I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2015, 06:35 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015 06:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 06:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 05:26 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The existence of Moses as well as the veracity of the Exodus story are disputed among archaeologists and Egyptologists, with experts in the field of biblical criticism citing logical inconsistencies, new archaeological evidence, historical evidence, and related origin myths in Canaanite culture.

When you analyze the Pentateuch, you will find doublets and triplets. These are pairs of stories which occur in two separate locations in the text. The doublets generally do not agree fully; there are usually minor differences between the stories. R.E. Friedman, in his 1997 book "Who Wrote the Bible?" lists a number of them:

Two creation stories in Genesis.
Two descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant.
Two stories of the naming of Isaac.
Two instances where Abraham deceived a king by introducing his wife Sarah as his sister.
Two stories of Jacob traveling to Mesopotamia
Two stories of a revelation at Beth-el to Jacob.
Two accounts of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
Two instances where Moses extracted water from two different rocks at two different locations called Meribah.

These doublets appeared to contradict each other. In most cases, one referred to God as Yahweh while the other used the term Elohim.

Theologians reason that a much more logical explanation is that the books were written by multiple authors who lived long after the events described. That would have allowed the oral tradition to be passed from generation to generation in different areas of the land so that they had a chance to deviate from each other before being written down.

Both Judaism and Christianity assumed that the Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written by Moses, as the Bible itself states. However, in recent centuries, alternative authorship has been proposed. The documentary hypothesis is now accepted by essentially all mainline and liberal theologians.

- 11th Century CE: Isaac ibn Yashush suggested that the list of the Edomite kings in Genesis 36 was added by an unknown person after Moses died. For this assertion, he became known as "Isaac the Blunderer."

- 15th Century: Bishop Tostatus suggested that certain passages were written by one of the prophets, not by Moses.

- 16th Century: Andreas van Maes suggested that an editor added additional material to some of Moses' writings.

- 17th Century: Thomas Hobbes prepared a collection of passages that seemed to negate Moses' authorship.

- 18th Century: Three investigators (Witter, Astruc and Eichhorn) independently concluded that doublets in the Torah were written by two different authors. A doublet is a story that is described twice.

- 19th Century: Scholars noticed that there were a few triplets in the Torah. This indicated that a third author was involved. Then, they determined that the book of Deuteronomy was written in a different language style from the remaining 4 books in the Pentateuch. Finally, by the end of the 19th Century, liberal scholars reached a consensus that 4 authors and one redactor (editor) had been actively involved in the writing of the Pentateuch.

- 20th Century: Academics have continued to refine the Documentary Hypothesis by identifying which verses (and parts of verses) were authored by the various writers. They have also attempted to uncover the names of the authors. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he urged academics to study the sources of Biblical texts. Recent archaeological discoveries and new linguistic analysis tools have facilitated the research into the hypothesis.

Belief in the documentary hypothesis was triggered by a number of factors, such as:

- Anachronisms, like the list of the Edomite kings;

- Duplicate and triplicate passages

- Various passages portrayed God in different ways;

- The flood story appears to involve the meshing of two separate stories;

- The belief, centuries ago, by archaeologists and linguists that writing among the ancient Hebrews only developed after the events portrayed in the Pentateuch. Thus, Moses would have been incapable of writing the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

These factors led theologians to the conclusion that the Pentateuch is a hybrid document which was written well after Moses' death, and much later than the events portrayed. The authors and redactors are unknown, and are commonly referred to as authors J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly) and D (Deuteronomist).

"The authors of genesis did not know much about this long history...." (Boadt, 1984, p.109)

Look at you learning shit COTW, and they say a mind is a terrible thing to waste....

by the way your test grade today is.....

F

Reference:

Boadt, L. (1984). Reading the old testament: an introduction. New York. Paulist Press. Print.

The copy & paste god has struck again, people.

Yet somehow you never once seem to be able to find and support any of your points with academic references. Whether they're copied or not, if they relate to the topic, and support an argument, they are appropriate. Nice try at dismissing his points. Fail. The FACT is, Moses as an historical figure, outside the Bible is not found, and there are many problems with the way the Babble presents him, and his equally fake side-kick, Joshua. Don't feel too bad, cartilage head,. No one here expects you to be able to find anything to support you claims.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2015, 07:03 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
What is this "presupposing evolution"?

Evolution is the conclusion, not the presupposition. Quite the opposite of theism, no matter how hard you project. Science works, religion stagnates progress. History has shown this.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
01-03-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  More rhetoric? Less substance? But I asked for more substance, less rhetoric Dodgy
Don't care what you asked for and calling it rhetoric is not a refutation of a criticism. Try harder cunt.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I reject the evidence that has been presented to me thus far.
Which you have admitted to not even evaluating before you reject it. I don't care if you reject it kid, I'm not here trying to convince you of the errors of your ways. that's not a thing that's possible for a person like yourself who CELEBRATES his own ignorance.
I'm here using you as a tool to pull people away from your shitty religion by exposing your lying, cowardly, stupid ass and your bad arguments. No matter how much you thrash, no matter how loud you get, no matter how many stupid sentences you write with no real response to criticisms no matter what you do...you help me, you help all of us atheists.
Your a tool, and one I am happy to use to dig your religions grave with.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well damn, I said that I will continue to use kind, and you people can use whatever biological term you want to distinguish the difference between a turtle and a cat...that is about as fair as it can get
You don't get to invent terms to use to cover up your lack of education in the subject. "kind" is not a real term in dealing with animals and biodiversity, so you can fuck off with it. I'll keep dismissing your dumb cunt shit every time you use it.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You see, my point is independent of biological terms
Don't fucking care, we are talking biology and if you wanna talk biology with a bunch of people who actually understand biology and LIE and claim you understand the evidence, then you can use biological terms.

Your fucking Bible thinks bats are a type of bird, so fucking excuse me when I don't accept there terms for biodiversity.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What I cant deny is that over time, there are certain changes.
Are those changes sudden or gradual?
[Image: 1870652_o.gif]

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But what we have never seen any kind of changes that YOU believe occurred when you were conveniently NOT around to witness it, and that is reptile-bird type changes.
We can see these changes with the evidence those changes left behind, in the same way i don't need to see the man walking ont he beach to know there was a man if he leaves foot prints. Observation does not mean current events cocksucker.


(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Lying? Have you ever seen a reptile-bird type of change? No, you haven't.
Yes lying. And yes, by looking at the fossil record, taxonomy, and genetic maps I HAVE seen it. I've seen EXACTLY how it happens. Observation does not mean current events you fat cocksucker.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You have it in your head that observation has to be in real time to be valid and there is no one in the field of science that says this.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If someone has a theory that is based on modern day man (of any given time in history) NOT being there to witness it, then I question the theory...
And yet you are scientifically illiterate so ...once again....
I. DO. NOT. GIVE. A. FUCK.
I don't give a fuck if you question the theory, question it all you want questioning is good, the problem I have is you are NOT questioning the theory you are dismissing it without investigating it (which you have already admitted) and that's not the same thing.

You are not qualified to question the theory, a thing you have shown over and over and over and over.
You don't know what the brain is made of.
You don't know what a neuron is, what it does, or how it works.
You don't know what macro-evolution is, what it says, or how it works.
You don't know how DNA works.
You don't know what the fossil record is, but you dismiss it anyway.

You are not qualified. So if you want to raise a point to me make it other then " nu-uh I don't think so!" or I'm just gonna delete it.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When you find a fossil, and you conclude anything besides "this once living thing has now died", then you've just left science
Nope, stop lying. We can tell a lot of stuff from fossils that's why we have multiple fields of science and we don't just dig them up for fun. You have already admitted you don't know fuck all about the fossil record you don't get to make claims to the variety of information we can gain from them because you are not qualified to say so.
You don't get to admit your clueless and then act like an expert.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You presuppose evolution, so anything that you find, your presupposition is going to interpret the finding for you.
No. Much of the scientific community violently resisted Darwin's theory of evolution when it was first published in favor of creationism because THAT was the presupposition of the day. The fact that they were convinced of it's validity through the evidence and abandoned their presupposition is obvious.
Just because you barrel through life blind from your biases does not mean everyone that disagrees with you does as well.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then Satan has fooled a lot of people, apparently
[Image: are-you-serious.gif?w=630]
Really? I raise the question of how thousands of different scientists from thousands of different economic, cultural, and even religious backgrounds, all of whom are working in hundreds of separate fields each with unique methodologies, equipment, tests, and all of whom are deliberately and thoroughly peer-reviewed are ALL wrong every single one of them and yet they still get the exact same results time and time again and your response is :
"Lol Satan did it."

That is seriously what you have reduced yourself to? Satan did it, THAT is your argument? That's fucking pathetic even for you.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  *Noting racial implications* Its all good Thumbsup
I don't believe that your black any more then I believe you have graduated highscool, been in the army, or held a job longer then 3 months, or are married. I called you a little monkey cause you reason like a chimp, but nice try at...diversion!

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I said that no one has ever observed a reptile-bird kind of transformation...where is the lie in stating that? That is a fact, a fact that you haven't come to gripes with yet.
Which is a lie because we HAVE. Observation does not mean current events, fat stupid cocksucker.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If the archeo is a transitional fossil from a reptile to a bird, then newsflash for you, dumbass...that is a reptile changing into a bird..
I know you don't give a damn, because if you did you would have to challenge your faith, and you are WAY to small minded and weak to do that.
Macro evolution is a time scale for viewing large amounts of micro changes. It is not how you present it in your ignorance. It IS a transitional fossil, but you don't even know what that means.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  A theory with no evidence is a naked theory.
Which is not a response to me explaining what macro evolution actually is and what it does. Try again you asshole. Also Jesus Cocksucking Christ would you learn what the word Theory actually means?

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  First off, I never said or implied that dogs COULD give birth to turtles...
No you are just dishonestly strawmaning evolution to make it look like evolution says that. Your a lying sack of shit, you are arguing against a position you KNOW we don't hold.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ... there is an obvious difference between the two animals.
This was never in contention you retard. What was in contention was you using made up terms you drug out of your dumb book of myths and tried to force them into a debate on biology.
I know what the difference between a dog and a turtle actually is and the answer is not yours " they juss different 'cause god say so."

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Second, if a reptile eventually became a bird, then why can't a turtle eventually become a dog...but wait a minute, "that's not how evolution works"...well again, no one has ever even seen evolution work how it SUPPOSED to work Laugh out load
All this tiem explaining to you how evolution works and your gonna ask me why a turtle can't turn into a dog? Really? Goddammit you are not even a waste of my time, you are a waste of your own.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The differences you are talking about is slight differences WITHIN THE....
Deleted the rest for using made up fucking terms. Stop wasting everyone's time.


(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  the whole theory depends on humans NOT being here to witness it, yet, it happens.
No actually it does not, we can witness the results and the evidence left behind by the process because ONCE AGAIN observation does not mean current fucking events.

How do you think police solve murders when there were no witnesses? They OBSERVE the evidence left behind after an event. They don't go "oh well no one saw the murder so clearly it did not happen." Gods below you are just fucking thick.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And from now on my responses to you will be shorter and shorter until I just stop talking to you altogether
So are you planning to make them shorter by removing all your lies and made up bullshit or by removing everything but your lies and made up bullshit? Drinking Beverage

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...all of that editing my posts shit is petty, disingenuous, and immature.
Sorry son I told you if you were not gonna stop lying and using up made up terms and playing word games I was just gonna delete them. I ain't gonna waste my time correcting the same fucking bullshit every time I try and educate you. You give me new steaming piles of "Satan did it" bullshit and I don't have the time for the bullshit you been using since you got here.

Present evolution theory accurately and not as a dishonest strawman and I won't have to keep slapping your dumb cunt down and making you butt hurt.

(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then Satan has fooled a lot of people, apparently
Lol Satan. Grow the fuck up.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
01-03-2015, 07:39 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 06:08 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 04:42 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Correction: Nothing can TEMPORALLY exist before time..but something can CASUALLY exist before time. Understand the difference, sparky.

What you just said there makes no difference. WTF is Causual existence? That doesn't even make any sence. You just made that up!

God existed casually? He was just sitting around, hanging out, nothing to do? I know time can seem to go by slowly in cases like that but that doesn't mean it ever doesn't move at all...

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
01-03-2015, 08:36 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
As promised, I will make this short and sweet, until you fade to black.

(01-03-2015 07:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I'm here using you as a tool to pull people away from your shitty religion by exposing your lying, cowardly, stupid ass and your bad arguments.

Laugh out load

(01-03-2015 07:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  No matter how much you thrash, no matter how loud you get, no matter how many stupid sentences you write with no real response to criticisms no matter what you do...you help me, you help all of us atheists. Your a tool, and one I am happy to use to dig your religions grave with.

Laugh out load

(01-03-2015 07:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You don't get to invent terms to use to cover up your lack of education in the subject. "kind" is not a real term in dealing with animals and biodiversity, so you can fuck off with it. I'll keep dismissing your dumb cunt shit every time you use it.

Dismiss away, captain Thumbsup

(01-03-2015 07:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Don't fucking care, we are talking biology and if you wanna talk biology with a bunch of people who actually understand biology and LIE and claim you understand the evidence, then you can use biological terms.

Use whatever biological term you want, and you still haven't seen a reptile-bird transformation..so see, asshole...it isn't about the term you use, it is about the reality of shit.

(01-03-2015 07:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Your fucking Bible thinks bats are a type of bird, so fucking excuse me when I don't accept there terms for biodiversity.

Somebody tell Captain Dumbass here that whether or not a bat is a bird is dependent upon animal classification...and if the ancient ones called bats birds, then bats were birds to them.

(01-03-2015 07:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  We can see these changes with the evidence those changes left behind, in the same way i don't need to see the man walking ont he beach to know there was a man if he leaves foot prints. Observation does not mean current events cocksucker.

Yeah, but the interpretation of what the change represents is in the eye of the beholder, dumbass.

(01-03-2015 07:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Yes lying. And yes, by looking at the fossil record, taxonomy, and genetic maps I HAVE seen it. I've seen EXACTLY how it happens. Observation does not mean current events you fat cocksucker.

If you haven't seen a reptile to bird type transformation, then you are like the eyes of Stevie Wonder..in other words, you haven't seen SHIT.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You have it in your head that observation has to be in real time to be valid and there is no one in the field of science that says this.

And you have it in your head that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today haven't...and that is produce (whether suddenly or gradually), different kinds of animals.

(01-03-2015 07:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  And yet you are scientifically illiterate so ...once again....
I. DO. NOT. GIVE. A. FUCK.
I don't give a fuck if you question the theory, question it all you want questioning is good, the problem I have is you are NOT questioning the theory you are dismissing it without investigating it (which you have already admitted) and that's not the same thing.

And on the above note, I will go ahead and stop it right there. I told you, shorter and shorter Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 08:38 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 07:39 PM)unfogged Wrote:  God existed casually? He was just sitting around, hanging out, nothing to do? I know time can seem to go by slowly in cases like that but that doesn't mean it ever doesn't move at all...

He was stationary, apparently. Perfectly still. That is about the best I can come up with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 08:46 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 07:03 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  What is this "presupposing evolution"?

Evolution is the conclusion, not the presupposition.

Macroevolution IS the presupposition. Just like these people keep saying, "small changes lead to big changes"...that is a presupposition. The conclusion is that there are variations within every kind of animal, which is why you have a vast varieties of different dogs, cats, etc...that is as far as the conclusion goes at that point...but to think that there can be these large scale reptile-bird kind of transformations, you have to PRESUPPOSE that those kind of changes can occur, despite all observational evidence to the contrary.

So if you start with the presupposition that reptiles turned in to birds, then you will interpret things like the archeo as a transitional fossil from a reptile to a bird..in that case, the presupposition comes first, and the conclusion comes next.

(01-03-2015 07:03 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Quite the opposite of theism, no matter how hard you project. Science works, religion stagnates progress. History has shown this.

Science works? Can science show where morality came from? Or explain the origins of consciousness, life, and the universe?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 08:47 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yet somehow you never once seem to be able to find and support any of your points with academic references. Whether they're copied or not, if they relate to the topic, and support an argument, they are appropriate. Nice try at dismissing his points. Fail. The FACT is, Moses as an historical figure, outside the Bible is not found, and there are many problems with the way the Babble presents him, and his equally fake side-kick, Joshua. Don't feel too bad, cartilage head,. No one here expects you to be able to find anything to support you claims.

I am still waiting on that real time debate, Bucky.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 09:05 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have.

And the "evidence" for evolution has come across my desk enough times for me to reject it.

(01-03-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  What does that have to do with anything? A child does not get some piece of the parents' consciousness. Consciousness emerges from the development of that child's brain.

Ok, and that is why I keep using the example of if you were in a lab, with brain matter scattered over a table, and you were able to successfully shape and mold the brain matter into a freshly made human brain...yeah, you will have the brain, but where would you get the consciousness from...how will the consciousness emerge???

I mean hell, you are sitting here telling me that it happened during the development of a child, so how will it develop if you made the brain from scratch??

Or better yet, lets say if you had all of the parts of the human body in a lab, scattered on a huge table...you have the brain, skin, bones, blood, muscles, organs, eyes, EVERYTHING...and lets say you were able to successfully assemble the entire human body, with the brain inside of the skull...you have the body, but where will you get the life, and consciousness from??? Explain to me how those things could "emerge" from physical properties.

Let me just save you some time and cut to the chase...YOU CAN'T DO IT..so if you can't do it using your eyes, and intellect...then how the hell can a process that DOESN'T have eyes, or a mind, be able to do such a thing???

(01-03-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  There are clear definitions for species, genus, etc.

Well pick one, Chas...it doesn't matter what you call it...the fact is it can't happen. If you guys spent more time trying to figure out the REAL damn problems instead of focusing on terminologies, then you might get somewhere...but then again, maybe not, you people don't want there to be a God, so you will continue to be closed minded and ignore human intuition.

(01-03-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  You utterly miss the point. How can an arbitrarily large number of small changes not result in arbitrarily large changes? What would limit it?

Maybe it can, maybe it can't...I am saying that so far, based on the evidence that has been presented to me, I have no reasons to think that it DID...and I even have evidence to the contrary.

So I think that the evidence FOR evolution sucks, plus I have evidence against it...so when I add those two together, I get disbelief.

(01-03-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no evidence of a designer while there is overwhelming evidence of evolution.

Well, as I said before, the evidence for intelligent design is overwhelming, in my onion...and the evidence for evolution is underwhelming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 09:05 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 08:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Science works? Can science show where morality came from? Or explain the origins of consciousness, life, and the universe?

Science hasn't answered every question yet. It might not be able to. However it's done a shitload more than your supposed god has. Evidence is useful, belief in a sky daddy does nothing more than give you an excuse to dismiss evidence without actually thinking about it.

You do realize that you're a joke around here, right? Actually your type of thinking about reality has been a joke in much of the modern world for quite some time now. I know, it'll all be better for you once Jesus comes, and we'll all be proven wrong. You keep holding on to that shtick, the rest of us will do our best to become better as a species (or "kind" Rolleyes ) despite the residual drag that you insist on putting us through.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

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