Opposed to God or the idea of God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2017, 06:14 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:34 PM)Eagle Wrote:  If there is one in particular you'd like to mention, then please do, and i'll address it. I hope you can understand that I cannot answer literally hundreds of copy/paste, which was presented to me, although, it was suggested to me by full circle that I should Smile I'm sorry, I can't, I don't have the time to dedicate to an internet site! But if there is one in particular, please bring it to my attention by posting it, and i'll answer it.

Ezekiel 30, the Lament over Egypt The most important verses are 9 - 12 (particularly 10 and 12):

9 “‘On that day messengers will go out from me in ships to frighten Cush out of her complacency. Anguish will take hold of them on the day of Egypt’s doom, for it is sure to come.

10 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt
by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.

11 He and his army—the most ruthless of nations—
will be brought in to destroy the land.
They will draw their swords against Egypt
and fill the land with the slain.
12 I will dry up the waters of the Nile
and sell the land to an evil nation;
by the hand of foreigners
I will lay waste the land and everything in it.
I the Lord have spoken.

So, the failed prophesy is in verse 12. The Nile never dried up. I included the rest of that for context, because the common apologetic for this prophesy is to say that it hasn't happened yet, but once we take context into account, we see that God said very specifically that he was going to have Nebuchadnezzar lay waste to Egypt. There's a pretty sharp timeline on there (Nebuchadnezzar's life time), and the Nile never dried up.

The only possible reading on that to maintain both being true is that God was so mad at Egypt that he was going to send Nebuchadnezzar to mess them up in the near future and dry up the Nile some unspecified amount of millennia later.


(09-10-2017 05:34 PM)Eagle Wrote:  As to the creation of the universe, I think my last post summed it up well. Even physicists say it's outwith the realm of physics.

The answer is that God is the most logical explanation.

The answer is "we don't know". Assuming it must be God is no different than saying Bob needs to go to prison because his defense attorney cannot prove who did commit the murder. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Also, "the most logical" answer is a stretch. What caused God? You're going to resort to an "I don't know" sooner or later. Using an unproven answer that raises more unanswered questions is of dubious value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
09-10-2017, 06:15 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:51 PM)Eagle Wrote:  Unless I'm mistaken, people are remaining strangely quiet on the fact that hard evidence (geology) disproves evolution

https://phys.org/news/2010-11-darwin-the...ical.html,

If it perhaps helps to get your attention, here is the title of the article, 'Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes'

I asked you earlier about quote-mining.

As the saying goes, here is the rest of the story:

Charles Darwin's theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology. In fact, Rampino notes that a more accurate theory of gradual evolution, positing that long periods of evolutionary stability are disrupted by catastrophic mass extinctions of life, was put forth by Scottish horticulturalist Patrick Matthew prior to Darwin's published work on the topic.

That's the OPENING PARAGRAPH IN THE ARTICLE YOU CITED.

It confirms and substantiates gradual evolution. Just not quite the way Darwin understood it.

You posted a misleading quote taken from an article that says the opposite of what you said it did.

LIAR.

WHY DOES YOUR TRUTH NEED LIES TO SUPPORT IT???

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 14 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
09-10-2017, 06:17 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
Actually geology refutes Creationism ... which is all this guy is up to.
http://theconversation.com/even-setting-...nism-40356
Oh well.
So much for tit-mouse.

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
09-10-2017, 06:18 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
[Image: 5b62cc54a5431233f77e2f891bea273e--atheis...apture.jpg]

*sigh*

Where's a rapture when you REALLY need one?

A friend in the hole

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Picard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like unsapien's post
09-10-2017, 06:21 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 03:35 PM)Eagle Wrote:  You aren't volunteering much information Smile
If you were sincere in your faith you would be examining other religions on your own, if only to be certain that you had placed your faith correctly.
A faith that refuses to be challenged is a weak faith, indeed.

Quote:For what it's worth, i'm a university graduate in a science field,
What field would that be? Homeopathy? Or maybe parapsychology?

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 06:23 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 03:38 PM)ImFred Wrote:  I don't know how people can stand to even read or listen to Christian shit. Everything they say, every argument they have, it's all so fucking idiotic. How many times can you cycle through the same stupid fucking shit before you decide alright shut the fuck up already. It circles and circles. Shit doesn't deserve respectful debate it needs to be shit on and ignored.

C'mon Fred -- some of us are dealing with OCD.
It's not pretty, but there it is. Smile

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 06:24 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:51 PM)Eagle Wrote:  There are many definitions of evolution now, but here's the bulwark, that is, Darwinism,

'the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.'

That is, changed into a different species.

Unless I'm mistaken, people are remaining strangely quiet on the fact that hard evidence (geology) disproves evolution

https://phys.org/news/2010-11-darwin-the...ical.html,

If it perhaps helps to get your attention, here is the title of the article, 'Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes'

Have a nice evening! Smile

> Wrong! From the article you linked:

“Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations,” says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. 'In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view.'” (Emphasis added)

> Modern geology does, in fact, support the present day theory of evolution. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Gwaithmir's post
09-10-2017, 06:26 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 03:45 PM)Eagle Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 03:38 PM)ImFred Wrote:  I don't know how people can stand to even read or listen to Christian shit. Everything they say, every argument they have, it's all so fucking idiotic. How many times can you cycle through the same stupid fucking shit before you decide alright shut the fuck up already. It circles and circles. Shit doesn't deserve respectful debate it needs to be shit on and ignored.

That's the spirit of antichrist working in you.

The spirit of anarchist, more likely.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
09-10-2017, 06:32 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 03:53 PM)Eagle Wrote:  I'm sorry, but I couldn't read your very long post. I'm not an expert at picking apart paragraphs and responding in bit sequence as you do, nor do I think it's wise, because i've seen people talk so much that way that they forget where or why they began.

If you can't even read a few paragraphs in a post, how in Ninkasi's name did you even manager to work your way through the Bible?

Or did you?


Quote:But i'll ask you, since you speak of 'evolution being a well documented fact.'

Provide me with one proof of evolution.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...n-the-lab/

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
09-10-2017, 06:33 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 02:52 PM)Eagle Wrote:  The Bible is almost 3/10ths prophecy, and the prophecy has never shown to be wrong yet.

Couple of things here, sport.

A book written over centuries by different authors will be backwritten to agree with previous stories. This isn't prophecy, it's a writing technique. A book cannot be prophetic within it's own pages.

The gospel writers looked through the Old Testament searching for ways to shoehorn Jesus into the messiah role. And we know they did this because the translation errors were carried foreward into their writings. One can do a backwards paper chase and trace their efforts to align Jesus with what they erroneously thought was a messiah.

Quote:Everything in the Bible agrees with itself.

Pffffft. Laugh out load See my previous paragraph. A book cannot be prophetic within it's own pages. Take off your god glasses and think about that for a while.

Prophecy relies on interpretation to make it work. One person can read a passage in the bible and find it prophecies the election of the local dog catcher, another sees prophecies of a hurricane.

One last thing. Almost every culture has a book of prophecies. If they don't have written prophecies, they search out prophecies in nature stories handed down over generations. The bible isn't unique at all. It's a bunch of hoo-haw written by superstituous people who thought bats were birds and rabbits chewed their cuds.

Use some of your brain cells now and again.

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
[+] 4 users Like dancefortwo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: