is a potent weapon against pluralism because it clearly demonstrates that contrary truth claims cannot both be true. This understanding topples the whole “true for you but not for me” mindset.

And AGAIN with the blatant mischaracterizations. This is happening too often to be coincidence, and I'm suspecting it's deliberate and malicious. Pluralism has many definitions, even many definitions in the religious sense, but the closest to what's being employed here are the two following:

(1) Religions are basically the same at their core, even if they have superficial differences.
(2) Some small differences aside, different religions tend lead to the same ultimate destination.

Now I'm not endorsing these, any more than I was endorsing Buddhism, relativism, or post-modernism earlier. But the question of Jesus's divinity has an obvious answer in both frameworks: That this is one of the small, superficial differences that we don't really need to fret about! Obviously the devout Muslim, Jew, or Christian would disagree with that assessment of superficiality. But this is not an accurate portrayal of pluralism, and it is only through malicious mischaracterization that this website dismisses it!

Quote:Logic also dispels the whole “all roads lead to the top of the mountain” analogy that pluralists use.

Aha! So they did know!

Quote: Logic shows that each belief system has its own set of signs that point to radically different locations in the end. Logic shows that the proper illustration of a search for spiritual truth is more like a maze—one path makes it through to truth, while all others arrive at dead ends. All faiths may have some surface similarities, but they differ in major ways in their core doctrines.

I've seen mazes with multiple correct paths leading to the end, paths that diverged radically early on but came together eventually. So have you. Every time you look at a road map and try decide on which of dozens of routes to take to a destination. And what is or isn't a "core doctrine" probably isn't a subject of agreement between, say, a Christian and a pluralist.

Quote:The conclusion is that you can use reason and logic in matters of religion.

Agreed. You, however, can't. Or at least, you can't use it well.

Quote:That being the case, pluralism (the belief that all truth claims are equally true and valid) is ruled out because it is illogical and contradictory to believe that diametrically opposing truth claims can both be right.

Case in point.

Quote:Next comes the big question: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say “no.”

Okay, getting ahead of this one. Atheists say "we're unconvinced" and tend to default to "no, until we see evidence". Specifically, an atheist is someone who's not in a state of believing that a god exists.. which isn't always someone who outright says "no" to the idea. There's such a thing as agnostic atheists. It's a fine hair to split but it's one I don't trust this site to not exploit. There's varying shades of naturalism, some of which allow supernatural things to be known through natural phenomena, some of which label the supernatural as unknowable and inaccessible to our knowledge, and some of which dismiss it outright.

Quote:While volumes have been written and debates have raged throughout history on this question, it is actually not difficult to answer. To give it proper attention, you must first ask this question: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? In other words, how did you and everything around you get here?

Ah. Cosmological argument. Yawn. Here I thought I'd have to break a sweat.

Quote: The argument for God can be presented very simply:

Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.

So, where'd we get the eternal Being from? Obviously nowhere, because if we got it from somewhere then it would have an origin and would not be eternal. But then we did get something from nothing. For that matter, why can't the something that exists, that thing we started with, itself be eternal? In physics, energy is conserved. It never goes away. And matter is made up of energy. Why not skip a step and just say that the starting something, energy... that is, physical energy, not some mystical Deepok Chopra energy... is the necessary and eternal being?

Quote:You cannot deny you exist because you have to exist in order to deny your own existence (which is self-defeating), so the first premise above is true.

What if I neither confirm nor deny? .... okay, yeah, that's snark. I exist, sure.

Quote:No one has ever demonstrated that something can come from nothing unless they redefine what ‘nothing’ is, so the second premise rings true.

REDEFINE? We never defined the term in the first place! I'm going to go ahead and say "generation of natural phenomena ex-nihilo", but really, this ball was in your court and you should have fielded it.

But also, "no one has ever demonstrated something to the contrary" is ZERO REASON to accept a premise.

Quote:Therefore, the conclusion naturally follows—an eternal Being is responsible for everything that exists.

And... created that stuff... ex-nihilo? If it brought that something out of nothing, wouldn't that contradict the second premise? And if it didn't, how did it Contradictions are BAD, right? Right? You made that your first criteria of assessing things, right? That's pretty bad. And if it wasn't brought out of nothing, if it wasn't ex-nihilo, then... well there was something there before the eternal being, so how is the eternal being responsible for it?

Stupid cosmological argument is stupid.

Quote:This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being.

Actually, no. It's one possibility I'm putting forward as a counterexample because it is easiest to understand. But just as easy a proposal is that there was a moment of spontaneous generation (such as the Big Bang) before which time did not exist. There would be no eternal being in this scenario. That it has not been demonstrated does not make it false... else EVERYTHING would be false, because at some point in history it would have yet to be demonstrated.

Hey! God has never been demonstrated! That means God doesn't exist, right? RIGHT?

Quote:However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’).

Beginning of the universe as we know it. There are many models which propose something that existed prior to the Big Bang, but the event erased observable records of them.

Quote:And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (denied by all current empirical evidence) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists.

Okay, I've already punched half a dozen holes in this, but here's a few more points that the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails on:

Why is the immediate cause of the universe taken to be eternal? Could it not have a cause (say, a superuniverse, like the theoretical physics model in which we exist on the event horizon of a black hole in a four-dimensional universe) that was itself not eternal? What if THAT universe didn't have a clear beginning like a Big Bang, and WAS eternal? What if whatever god supposedly created the universe was itself finite and had an origin? What if it was finite in the other direction and died at some point?

Quote:Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

True. Now if you'd just do that, we'd be getting somewhere.

Quote:Now, this conclusion says nothing about what kind of God exists, but amazingly enough, it does do one sweeping thing—it rules out all pantheistic religions. All pantheistic worldviews say that the universe is God and is eternal. And this assertion is false. So, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and all other pantheistic religions are ruled out as valid belief systems.

Buddhism is not pantheistic. Buddhism says many things about gods, but they are depicted as distinct from the universe as a whole. Also, the primary thing that Buddhism says about gods is "we don't really concern ourselves with them".

I don't know enough about Hinduism or Jainism to comment.

But again, this is terrible logic. Even granting a finite universe -- which has NOT been established -- why couldn't a god have merged with and become one with the universe, so that the two BECAME the same? Why couldn't the universe be a particular manifestation of god, one with a finite beginning and possibly a finite end, even if the god continues before or after?

This is a typical apologetic tactic. Talk and talk and talk until their eyes glaze over. Then do a quick run through all the weak points you can't prove and hope they're not alert enough to notice.

Quote:Further, we learn some interesting things about this God who created the universe. He is:

• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)

Outside the universe? ... DEFINE THE TERMS! Is there even such a thing as "outside" of space? "OUTSIDE" AND "INSIDE" ARE SPACIAL RELATIONSHIPS! Saying you're outside the very concept that makes "outside" meaningful is a logical contradiction! We can discount religions with those, right? RIGHT?

Quote:• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)

Maybe? How hard is it to change that, though? That's what we'd normally measure power in, ability to affect change. Could this be a "rock so heavy he can't lift it" thing? Could this hypothetical creator have established natural laws so ironclad that it could not break them? If so, would it not now be completely powerless?

Quote:• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)

Er, wait, outside of TIME? .... how can someone who does anything actually be outside of time? You need time in order to do stuff! The illogic, it burns!

Quote:• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
So, wait, it's everywhere but also not in space? What? Hey, if I build a house, am I limited by its four walls? ... also, where did this He come from? Creator-dude has a gender all of a sudden? A sex? This is making less and less sense, which is remarkable because it was already making no sense.

Quote:• Timeless and changeless (He created time)

Okay. SO. Such a being would never be able to perform any act, because he (we're going with the male pronoun, right? I think? WHY? Whatevs, I'm thirty layers deep in "playing along with the bad-idea-rabbit-hole") would never be able to transition from a state of deciding to act to actually ACTING. There would be no before, during, after for that action. Such a being would never be able to make a decision, learn a truth.

Quote:• Immaterial (because He transcends space)

Actually, I'll go with this. God is immaterial.

Quote:• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)

Wait, really? This is another ass-pull. I can tell. EVEN GRANTING (for no reason whatsoever save shits and giggles) everything up to here, we're still not past deism. We can still have abiogenesis and evolutionary origins.... personalities arising from impersonal things. There's NO BASIS FOR THIS CLAIM AT ALL!

... so, yeah, it fits right in.

Quote:• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)

Wait, you claimed necessity earlier. You're padding for word count, aren't you? This is trying to make my eyes glaze over, isn't it?

Quote:• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)

Math dude who actually understands infinity says you can. You want me to believe otherwise? Prove it. ... show your work.

Also, what order of infinity are we talking about?

Some people just shouldn't be issued math-words. They just fuck them up the limit suprema.

Quote:• Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)

Up the limit suprema.

Quote:• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)

.... wait, what definition of intelligence are we using? I know several. NONE of them apply to this proposed being. It can't learn, can't make decisions, can't plan ahead (since there is no "ahead" for a timeless being), can't creatively solve problems it doesn't have, can't...

THIS IS WHY YOU NEED TO DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Quote:• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)

Deliberately? As in, deliberated on it? As in, thought it through for an extended period of TIME?

Quote:• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)

Ass-pull.

Quote:• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

Er, when was it established that they were given? And also, how would a moral law like "stone someone to death if they pick up sticks on the sabbath" count as caring?

Quote:This Being exhibits characteristics very similar to the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which interestingly enough, are the only core faiths left standing after atheism and pantheism have been eliminated.

And Pastafarism.

And, well, the infinitely many (that would be at least a continuum order of infinity, possibly higher) that we've never articulated or thought of.

Quote:Note also that one of the big questions in life (origins) is now answered: we know where we came from.

Vagina-pull.

Quote:This leads to the next question: can we know God? At this point, the need for religion is replaced by something more important—the need for revelation. If mankind is to know this God well, it is up to God to reveal Himself to His creation. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all claim to have a book that is God’s revelation to man, but the question is which (if any) is actually true? Pushing aside minor differences, the two core areas of dispute are 1) the New Testament of the Bible 2) the person of Jesus Christ. Islam and Judaism both claim the New Testament of the Bible is untrue in what it claims, and both deny that Jesus is God incarnate, while Christianity affirms both to be true.

There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity.

Pastafarianism.

WHAT? THEY'RE SMALL MOUNTAINS!

Quote:From the voluminous number of ancient manuscripts, to the very early dating of the documents written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (some only 15 years after Christ’s death), to the multiplicity of the accounts (nine authors in 27 books of the New Testament), to the archaeological evidence—none of which has ever contradicted a single claim the New Testament makes—to the fact that the apostles went to their deaths claiming they had seen Jesus in action and that He had come back from the dead, Christianity sets the bar in terms of providing the proof to back up its claims. The New Testament’s historical authenticity—that it conveys a truthful account of the actual events as they occurred—is the only right conclusion to reach once all the evidence has been examined.

And here's that tactic again. Make our eyes glaze over and then try to slide a bunch of bullshit past us. Pretty much all this boils down to is "the Bible says so". The ancient manuscripts? Are THE BIBLE. The eyewitness accounts? ARE THE BIBLE. The New Testament? IS THE BIBLE. The archeological... wait, there is none cited, just an absence of evidence. YOU CITED LACK OF EVIDENCE AS A REASON NOT TO BELIEVE THINGS EARLIER! The apostles going to their deaths making claims? THAT'S THE BIBLE.

So we should believe the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

.... but obviously we can't do the same with any other religious text! Because reasons!

Quote:When it comes to Jesus, one finds a very curious thing about Him—He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jesus own words (e.g., “Before Abraham was born I AM”), His actions (e.g., forgiving sins, accepting worship), His sinless and miraculous life (which He used to prove His truth claims over opposing claims), and His resurrection all support His claims to be God. The New Testament writers affirm this fact over and over again in their writings.

Again, the Bible says it! Therefore it must be true! It's not possible for 9 authors writing testimonials to be mistaken! (13 attesting to Joseph Smith and the golden tablets, though, those we can't trust at all. Because... fewer is better? No, wait, because 13 is an unlucky number? Whatever... REASONS!)

Quote:Now, if Jesus is God, then what He says must be true. And if Jesus said that the Bible is inerrant and true in everything it says (which He did), this must mean that the Bible is true in what it proclaims.
Wait, weren't we already accepting it as true? Because reasons?
Quote:As we have already learned, two competing truth claims cannot both be right. So anything in the Islamic Koran or writings of Judaism that contradict the Bible cannot be true. In fact, both Islam and Judaism fail since they both say that Jesus is not God incarnate, while the evidence says otherwise.
The new testament is the claim. It is not the evidence of the claim.
Quote:And because we can indeed know God (because He has revealed Himself in His written Word and in Christ), all forms of agnosticism are refuted. Lastly, another big question of life is answered—that of ethics—as the Bible contains clear instructions on how mankind ought to live.

It's Bibles all the way down.

Quote:This same Bible proclaims that God cares deeply for mankind and wishes all to know Him intimately. In fact, He cares so much that He became a man to show His creation exactly what He is like. There are many men who have sought to be God, but only one God who sought to be man so He could save those He deeply loves from an eternity separated from Him. This fact demonstrates the existential relevancy of Christianity and also answers that last two big questions of life—meaning and destiny. Each person has been designed by God for a purpose, and each has a destiny that awaits him—one of eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. This deduction (and the point of God becoming a man in Christ) also refutes Deism, which says God is not interested in the affairs of mankind.

Deduction? DEDUCTION??? YOU KNOW NOT THE MEANING OF THE WORD!

Quote:In the end, we see that ultimate truth about God can be found and the worldview maze successfully navigated by testing various truth claims and systematically pushing aside falsehoods so that only the truth remains. Using the tests of logical consistency,
You never did explain the problem of evil, did you? Or apply ANY test of logical consistency to Christianity
Quote:empirical adequacy,
your sum total of empirical observation was "bunch of evidence don't exist" and "universe seems to have had a start"
Quote:and existential relevancy,
aka, the bullshit standard
Quote:coupled with asking the right questions, yields truthful and reasonable conclusions about religion and God. Everyone should agree that the only reason to believe something is that it is true—nothing more. Sadly, true belief is a matter of the will, and no matter how much logical evidence is presented, some will still choose to deny the God who is there and miss the one true path to harmony with Him.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-reli...z3g7qjJjWn

Yeeeeeeah, you already roped me into something I needed to break out the hipwaders for. I am unmotivated to break out the scuba gear.

But okay, it wasn't a total loss. I asked what your methodology and epistemology was, and you pointed to this website. If this is actually an accurate representation of how you came to your answers, your method is as follows:

Blatantly mischaracterize contrary positions in order to dismiss them.

Outright ignore alternatives. Why should we consider Christianity at all, when we focus on the Zoroastrianism versus Olympian debate?

Assume the truth of your holy book based primarily on the evidence of your holy book, and dismiss other holy writings on the basis of having assumed yours true.

So, how would you react if these tables are true? What if the Muslim sought to establish the truth of the Koran based on the Koran, and rejected the Bible because it disagreed with the Koran?

What if someone just refused to look at Christianity as a possibility?

What if someone just mocked Christianity, utterly mischaracterized it, and dismissed it? (Oh, hey, we can find that one out empirically!)

And, final question... Why aren't YOU doing these things? You've done them to every other religion, after all. Before we ever launched into this long, bullshit argument, you had already decided to exempt Christianity from this kind of treatment. To subject it to no critical examination but rather to accept it unquestionably. Why did you start off tilting the playing field as much as possible towards that one religion and away from all the others? Why did you start off with it already your designated winner?

So no, that page does not answer the question of what brought you to Christianity. It simply begs it all the louder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
17-07-2015, 03:40 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 02:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  ...
It is sad that you have swallowed those lies and are wasting your life.

It would appear that Dan Dennett might have been wrong...

[Image: 531856_475212739193804_1032407942_n.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: