Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2010, 03:09 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2010 03:52 PM by Germanatheist007.)
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
The current Pope has said "that evolution can coexist with faith". He said "He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’ A far cry saying he believes in evolution. I believe in micro evolution, not macro evolution. I believe that is what the Pope believes also.

As far as Craig goes he has a doctorate in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham England, and a doctorate in Theology
[/quote]

so, you belief in micro- but not in macro evolution? You know that macro evolution is micro evolution in another scale and bigger interval, do you?
So you´re saying that evolution can happen over short time, but then suddenly stops? That´s nonsense...

And of course evolution can´t answer every question... . And nobody´s claiming that. Evolution just explains how life developed (and not where everything comes from, thats abiogenesis and cosmology and has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with evolution, how creationists claim since decades). And evolutionists are also not claiming that they can answer questions like, what comes after death or what´s the purpose of life?
I, as an atheist, say that the purpose of life is what you are making out of it. You can say your goal is to get a doctor, a judge or whatever.
And what´s the purpose of you religous people? To worship a god who has obviously such a demolished ego, that he must create a whole universe for a species that has to worshiep, praise and remind him that he exists every day... yeah what a great purpose.

and to your craig thingy.
I never said that he is silly or something. The core of what i wrote is, that he is nothing else than another stubborn creationist who knows nothing about biology and evolution but wants to debate with states like "evolution doesn´t answer questions like, where did everything came from" or "evolution claims that things like the human eye just popped into existence". And to debate with him would be nothing else than a huge waste of Mr. Dawkins time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 03:26 PM
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
A doctorate in theology? Wow that's impressive! It totally gives him the right and authority to make whatever assertions he deems necessary to 'defend' his beliefs while using complicated words enough to make them sound perfectly intelligent and reasonable to the unknowing. I would like to quote here the characterization given by the site's Editor to the 'theologian' type in a debate:

Quote:THE THEOLOGIAN

Some of the most elaborate responses have come from educated bible scholars.

Each discussion usually begins with a quick resume (where he presents his degrees like movie credits), and then he delves into a thick, eloquent tirade designed to impress and overwhelm.

The Theologian likes to respond to questions about the authenticity of the scriptures by quoting…the scriptures! (Isn’t that like quoting the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an?)

Instead of addressing why God would instruct man with a book (written by man) in primitive Palestine 2,000 years ago, or why some books were canonized while others were ignored, or why God doesn’t give us real-time communication, The Theologian attempts to win the intellectual tug-of-war with wordy diatribes, convoluted scripture analysis and thick rebukes of the unwashed, unsaved masses.

The Theologian instructs us to learn biblical Truth with helpful bible-reading pointers:

• Go back to the original Greek.

• See the passage in the proper context, taking into account the time period and local customs.

• Cross-reference the passage with another passage.

• (my favorite) Remember that you can’t take the entire bible LITERALLY.

That last point is great for getting other Theologians to argue amongst themselves over whether the bible is literal or not. Or which translation is the most accurate. Or how wrong some interpretations are. Or whether all of the scriptures apply to today.
Put a dozen of these guys in a room and see how much consensus you get on any subject. (Not much.)

Nobody stops to ask the most basic question: Isn’t this subjective, archaic, hand-me-down method of communicating scriptural Truth rather INEFFECTIVE for such a smart and timeless God?

Instead of addressing these issues, the Theologian loves to redirect the conversation back to his comfort zones, responding to questions you didn’t actually ask.

Toss out a zinger about why God doesn’t intervene to prevent tragedies in today’s headlines, and you might get 3 paragraphs about why Eve was tempted in the Garden of Eden.

If you take that bait and ask about the provability of the “Adam and Eve” Creation argument, The Theologian might skip past the “belief” part and start telling you why he “disbelieves” that we came from monkeys (which isn’t proof of Creation). He usually tosses out Darwin’s name at least twice, often followed by words like “idiot” and “stupid.”

If you take THAT bait and ask him to reconcile the vast discrepancies between Creationists and the scientific record, The Theologian might jump into a soap box about the book of Revelation and the End Times. It’s all very jarring.

Almost always, The Theologian finishes with a few lofty words from his high perch, giving assurances that he has studied the bible, traveled to biblical places, immersed himself in history and applied his formidable intellect to the study of God’s Word. There can be no question. “Alas, ye lesser minds, ye must lean to my wisdom. I am no fool. But if you reject this faith, you certainly are.”

Now is it just me or that sounds exactly like your Craig? I suppose this is why Dawkins won't debate him. He simply wants to avoid an unpleasant, mentally exhausting and unproductive situation. Or as, Germanatheist put it, a huge waste of time.

All learning is quite useless if you haven't learned to question what you learn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 03:32 PM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(02-04-2010 05:52 AM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  martin, when you are ready to start debating about theology (and not 'he said, she said'), let me know.

We can start with a simple one...what YOU personally believe. I recall this question being asked of you before and all you did was dance around the answer.

Patiently awaiting your response.

I will give you a brief history. I was raised Catholic, but never really liked the whole scene, I went because my made parents made me, I stopped going when I turned 18. Between the ages of 18 and 21, I was doing the usual party/bar scene; I got tired of hanging out with “bar skanks” and decided to find a “good girl”, what better place to find one than at a church. The Pastor made the point that you will be dead a lot longer than you will be alive. There is no disputing that so I started to examine all religions including the possibility that there was no God. My dad is a Doctor, Anesthesiologist, I have been in the operating room since I was a kid, I have seen the body opened up from head to toe, I have been around science my entire life, and the idea that there is no God was just about the most ridiculous idea I had heard. So I went on a journey to find God.

I was in college and I took a world religion class that gave me an overview of most religions, I took it to the next level and started attending all sorts of services, meetings, debates, and seminars. This was before the internet so I had to crack the books and go to the place where these people would hang out, I went to synagogues, churches, middle of the desert, from Krishna’s to Native American Religions I went to as many as I could and I went with an empty mind, I went to learn about them and not to try and prove them wrong. Once I narrowed that list down I examined their history, their leaders, and their books in an effort to determine which one I thought was true. The one that I liked the most was Native American Spirituality, but I found no real evidence of it being true. The one that had the most credibility was Biblical Christianity.
The following web address is a common doctrinal statement that most non-denominational churches follow.

http://coasthillschurch.org/pages/page.a...e_id=11285

The following is directed not just to Supermanlives1973 but most of the people on this site as well. I believe that atheists are not consistent in their beliefs. Since you love science so much, one of your favorite arguments against believing the Bible is that it was written by men, but you unquestioningly believe science text books…written by men. You mention that God killed many people, how many people has science killed? Atomic Bomb, the numbers are up to 1.4 million with the effects still being felt. How about Sarin gas? The list will go on and on. Science does not prove or disprove everything, yet you use it when it comes to the Bible and God all the time. I made the comment that the Bible is consistent with scientific facts but it is not a science book. It pointed out things years before the scientific community of the time knew it. Scientifically prove you love your wife or kids or dog. Science deals with things that can be measured, weighed, etc. You can’t put faith in science because it constantly changes, I don’t see you with leeches on your forehead, Pluto is not a planet, the earth is round, and the sun doesn’t rotate around the earth. You think the statement “I came from an ape that came from something else that came from something else that came from primordial soup through time and chance” is more logical then “A higher intelligence created intelligent life on earth, according to their kind.” You hate the idea of faith but love “Time and Chance”. Your quote “The bible is NOT the inerrant word of god, it is the word of stone-aged peasants who had nothing better to do than make up stories to scare their kids with. I would rather read The Lord of the Rings...at least it's more interesting.” So let me get this straight, you use a book that is made up non-sense about a God that doesn’t exist as proof that that God doesn’t exist! Why do get upset with the idea of a hell? It comes from a God that doesn’t exist about a place that doesn’t exist. I also believe that most on this site do not have a clue about religions, have never put any time into discovering them. So to say that there is no God based on a few Wikipedia articles, or youtube videos, or research that others have done is moronic. It’s ok for atheists to quote from atheist sources but it is not ok for me to quote from a theist source. You say I force my beliefs on you, yet you force your beliefs on me.

This is where you definition of truth will bite you. “6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. 9. Agreement with a standard or original.” Using your definition of truth, and the survey from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008, we have 216,367,000 people that responded, 173,402,000 had some Christian affiliation, 34,000,000 had a non-Christian belief and 3,606,000 claimed to be atheist/agnostic. So 173 million accept that God exists which mean that those people would believe God created the universe. Scientists and atheists have an agenda just like you say theists do.
Anyway enough for now.
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 03:52 PM
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
Ok... I''l ignore all the fallacies in your post (I'll let Unbeliever or others to point them out) and say one thing only. While studying all these religions and resolving that 'life without a god would be ridiculous', have you never thought that maybe if there is a god, that 'god' may not be the one promoted by any religion? That neither of the 'revealed' gods were true, but that the creator was another, yet undiscovered?

Oh and one more thing:

Quote:So to say that there is no God based on a few Wikipedia articles, or youtube videos, or research that others have done is moronic.


Before all that there is a thing called common sense and critical thinking. Certainly, if you set out to choose one belief out of a limited set of beliefs, as you did, without the intention of proving them wrong, you will eventually choose the one that sounds more sensible and more acceptable to you. But if you do depart with the intention of proving it wrong, and if this religion does have flaws (as it happens with all known religions), then you will find them, because your own common sense will signal them to you. You don't need to be told anything by anyone, in fact the only way you can believe in what an established religious claims is if you really want to believe and will go any lengths to prevent the loss of belief. That happens because you are afraid, and it's pretty clear what you are afraid of.

All learning is quite useless if you haven't learned to question what you learn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 03:58 PM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(02-04-2010 03:26 PM)Juppers Wrote:  A doctorate in theology? Wow that's impressive! It totally gives him the right and authority to make whatever assertions he deems necessary to 'defend' his beliefs while using complicated words enough to make them sound perfectly intelligent and reasonable to the unknowing. I would like to quote here the characterization given by the site's Editor to the 'theologian' type in a debate:

Quote:THE THEOLOGIAN

Some of the most elaborate responses have come from educated bible scholars.

Each discussion usually begins with a quick resume (where he presents his degrees like movie credits), and then he delves into a thick, eloquent tirade designed to impress and overwhelm.

The Theologian likes to respond to questions about the authenticity of the scriptures by quoting…the scriptures! (Isn’t that like quoting the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an?)

Instead of addressing why God would instruct man with a book (written by man) in primitive Palestine 2,000 years ago, or why some books were canonized while others were ignored, or why God doesn’t give us real-time communication, The Theologian attempts to win the intellectual tug-of-war with wordy diatribes, convoluted scripture analysis and thick rebukes of the unwashed, unsaved masses.

The Theologian instructs us to learn biblical Truth with helpful bible-reading pointers:

• Go back to the original Greek.

• See the passage in the proper context, taking into account the time period and local customs.

• Cross-reference the passage with another passage.

• (my favorite) Remember that you can’t take the entire bible LITERALLY.

That last point is great for getting other Theologians to argue amongst themselves over whether the bible is literal or not. Or which translation is the most accurate. Or how wrong some interpretations are. Or whether all of the scriptures apply to today.
Put a dozen of these guys in a room and see how much consensus you get on any subject. (Not much.)

Nobody stops to ask the most basic question: Isn’t this subjective, archaic, hand-me-down method of communicating scriptural Truth rather INEFFECTIVE for such a smart and timeless God?

Instead of addressing these issues, the Theologian loves to redirect the conversation back to his comfort zones, responding to questions you didn’t actually ask.

Toss out a zinger about why God doesn’t intervene to prevent tragedies in today’s headlines, and you might get 3 paragraphs about why Eve was tempted in the Garden of Eden.

If you take that bait and ask about the provability of the “Adam and Eve” Creation argument, The Theologian might skip past the “belief” part and start telling you why he “disbelieves” that we came from monkeys (which isn’t proof of Creation). He usually tosses out Darwin’s name at least twice, often followed by words like “idiot” and “stupid.”

If you take THAT bait and ask him to reconcile the vast discrepancies between Creationists and the scientific record, The Theologian might jump into a soap box about the book of Revelation and the End Times. It’s all very jarring.

Almost always, The Theologian finishes with a few lofty words from his high perch, giving assurances that he has studied the bible, traveled to biblical places, immersed himself in history and applied his formidable intellect to the study of God’s Word. There can be no question. “Alas, ye lesser minds, ye must lean to my wisdom. I am no fool. But if you reject this faith, you certainly are.”

Now is it just me or that sounds exactly like your Craig? I suppose this is why Dawkins won't debate him. He simply wants to avoid an unpleasant, mentally exhausting and unproductive situation. Or as, Germanatheist put it, a huge waste of time.

Since I am a salmon swimming upstream on this site I would like to make a little disclaimer. If I don't respond to you for some reason, it is not because you have made some great point that has stumped me, I will respond to all of those. But I will not respond to cut and paste, no thinking, responses like the one above, it is clear he or she, has never watched a Craig debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Y6ev152...re=related

Watch all 11 parts and tell me if Craig fits that format. If Craig is the leading Theist apologist and Dawkins is the leading atheist apologist then debate him.
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 04:08 PM
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
wait let me get that straight. You are only believing because you fear death. Maaan great reason i guess you´re the first one^^.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 04:27 PM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(02-04-2010 04:08 PM)Germanatheist007 Wrote:  wait let me get that straight. You are only believing because you fear death. Maaan great reason i guess you´re the first one^^.

I will give you a pass because of the language issue, but from now on I will put "disclaimer" in the reply to save time from ridiculous posts.

Where did I say fear of death? I said I was going to be dead longer than I was going to be alive. That has nothing to do with fear, you are going to be dead longer than you will be alive also. Since I believe that God created the universe and I believe God to be transcendent, I went out to discover as much as I could about religions. I do not believe that Biblical Christianity is a religion, I believe that man did that not God.
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 04:29 PM
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
we´re saying that the bible was written by man, because mans are not perfect which seems ridiculous when you look at the fact that every christian is claiming that the "holy bible" is the faultless word of god himself...

And to your atomic bomb thing. Science doesn´t kill people. Just the results of some scientists work. Work that was given to them by the government because they want to protect the country and the people who are living there. If you want to live in a land as attackable as a turtle lying on it´s back, that´s fine by me, but don´t cry for sciences´help if you´re attacked by some pissed muslim terrorists...
Probably you should mention that science has already rescued the lifes of thousands of sick people and that this kind of science has nothing to do with evolution...
If you still don´t like science ok, but then you have to leave your computer and home and medicine and running water and go living somewhere in a cave.
And i don´t get upset with hell...
even if it exits, i rather spend the rest of eternaty there, then with guys like you.

end of the line
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 04:30 PM
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(02-04-2010 03:32 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  The following is directed not just to Supermanlives1973 but most of the people on this site as well. I believe that atheists are not consistent in their beliefs. Since you love science so much, one of your favorite arguments against believing the Bible is that it was written by men, but you unquestioningly believe science text books…written by men.

Straw man.
No, we don't. Have you ever wondered why college students don't just take lecture classes, but laboratory sessions as well? So that they can see the evidence for themselves.

Quote:You mention that God killed many people, how many people has science killed? Atomic Bomb, the numbers are up to 1.4 million with the effects still being felt. How about Sarin gas? The list will go on and on.

Ad hominem tu quoque, straw man.
We don't lack belief in gods because bad things happen. We lack belief in gods because there is no evidence. Even if this was a reason for us not believing, the fact that other people have done bad things does not excuse your god.

Quote:Science does not prove or disprove everything

*shrugs*

It proves things beyond reasonable doubt. The only reason we say that nothing can ever be one hundred percent proven is because one of the tenets of science is that one must always be open to new evidence. Science is always open to new evidence, even if it contradicts previously-established facts.

Quote:yet you use it when it comes to the Bible and God all the time.

Got a better thing to use?

Quote:I made the comment that the Bible is consistent with scientific facts

It isn't.

Quote:It pointed out things years before the scientific community of the time knew it.

You have not provided any evidence of this whatsoever.

Quote:Scientifically prove you love your wife or kids or dog.

Ad hominem tu quoque again - being unable to prove one thing does not grant another validity - but love can be empirically proven anyway, so it's a moot point.

Quote:Science deals with things that can be measured, weighed, etc.

Yes. Your point?

Quote:You can’t put faith in science because it constantly changes, I don’t see you with leeches on your forehead, Pluto is not a planet, the earth is round, and the sun doesn’t rotate around the earth.

That's exactly why you can put faith in science. It is the only honest institution, one which is willing to admit that it was wrong.
In any case, most of things which you claim "can never be proven" have been proven, at least to the point where they couldn't be disproven without a major rewrite of the laws of reality. You can have faith in those things.

Quote:You think the statement “I came from an ape that came from something else that came from something else that came from primordial soup through time and chance” is more logical then “A higher intelligence created intelligent life on earth, according to their kind.”

Because it is, for several reasons.
First of all, the evidence supports statement one exclusively. Secondly, there is no evidence of the existence of a higher intelligence, which would be required before statement two can even be considered. After all, you have to prove that leprechauns exist before you can say it was them that stole the milk.
There are more, but you know the rest of the song.

Quote:You hate the idea of faith but love “Time and Chance”.

Your point?

Quote:Your quote “The bible is NOT the inerrant word of god, it is the word of stone-aged peasants who had nothing better to do than make up stories to scare their kids with. I would rather read The Lord of the Rings...at least it's more interesting.” So let me get this straight, you use a book that is made up non-sense about a God that doesn’t exist as proof that that God doesn’t exist!

Blatant straw man. How the hell did you even get to that from what he said?

Quote:Why do get upset with the idea of a hell? It comes from a God that doesn’t exist about a place that doesn’t exist.

We don't really get upset about it, any more than we get upset about someone destroying Earth in a movie. It's a nasty place, sure, but we don't really care about it. The only time we get mad about it is when people come around declaring that we are condemned to it, because doing so is pompous, arrogant, insulting and idiotic.

Quote:I also believe that most on this site do not have a clue about religions, have never put any time into discovering them.

Then you are wrong.

Quote:So to say that there is no God based on a few Wikipedia articles, or youtube videos, or research that others have done is moronic.

Good thing we're not doing that, then.

Quote:It’s ok for atheists to quote from atheist sources but it is not ok for me to quote from a theist source.

Straw man. It's perfectly okay for you to quote from a theist source. However, every theist source you have quoted from has either been the source of a quote-mine or gotten its facts wrong.

Quote:You say I force my beliefs on you, yet you force your beliefs on me.

Hm.
Hey, martin. Look up. Further. Scroll up to the top of the page. See the big banner there? Yeah? Read it. That's right. "The Thinking Atheist", that's it. Know what it means? It means you're on an atheist site.
And you have the gall to say that we're forcing our beliefs on you?
Priceless.

Quote:This is where you definition of truth will bite you. “6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. 9. Agreement with a standard or original.” Using your definition of truth, and the survey from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008, we have 216,367,000 people that responded, 173,402,000 had some Christian affiliation, 34,000,000 had a non-Christian belief and 3,606,000 claimed to be atheist/agnostic. So 173 million accept that God exists which mean that those people would believe God created the universe.

Argument ad populum.

Quote:Scientists and atheists have an agenda just like you say theists do.

Undoubtedly. But I have seen no evidence of lies from them so far. Oh, and just so you know, there are theist scientists. It is not an atheistic field.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 05:12 PM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(02-04-2010 04:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(02-04-2010 03:32 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  The following is directed not just to Supermanlives1973 but most of the people on this site as well. I believe that atheists are not consistent in their beliefs. Since you love science so much, one of your favorite arguments against believing the Bible is that it was written by men, but you unquestioningly believe science text books…written by men.

Straw man.
No, we don't. Have you ever wondered why college students don't just take lecture classes, but laboratory sessions as well? So that they can see the evidence for themselves.

Quote:You mention that God killed many people, how many people has science killed? Atomic Bomb, the numbers are up to 1.4 million with the effects still being felt. How about Sarin gas? The list will go on and on.

Ad hominem tu quoque, straw man.
We don't lack belief in gods because bad things happen. We lack belief in gods because there is no evidence. Even if this was a reason for us not believing, the fact that other people have done bad things does not excuse your god.

Quote:Science does not prove or disprove everything

*shrugs*

It proves things beyond reasonable doubt. The only reason we say that nothing can ever be one hundred percent proven is because one of the tenets of science is that one must always be open to new evidence. Science is always open to new evidence, even if it contradicts previously-established facts.

Quote:yet you use it when it comes to the Bible and God all the time.

Got a better thing to use?

Quote:I made the comment that the Bible is consistent with scientific facts

It isn't.

Quote:It pointed out things years before the scientific community of the time knew it.

You have not provided any evidence of this whatsoever.

Quote:Scientifically prove you love your wife or kids or dog.

Ad hominem tu quoque again - being unable to prove one thing does not grant another validity - but love can be empirically proven anyway, so it's a moot point.

Quote:Science deals with things that can be measured, weighed, etc.

Yes. Your point?

Quote:You can’t put faith in science because it constantly changes, I don’t see you with leeches on your forehead, Pluto is not a planet, the earth is round, and the sun doesn’t rotate around the earth.

That's exactly why you can put faith in science. It is the only honest institution, one which is willing to admit that it was wrong.
In any case, most of things which you claim "can never be proven" have been proven, at least to the point where they couldn't be disproven without a major rewrite of the laws of reality. You can have faith in those things.

Quote:You think the statement “I came from an ape that came from something else that came from something else that came from primordial soup through time and chance” is more logical then “A higher intelligence created intelligent life on earth, according to their kind.”

Because it is, for several reasons.
First of all, the evidence supports statement one exclusively. Secondly, there is no evidence of the existence of a higher intelligence, which would be required before statement two can even be considered. After all, you have to prove that leprechauns exist before you can say it was them that stole the milk.
There are more, but you know the rest of the song.

Quote:You hate the idea of faith but love “Time and Chance”.

Your point?

Quote:Your quote “The bible is NOT the inerrant word of god, it is the word of stone-aged peasants who had nothing better to do than make up stories to scare their kids with. I would rather read The Lord of the Rings...at least it's more interesting.” So let me get this straight, you use a book that is made up non-sense about a God that doesn’t exist as proof that that God doesn’t exist!

Blatant straw man. How the hell did you even get to that from what he said?

Quote:Why do get upset with the idea of a hell? It comes from a God that doesn’t exist about a place that doesn’t exist.

We don't really get upset about it, any more than we get upset about someone destroying Earth in a movie. It's a nasty place, sure, but we don't really care about it. The only time we get mad about it is when people come around declaring that we are condemned to it, because doing so is pompous, arrogant, insulting and idiotic.

Quote:I also believe that most on this site do not have a clue about religions, have never put any time into discovering them.

Then you are wrong.

Quote:So to say that there is no God based on a few Wikipedia articles, or youtube videos, or research that others have done is moronic.

Good thing we're not doing that, then.

Quote:It’s ok for atheists to quote from atheist sources but it is not ok for me to quote from a theist source.

Straw man. It's perfectly okay for you to quote from a theist source. However, every theist source you have quoted from has either been the source of a quote-mine or gotten its facts wrong.

Quote:You say I force my beliefs on you, yet you force your beliefs on me.

Hm.
Hey, martin. Look up. Further. Scroll up to the top of the page. See the big banner there? Yeah? Read it. That's right. "The Thinking Atheist", that's it. Know what it means? It means you're on an atheist site.
And you have the gall to say that we're forcing our beliefs on you?
Priceless.

Quote:This is where you definition of truth will bite you. “6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. 9. Agreement with a standard or original.” Using your definition of truth, and the survey from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008, we have 216,367,000 people that responded, 173,402,000 had some Christian affiliation, 34,000,000 had a non-Christian belief and 3,606,000 claimed to be atheist/agnostic. So 173 million accept that God exists which mean that those people would believe God created the universe.

Argument ad populum.

Quote:Scientists and atheists have an agenda just like you say theists do.

Undoubtedly. But I have seen no evidence of lies from them so far. Oh, and just so you know, there are theist scientists. It is not an atheistic field.

Look dog, dude what you said was not dope! Sorry all of sudden I channeled Randy Jackson sorry, my kids love American Idol. I want to give you an assignment to watch ANY debate by top people in their field. Or how about this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

Watch how many fallacies they both commit and how neither brings them up. My question is why? I look forward to your answer.

I will take one of points and we will go from there I said "I made the comment that the Bible is consistent with scientific facts" You, in your well thought out and researched response said, and I quote "It isn't". So for once, prove what you say! Much like my challenge with Supermanlives, I challenge you to show us where the Bible is inconsistent with science. Show me 5 places or 10 places where the Bible is inconsistent with science.
(02-04-2010 05:52 AM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  martin, when you are ready to start debating about theology (and not 'he said, she said'), let me know.

We can start with a simple one...what YOU personally believe. I recall this question being asked of you before and all you did was dance around the answer.

Patiently awaiting your response.

Dear Supermanlives1973,

You asked me "what YOU personally believe?" I answered YOU, and look at how some have responded. The first part was my story, the second part was some of the things I believe about atheism.

So supermanlives1973, feel free to answer back to what I said and What do YOU personally believe?

Your friend,

Martin
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: