Debating creationist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2015, 07:47 AM
RE: Debating creationist.
(24-09-2015 07:41 AM)Octapulse Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 07:34 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I do not think you intended that as a complement..... Dodgy

Please forgive me, I haven't had my coffee this morning. It's a weak arguement because 1. There is no scripture linking idolatry to warm fuzzy feelings and 2. It pre-supposes that all believers receive warm fuzzy feelings from the practice of speaking tongues. When I was a believer, I spoke in tongues and never felt anything from it. It's like trying to fight bullshit with even more bullshit

Oh, you're forgiven! I wasn't offended or anything. Smile

I've made this case before, and I thought I had the material saved on my computer from a very similar argument just a few months ago, but I just can't find it. I did promise scripture links if OP thought the argument might work. I just can't get them right now because homework needs to get done.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 07:51 AM
RE: Debating creationist.
(24-09-2015 04:25 AM)Luke.furlong Wrote:  Got a question!
Clearly you guys would have encounted this ridiculous question
Every time I argue with my uncle and cousin, I always get the well how do you explain the Holy Spirit. He got baptised and now speaks in tongues which to me just sounds like his speaking jibberish, I know lots of atheist have been able to speak in tongues. Is this something they teach you in the church? Or could it have been his just youtubed it and listen to everyone else speaking it and copied.


Tell him it is imaginary and if he balks ask him how you can distinguish what he calls the holy spirit from something he is merely imagining. Then sit back and watch the excuses start to fly. It will be your fault that he can't demonstrate it. Then just laugh at them.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 07:51 AM
RE: Debating creationist.
(24-09-2015 07:47 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 07:41 AM)Octapulse Wrote:  Please forgive me, I haven't had my coffee this morning. It's a weak arguement because 1. There is no scripture linking idolatry to warm fuzzy feelings and 2. It pre-supposes that all believers receive warm fuzzy feelings from the practice of speaking tongues. When I was a believer, I spoke in tongues and never felt anything from it. It's like trying to fight bullshit with even more bullshit

Oh, you're forgiven! I wasn't offended or anything. Smile

I've made this case before, and I thought I had the material saved on my computer from a very similar argument just a few months ago, but I just can't find it. I did promise scripture links if OP thought the argument might work. I just can't get them right now because homework needs to get done.

Okay fair enough. I would like to see the scripture you are referencing when you get a chance. I've read the bible cover to cover no less than ten times and cannot think of the scripture you are talking about

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 07:54 AM
RE: Debating creationist.
(24-09-2015 07:51 AM)Octapulse Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 07:47 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Oh, you're forgiven! I wasn't offended or anything. Smile

I've made this case before, and I thought I had the material saved on my computer from a very similar argument just a few months ago, but I just can't find it. I did promise scripture links if OP thought the argument might work. I just can't get them right now because homework needs to get done.

Okay fair enough. I would like to see the scripture you are referencing when you get a chance. I've read the bible cover to cover no less than ten times and cannot think of the scripture you are talking about

It's not direct, it's indirect. You have to kind of guide your listener through your logic, but they usually get there in the end. The only thing is, sometimes I confuse Talmud with OT. I'll see what I can find!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
24-09-2015, 07:56 AM
RE: Debating creationist.
(24-09-2015 07:54 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 07:51 AM)Octapulse Wrote:  Okay fair enough. I would like to see the scripture you are referencing when you get a chance. I've read the bible cover to cover no less than ten times and cannot think of the scripture you are talking about

It's not direct, it's indirect. You have to kind of guide your listener through your logic, but they usually get there in the end. The only thing is, sometimes I confuse Talmud with OT. I'll see what I can find!

You have to be careful with that approach because christians will usually just accuse you of twisting scriptures to support your arguement.

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 08:41 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2015 10:40 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Debating creationist.
The explanation for speaking in tongues is simple.

1) The chant is conditioned into the believer, either by parents and educators at a young age, or as an adult convert being surrounded by people engaged in it.

2) The emotion is the result of intense group fervor. It's a powerful thing but it is natural in nature.

3) The translation is off-the-cuff interpretation of gibberish by someone who is genuinely mistaken in believing they have the power to translate it. They don't. They are simply stating their own beliefs and attitudes and then claiming that they're God's.

To the best of my knowledge, no speaking-in-tongues group has ever been scientifically studied to see whether, say, multiple different translators produce the same translation.

For some other things the Holy Spirit is supposed to do:

Personal Inspiration, Guidance, and Commands: Evid3nc3 describes it pretty well in his deconversion series: This is a simulacrum, a mental imagining of how a god of the Bible would interact with people, that the imaginer then mistakes for the real thing and interacts with accordingly. The strength of the emotion is internal, but is incorrectly seen as something imposed externally. The phrase "imaginary friend", while demeaning, is very appropriate here.

Note that none of these explanations require there to not be a God or a Holy Spirit. They'd be equally valid explanations if those beings existed, but WEREN'T TALKING TO THE SUBJECT, who was instead making it up.

One thing to ask would be how they determined it is God-slash-Holy-Spirit speaking to them, rather than the devil trying to trick them into thinking he was God. Focus on their method for discerning between the two possibilities (which are of course not the only ones). Is whispering thoughts and feelings into hearts beyond Satan's power? Is Satan's respect for God's authority over man to great for him to display such temerity? Does Satan possess insufficient guile to trick someone ready to believe on pure faith alone without the least bit of doubt, especially someone who hasn't had a genuine Holy Spirit experience to compare it to? Just how much identity-authentication did they do, anyway? Could a typical con artist have suckered them, given how ready to believe they were? If so, how much worse the Prince of Lies?

Make sure you're clear that you're exploring a hypothetical, and don't do this with anyone who has a temper and whose good feelings you value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: Debating creationist.
(24-09-2015 07:51 AM)‘true scotsman Wrote:  ...ask him how you can distinguish what he calls the holy spirit from something he is merely imagining.

The answer is always Feels...it’s always the Feels with the True Believers

Very hard to combat someone’s self-deception.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
24-09-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: Debating creationist.



Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: Debating creationist.
Speaking in tongues is as old as the hills. It goes further back than the damn Bible, back to ancient Egypt and Greece.

http://exposingmansways.blogspot.com/201..._9951.html

" Ecstatic language was a common theme of worship in pagan temples. It was well established in Ancient Byblos (1100 B.C.E). Byblos is the Greek name of the Phoenician city Gebal. "

"Speaking in tongues and ecstatic language within the "Oracle at Delphi" started in the 400s BCE when Greece was at its strongest, continuing through the Roman era. During that time Apollo was the prophetic deity of the "Delphic Oracle" and archer-god of medicine, healing and also a bringer of death-dealing plague. Usually a question had to be submitted to the Pythoness (priestess) and the answer was then
interpreted by a priest.

Dating from approximately 1100 B.C.E a young man by the name of Winamon was worshipping the Egyptian god Amon in a temple. Apparently he was in a frenzied state, overwhelmed and spoke in some ecstatic language. Religious frenzy, gibberish, possession or emotion."

I'm not sure of the source for the website above but I came across the similar information somewhere else.

Talking in gibberish is also part of Voodoo rites and African culture so you can point this out. How do your parents know their talking in tongues is different than the Ancient Greeks, Africans or voodoo believers. It all has the same sound too.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
24-09-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: Debating creationist.
(24-09-2015 09:11 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  


"We don't care if it's validated or not"

That speaks volumes about the xian mindset Consider

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: