Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2010, 02:50 PM
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
(30-12-2010 02:45 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  There was a funny bit in the Family Guy episode : Road to the North Pole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v-UxQNGGeQ

Well than Stark Raving, could I then perhaps have all your money? And your leg too, if you wouldn't mind Tongue

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2010, 03:22 PM
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
I'm broke, and I already gave both m' legs away. Got a snowmobile if you want it though. (Just to make up for not having any money or legs to give you)

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2010, 09:59 PM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2010 01:45 AM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
(29-12-2010 09:51 PM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  It's not really a case of choosing to not believe. I think closest would be "unable to believe due to lack of evidence" though if you wanna keep it simple.

I've heard that before and I understand there to be more evidence for Christianity, namely young earth creationism, than for other things and religions including macro evolution.
(29-12-2010 09:56 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  I agree, but that just invites the debate on if you choose to believe, or if your subconsious decides what you believe. I've literally tried to make myself Christian at one point, and failed.

Lol, you tried to make yourself a Christian? How did you go about that? (sorry if you already answered this in later posts I haven't read)
(29-12-2010 09:59 PM)Laxion Wrote:  So you believe in the mass murders god made in the bible ? talking snake ? a boat fitting all the animals for like 60 days, how is a foot ball size stadium support 40,000 animals specie, 80,000 animals, with food and water, shelter them all ?light came before stars?

I think its time to use common sense and ditch the flying sky daddy, we have science, evidence, for us to not believe in supernatural myth.

p.s christmas is a pagan holiday,

Yes, yes, 370 days. The amount of animals on the Ark was much less than the amount of species that exist now. The species that exist now are descendants of the creatures on the Ark that became their own species later as a result of natural selection. I've usually considered that the stars (including the sun) existed when God said "Let there be light" and it wasn't until the 4th day when they could actually be seen clearly from Earth. There's many opinions on this I'm sure, but that's mine.

I said to someone else that I've found there to be more evidence supporting Christianity than going against it. It's because the Christians are stupid that people don't like Christianity. (Yes, I did call myself stupid)

I'm not overly concerned with the origins of the Christmas traditions. Nowadays it's a pretty Christian thing and how you act about it is up to you.
(29-12-2010 10:01 PM)Laxion Wrote:  I once was on a christian site, asking for questions, but they ban me. I guess that's how they avoid answering questions, and stuff. Here we don't do this at all...

Lol, I'm glad. I very much dislike how Christians have built a reputation for doing things like that. It's really counter-productive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2010, 10:41 PM
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
(30-12-2010 09:59 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  I've heard that before and I understand there to be more evidence for Christianity, namely young earth creationism, than for other things and religions including macro evolution.

Then you understand wrong. There is only a single piece of evidence for YEC. That would be the bible. And since the bible is contradictory, has no supporting documentation outside of christian text, and is riddled with historical innacuracies, not to mention obvious fairy tales, I couldn't even call it evidence of anything other than a bunch of dilusional writers.
Evolution, however, has tons of evidence (evidence supported by research, by the way, not dogma). My guess would be that you don't even understand evolution. Of course correct me if I'm wrong.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2010, 11:22 PM
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
(29-12-2010 10:01 PM)trillium13 Wrote:  Of course. The reason I am atheist is because I think about things. I just don't need to find a greater reason for everything. Things happen. I accept it. I also think that science explains much. Are there specific things you have in mind?

Also, I don't think that anyone will bash you here unless they feel attacked first, and maybe not even then. That's one of those myths about atheists. Wink

We're quite happy to have rational discussions.

I'm actually very similar to that. I don't need a greater reason for things and have simply accepted that stuff happens, but after being a Christian for a few years I've come across greater reasons for things. I don't think people need to look for a greater reason for things, but if you come across a greater reason then that's cool too.

Lol, no I was just being pretty general.
Lol, it's true for most atheists, but as with everything there are occasions.

That's good, the feeling is mutual then. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2010, 11:22 PM
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
(30-12-2010 09:59 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  I've heard that before and I understand there to be more evidence for Christianity, namely young earth creationism, than for other things and religions including macro evolution.

I just finished a research paper on how the bible has very little merit, the only thing we can learn from the bible is what ancient Jewish culture, and of course the foundation of Christianity, Judaism, and in some part Islam. Your statement is extremely vauge when you state that there is more evidence for young earth creationism, what are you comparing it to? And also where is this evidence? I would accept a link if you feel it is a lengthy bit of evidence.

Seeing as you use the term macro evolution, it is obvious you learned about evolution in either a high school biology class, or by a creationist, because there is absolutely NO distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. I remember my high school biology teacher trying to make them sound different, but later coming out and saying "so basically macroevolution is microevolution over an extended period of time" which is a 100% true statement. And since the laws of nature do not just occur spontaneously, there is no distinction between macro and microevolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2010, 12:17 AM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2010 01:00 AM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
(30-12-2010 10:41 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Then you understand wrong. There is only a single piece of evidence for YEC. That would be the bible. And since the bible is contradictory, has no supporting documentation outside of christian text, and is riddled with historical innacuracies, not to mention obvious fairy tales, I couldn't even call it evidence of anything other than a bunch of dilusional writers.
Evolution, however, has tons of evidence (evidence supported by research, by the way, not dogma). My guess would be that you don't even understand evolution. Of course correct me if I'm wrong.

You can go anywhere in the world, dig and find fish fossils. This is fairly good evidence of the flood in my opinion.

It's not contradictory and it does have supporting documentation that's not Christian text.
What historical inaccuracies are you referring to?

I'll let you decide how well I understand evolution. Random mutations regulated by natural selection in order to sift out the ones that are beneficial and those that aren't beneficial quickly die off. Quick and simple.

I'm curious. You seem to have grown a hostility towards Christians. How did that come about? You don't have to answer of course, but as I'm said, I am curious.
(30-12-2010 11:22 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  I just finished a research paper on how the bible has very little merit, the only thing we can learn from the bible is what ancient Jewish culture, and of course the foundation of Christianity, Judaism, and in some part Islam. Your statement is extremely vauge when you state that there is more evidence for young earth creationism, what are you comparing it to? And also where is this evidence? I would accept a link if you feel it is a lengthy bit of evidence.

Seeing as you use the term macro evolution, it is obvious you learned about evolution in either a high school biology class, or by a creationist, because there is absolutely NO distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. I remember my high school biology teacher trying to make them sound different, but later coming out and saying "so basically macroevolution is microevolution over an extended period of time" which is a 100% true statement. And since the laws of nature do not just occur spontaneously, there is no distinction between macro and microevolution.

I'm comparing it to atheism and more specifically evolution believing atheism.
This is a site I came upon recently, but I think it has some good stuff on the reliability of the Bible. I'll wait on putting more here in the interest of keeping this short.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

I understand the difference between micro and macro evolution and I do make a distinction because macroevolution deals with larger changes (explained by microevolution over time) that often have a factor of irreducible complexity that microevolution couldn't explain.
(29-12-2010 10:29 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  I don't see one problem with excluding the supernatural, all the supernatural has done is give us an excuse not to search for real answers. Early in our history we had few answers to many questions, so we refered to the supernatural, but as you can see from history, there is a positive trend of finding natural explanations for the once thought supernatural, and we have also in fact disproved many supernatural ideals (like alchemy and magic for example). Straying from reality is fun, but it becomes dangerous when you lose your sense of it.

I think that we can get some real answers from the supernatural. When I say that I mean it in the same way you can get real answers from anything else. You can take anything and take whatever is good from it and ignore the stupid stuff. If some angel is having a philosophical discussion with a person in some story you can choose to ignore the fact that he's an angel and weigh his ideas just like any other persons. Same applies for God. You can ignore the fact that He's God and look at what He says and decide if it makes sense or not. Of course there are times when things only work if the person doing them is God, so you need to take that into consideration. Anyways, I'm sorta babbling, but I think you should get my point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2010, 01:16 AM
 
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
(31-12-2010 12:17 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  You can go anywhere in the world, dig and find fish fossils. This is fairly good evidence of the flood in my opinion.

I am not very good at explaining things (I've taken Teacher off my potential career choices a long time ago Tongue ), so excuse me if I made any mistakes.

According to the Bible, the flood lasted 150 days. So if the Creationist theory is correct, all the fossils must have formed all at once when the Earth began to flood, which means the number of fossils we find would approximately be equal the number of animals that were alive at the time of the flood (minus the animals that were on the ark of course). However, there is an overwhelming number of fossils on Earth; it is impossible that all these animals were alive at the same time, otherwise the Earth would have been occupied beyond its capacity.

Another problem with using fossils as evidence of the flood is that if a flood was indeed the reason for the formation of fossils, then we would expect them to be sorted by size; smaller animals die first, followed by larger animals. But that is not the case: fossils of primitive animals are found at the bottom while those of more evolved animals are found nearest to the surface.

The formation of fossils took billions of years. It's impossible that fossils are the result of great flood.
Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2010, 01:37 AM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2010 02:00 AM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
(30-12-2010 12:46 AM)d.James Wrote:  I won't bash you, and I suggest you don't take a defensive posture. I did not choose to be atheist anymore than I chose my political philosophy, what I value in relationships, or my life experiences and what I learned from them.

I was raised Catholic and stopped practicing my faith around 16. I studied the roots of the Bible I was reading, the history of the church, and came to the conclusion that the church has hurt the world. I also studied the science and did not accept the teachings of the church that they peacefully co-existed. I think science paints a completely different different concept of creation. I evaluated the God in the Bible and found him to be a dictator (the plagues in Egypt, flooding the earth, testing Jonah, wagering with the devil over the soul of a man, etc). I decided that even if God did exist I did not see him as benevolent and if hell existed, I would end up there anyway. If God demands me to set aside the brain that I have, the morals that I have developed, to worship him, and he'd damn me for that?

It's perfect--it explains the unexplainable. It expresses the human need for knowing where we came from and to explain our ability to think outside our immediate and basic needs. It gave pride to the Jews during times of opression (the meek shall inherit the world, etc). It gives us comfort when a man is able to avoid all punishment (murders that walk free, etc). If he blessed me with this society, this mind, this life then he rigged the game and I'll be damned anyway.

We undervalue the life here on earth preparing for the next life. We don't see our fellow man we see good and evil. We pass judgment because we feel righteous. We shout down anyone who have contradictory knowledge (like banning Galileo's teachings for 140 years) and quickly get rid of the messenger. No, thank you.

If you had my view on this, would you be Catholic?

Honestly, I don't really like Catholic churches. They've twisted the Bible so much it's not even funny.

This is God's creation and He has the right to do whatever He wants with us, but He chooses to give us a will of our own. Since He doesn't want to control us like puppets and gave us free will we are entitled the right to do whatever we want. This means we can be nice to others or we can treat them like dirt. We can sin or we can do what God wants. You think that the church has hurt the world, but Jesus Himself says in the Bible
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. This is the first and the greatest commandment and the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All of the laws and the prophets hang off of these two commandments."
Anything that the church has done to hurt the world is because of the people in the church and not because of the Bible that they claim to base their actions in.

God tells us about Hell and does these atrocities in order to dissuade us from sinning because He knows that any sin we do will do nothing but harm us and others. God gave us the Bible in order for us to understand Him and everything else.

All of the things that you stated that you hate about the church, I also hate. The church has missed its purpose. In the verses I quoted above you see the purpose that God gave to the church.
(31-12-2010 01:16 AM)mBear Wrote:  I am not very good at explaining things (I've taken Teacher off my potential career choices a long time ago Tongue ), so excuse me if I made any mistakes.

According to the Bible, the flood lasted 150 days. So if the Creationist theory is correct, all the fossils must have formed all at once when the Earth began to flood, which means the number of fossils we find would approximately be equal the number of animals that were alive at the time of the flood (minus the animals that were on the ark of course). However, there is an overwhelming number of fossils on Earth; it is impossible that all these animals were alive at the same time, otherwise the Earth would have been occupied beyond its capacity.

Another problem with using fossils as evidence of the flood is that if a flood was indeed the reason for the formation of fossils, then we would expect them to be sorted by size; smaller animals die first, followed by larger animals. But that is not the case: fossils of primitive animals are found at the bottom while those of more evolved animals are found nearest to the surface.

The formation of fossils took billions of years. It's impossible that fossils are the result of great flood.

No, not all fossils, just a large amount of fish and water animal fossils found in environments devoid of water life. Other fossils could come from a large array of times.

If it was caused by the flood I wouldn't expect to find them by size, I'd expect to find a bunch of dead stuff scattered throughout the layers that were exposed during the time of the flood regardless of size.

I made a fossil in just a few minutes in the 3rd grade. It really doesn't take billions of years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2010, 02:18 AM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2010 02:54 AM by TheKetola.)
RE: Me is Christian. You no believe in God?
@BlackEyedGhost
Quote:You can go anywhere in the world, dig and find fish fossils. This is fairly good evidence of the flood in my opinion.

It's not contradictory and it does have supporting documentation that's not Christian text.
What historical inaccuracies are you referring to?

I'll let you decide how well I understand evolution. Random mutations regulated by natural selection in order to sift out the ones that are beneficial and those that aren't beneficial quickly die off. Quick and simple.

I'm curious. You seem to have grown a hostility towards Christians. How did that come about? You don't have to answer of course, but as I'm said, I am curious.

Finding fish fossils on land is not really very convincing, considering the whole ice age, and then warming cycle that the Earth goes through (coincidentally we were in a small ice age before the industrial revolution, not that it's important to the discussion, just an interesting piece of information). Also tsunamis, flooding, any number of events really could lead to this. The Earth has changed many times over it's 4.5 billion year history, so it is not very surprising that you can find fish fossils anywhere. What you need to look at is the age of the animal (yes I am driving this away from fish, since this is not exclusive to them) fossil that you find, what we find is the the closer to the surface the fossil is, the younger it is, this is EXACTLY what we would expect from evolution.


Quote:I'm comparing it to atheism and more specifically evolution believing atheism.
This is a site I came upon recently, but I think it has some good stuff on the reliability of the Bible. I'll wait on putting more here in the interest of keeping this short.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

I understand the difference between micro and macro evolution and I do make a distinction because macroevolution deals with larger changes (explained by microevolution over time) that often have a factor of irreducible complexity that microevolution couldn't explain.

First I need to correct you, call us naturalists (there seems to be a negative connotation whenever I hear the word evolutionists, and naturalist is the most correct word). Second, I have seen all these apologist arguments before, how about I show you a few counter examples (in the interest of keeping it short I'll go with four, one scientific and three textual). First example, the bible (and since you stated previously you are a young Earth Creationist) states that the Earth is younger than 10,000 years old, as well as geologic dating on Earth that dates the Earth much older, we have dated rock samples from the moon that state quite the contrary, and if you look out into space, you can see far beyond 10,000 light years away, 14,000,000,000 is where are blind spot indicates the age of the universe (since the Earth and the universe are not even a day apart in the creation story, I feel I should add that for you). Now lets move away from science and the bible, let's just look at the bible, apologists love to point at fulfilled prophecies as "proof" of the bible, however what do you make of the unfulfilled prophecies, which are Isaiah 52:1, Jonah 3:4, Zechariah 11:12, Mathew 1: 22-23, Mathew 12:5, Mathew 24:34, Mathew 27:9, Mathew 26:64, Amos 9:15, Ezekiel 29: 10-11 , Isaiah 19:18, Isaiah 19:4-5, Isaiah 17:1, Isaiah 7:14, but you know what's even stranger than all those unfulfilled prophecies? The fact that the ones that were fulfilled were either vauge, self-fulling, or fullfilled by those who we can assume read the text. Alright, how about the old apologist argument of the numerous amount of manuscripts that we have of the bible. This is the silliest argument I have ever heard to be honest, do me a favor and handwrite "Ketola is God" a million times and see if it is anymore truer when you are done. What is important is the amount of original manuscripts, but since the bible is the work of God, wouldn't you expect the original manuscripts to all be complete (You will probably say this an unfair expectation, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, however even without this expectation it is still looking bad.). When the old testament was first put together in 800 BCE (this being only part of the old testament) there was only fragments of the original manuscripts to work off of (and 1200 years of oral tradition). You can not expect an oral message to last for 1200 years unchanged, it's simply inconcievable. After many revisions, information being edited, changed, and thrown out or added based on the decisions of jewish mystics we have the old testament, and then later there were more revisions and finally we had what you call the bible, now you know what we don't have? Any complete ORIGINAL manuscripts, sure we have hundreds of manuscripts, but you want to know something about them? They conflict with eachother and they are riddled with historical innacuracies. Which brings me to my last point, the bible is riddled with historical inaccuracies, despite what the apologists would otherwise tell you. The Exodus occurs nowhere in Egyptian history, which is extremely strange considering how well their history was documented at the time, and that the entire Egyptian army was wiped out by the red sea. Even more interesting though is that we have architectural and documentation that leads us to believe that Egypt controlled Palestine at the time when the supposed Exodus took place. There is also no documentation of when Herod attempted to kill Jesus by ordering all first born sons in the area killed. There are more examples, but I feel like I am overloading you with information already. So here is a link for some history on the Bible http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
In regards to evolution, you are saying that small changes can not add up to become big changes? That is like earning a dollar a day and saying that it would never add up to a hundred dollars.

Quote:I think that we can get some real answers from the supernatural. When I say that I mean it in the same way you can get real answers from anything else. You can take anything and take whatever is good from it and ignore the stupid stuff. If some angel is having a philosophical discussion with a person in some story you can choose to ignore the fact that he's an angel and weigh his ideas just like any other persons. Same applies for God. You can ignore the fact that He's God and look at what He says and decide if it makes sense or not. Of course there are times when things only work if the person doing them is God, so you need to take that into consideration. Anyways, I'm sorta babbling, but I think you should get my point.
You aren't getting answers from the supernatural, you are getting answers from stories about the supernatural, which is extremely diffrent. The supernatural has never been proven to occur, it only exists in stories. It's like saying you are getting answers from the future when you are reading a book about the future. I don't even think you truly believe the statement from how you were trying to rationalize it towards the end of your post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: