Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2010, 06:50 PM
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
Martin,

Juppers made a good point that you must have missed(I understand why, you're kind of being bombarded here), but what if no religion has it right? If there is a god, how do you know anyone knows about about him/her/it?

Another thing, your post implied that you ruled out atheism rather quickly, is this correct? Or did you investigate the possibility significantly before dismissing it?

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
03-04-2010, 01:31 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2010 03:41 AM by Juppers.)
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(02-04-2010 04:27 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(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.

I imply GA was referring to my post, where I said that you theists refuse to give up religious belief out of fear. I didn't mean fear of death. There's something much worse than that. To give an example, I will relate to my own experience. I grew up believing that there was a higher purpose in life, and that that purpose was God. I tried to believe with all my might, because I wanted to be part of that higher purpose, of that 'something' greater. I used to go to church and desperately tried to feel God, but I couldn't, and I felt guilty for it. After a while I realized that belief didn't come naturally, that I was forcing it upon myself. I soon realized I had lost that belief, and it made me feel empty and meaningless and depressed, and everything appeared to have stopped making sense. I still feel that way, and often. I'm sure that for many people, the loss of religious belief was much less painful than it was to me, but due to this experience I perfectly understand why so many religious people cling to their beliefs. The difference between them and me is that I would rather live my entire life with this emptiness than force myself to believe in something that my mind cannot accept, or to corrupt the honesty that I owe to myself with the stain of doublethink.

You say you have thoroughly studied all religions. I say there is no need for that. There is no need to be proficiently knowledgeable about science either, although it would be preferable. All one needs to know is the essence of every religion, and here I'm talking about cosmogony and theogony, i.e. the explanations given by religion on how life appeared on earth, and then submit them to your critical thinking. I have done the exact same thing and found none to be satisfactory, because all these explanations were clearly the invention of humans with little to no knowledge of the structure of the universe. You said something about the Bible being consistent with scientific facts. I would like to see those facts, all of them, but I also wanted them to be clearly stated in the Bible, and not something that can be interpreted in a certain way.

Quote: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.

It would have been silly and naive of me to think that I would 'stump' you with that quote. I do admit to not having watched any of Mr. Craig's debates; he may not meet the characteristics mentioned in that description. I confess I only said that as a provocation, because I wanted you to come up with some factual evidence that he does not. It's much better than defence lines such as 'he is a PhD in theology'. That's not relevant, for to me theology is simply the study of old tales, much like the study of folk literature. I will take a look at those videos as soon as I have the time and disposition to do it. I'm really interested in what this person has to say, as I've yet to hear a creationist that makes sense. Don't worry, you will hear my thoughts on it once I have.

One more thing. As Ashley pointed out, you have ignored a question I asked which was addressed to you. I will therefore kindly ask you to answer it.

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
03-04-2010, 05:10 AM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
Quote: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

I'm assuming that you are reciprocating the question "what do YOU personally believe?" You and I are on an Atheist site, arguing theology. What DO you think I personally believe (or, not believe in my case).

I read the 'What We Believe' section of your church's web-site and, frankly, I'm appalled by a few of the points:

We believe Jesus Christ is the unique God-Man. He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to make atonement for our sins, rose bodily from the dead and ascended to the Father’s right hand. We believe that Jesus intercedes for believers as their High Priest and that He will soon return as the reigning King.

The whole idea of someone 'atoning' for my sins is disgusting. I don't agree with it, simply because it washes everyone's hands of wrong doing. Assuming there actually was a Jesus, he should have taught accountability for one's actions. The fact that he died 'for us' is repulsive at best.

We believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ. He will return bodily to earth to establish His Kingdom. Unbelievers will be judged and spend eternity separated from God in hell and believers will be rewarded with eternal fellowship with God in heaven.

I call 'bullshit'. First, there is no such thing as resurrection, I don't care WHO you are (if resurrection were true, where's Carl Sagan?) Secondly, the fact that you AGREE that non-believers will go to hell is sadistic (if such a place actually exists, which I don't believe it does). Theists seem to take a weird, Charles Manson-ish pleasure in knowing that people who don't believe will be burning in hell for all of eternity.

We believe that man was created in the image of God but because of Adam’s sin all men are now sinners by nature and by choice and are in need of salvation. We believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Again, I call 'bullshit'. This statement, in my interpretation, means that we are all 'born' into sin. So, martin, tell me how is my 3 year old a sinner? My 7 year old? Heck, a NEWBORN BABY? And don't tell me they are sinners because I am a sinner...oh, wait...your bible tells you that that's what you need to believe! That the father's sins are trickled down to his kids, and that the kids sins reflect back to the father as well. Didn't Jesus atone for this? Undecided

Final thought...

A person with a degree in theology is like saying the have a degree in "leprechaun-ology" (trading one bullshit fairy tale for another). The fact that Craig is an 'expert' in this 'field' weighs about as heavy as a balloon in the open sea. Craig, although well spoken, reiterates the same thing over and over and over and over an over.......

My statement for him? "Craig talks a lot, but says very little." Just like someone else I know. Shy
Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2010, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2010 09:59 AM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(02-04-2010 05:12 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Look dog, dude what you said was not dope! Sorry all of sudden I channeled Randy Jackson sorry, my kids love American Idol.

So no actual response, then. Right.

Quote:I want to give you an assignment to watch ANY debate by top people in their field.

Nice dodge.

Quote: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.

Don't care.

Quote:My question is why? I look forward to your answer.

Why? Because it is a live debate. It is fundamentally different to one on the internet. Besides that point, they are not me, and I am not required to debate the same way that they do.
Again, if the only objection you can raise is that "No one else goes through and names every single fallacy", you have no case. If you really intend your posts here to carry any weight, remove the fallacies.
In any case, your objection is flawed. During a debate, people do point out fallacies - including in the debate you linked to. They simply don't use the official names.
So either stop utilizing fallacies or stop complaining when I take you to task for doing so. It's pathetic.

Now I'm curious, though. What's your answer to this question? How do you justify this "objection" to my arguments?

Quote: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.

The Garden of Eden, the Noachian flood, the crumbling of the walls of Jericho, pretty much the entirety of Exodus, Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale for three days... Many of the events in the Bible are either physically impossible or, in the case of Jericho, simply contradict the evidence.

"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
03-04-2010, 12:17 PM
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
Unbeliever is there going to be a part two of your video ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2010, 01:44 PM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(03-04-2010 05:10 AM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  
Quote: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

I'm assuming that you are reciprocating the question "what do YOU personally believe?" You and I are on an Atheist site, arguing theology. What DO you think I personally believe (or, not believe in my case).

I read the 'What We Believe' section of your church's web-site and, frankly, I'm appalled by a few of the points:

We believe Jesus Christ is the unique God-Man. He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to make atonement for our sins, rose bodily from the dead and ascended to the Father’s right hand. We believe that Jesus intercedes for believers as their High Priest and that He will soon return as the reigning King.

The whole idea of someone 'atoning' for my sins is disgusting. I don't agree with it, simply because it washes everyone's hands of wrong doing. Assuming there actually was a Jesus, he should have taught accountability for one's actions. The fact that he died 'for us' is repulsive at best.

We believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ. He will return bodily to earth to establish His Kingdom. Unbelievers will be judged and spend eternity separated from God in hell and believers will be rewarded with eternal fellowship with God in heaven.

I call 'bullshit'. First, there is no such thing as resurrection, I don't care WHO you are (if resurrection were true, where's Carl Sagan?) Secondly, the fact that you AGREE that non-believers will go to hell is sadistic (if such a place actually exists, which I don't believe it does). Theists seem to take a weird, Charles Manson-ish pleasure in knowing that people who don't believe will be burning in hell for all of eternity.

We believe that man was created in the image of God but because of Adam’s sin all men are now sinners by nature and by choice and are in need of salvation. We believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Again, I call 'bullshit'. This statement, in my interpretation, means that we are all 'born' into sin. So, martin, tell me how is my 3 year old a sinner? My 7 year old? Heck, a NEWBORN BABY? And don't tell me they are sinners because I am a sinner...oh, wait...your bible tells you that that's what you need to believe! That the father's sins are trickled down to his kids, and that the kids sins reflect back to the father as well. Didn't Jesus atone for this? Undecided

Final thought...

A person with a degree in theology is like saying the have a degree in "leprechaun-ology" (trading one bullshit fairy tale for another). The fact that Craig is an 'expert' in this 'field' weighs about as heavy as a balloon in the open sea. Craig, although well spoken, reiterates the same thing over and over and over and over an over.......

My statement for him? "Craig talks a lot, but says very little." Just like someone else I know. Shy

Supermanlives1973 (from now on Super) I asked you what you believe and in a very well thought out and reasoned response you said “You and I are on an Atheist site, arguing theology. What DO you think I personally believe (or, not believe in my case).” So shallow, and then you went on to attack what I believe.

First the idea of your kids sinning. I am sure you will agree that lying is wrong, I am also sure that your 3 and 7 year old lie. So if does not come from within then you must have taught them how to lie. Not a very good parent are you? So when your son is standing with crayon marks all over the wall and he is holding a crayon in his hand and you say “did you write on the wall?’ and he says “no” and you tell him that is wrong to lie and give him some reasons why it is wrong, and the next day he has powdered sugar all over his face and you ask him if ate a cookie and he says no, where does that inbred need to lie come from? I would say mans sin nature.

Second, I made the comment about learning about other religions and some have said it was a waste of time. Your comments show your complete lack of knowledge of Biblical Christianity. You can say that “I don’t believe in it, and I don’t want to waste my time studying it” But then you can’t make comments on it. The comments you made are the equivalent of buying a screwdriver from a store, taking it home and hitting the screw with the handle and saying “screwdrivers don’t work”. Your comment about Carl Sagan shows your ignorance on the subject, I am not calling you stupid but I am calling you ignorant. Your comment atoning for your sins is wrong, you do not understand what it is yet you say don’t agree with it. Same thing with people and prayer, they have no idea what prayer is yet they say it doesn’t work just like my screwdriver example.

A general comment, for the most part atheists claim they are “free thinkers” This site is called “The Thinking Atheist”. So many of you talk about logic, reason and science yet I see very little of it, you determine truth based on a complete lack of understanding of the subject you are commenting on. I will have to assume that is how you approached your decsuionon atheism also.
Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2010, 02:00 PM
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(03-04-2010 01:44 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  A general comment, for the most part atheists claim they are “free thinkers” This site is called “The Thinking Atheist”. So many of you talk about logic, reason and science yet I see very little of it, you determine truth based on a complete lack of understanding of the subject you are commenting on. I will have to assume that is how you approached your decsuionon atheism also.

I have never seen you give any compelling evidence for god. Typically, what I think the main difference between atheist and theists is just a different stranded of evidence. What you find as evidence doesn't meet mt qualification. You have stated more than plenty of reasons to belief there is a god, but I haven't found any satisfactory. I really don't think this is something that can be changed, people use their standard of evidence on a daily bases, and it's not something anyone likes to change.

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
03-04-2010, 04:59 PM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(02-04-2010 03:52 PM)Juppers Wrote:  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.

Is this question that you have asked me to answer? If so, I don't think it is a good question. How would you like me to answer a question about something I have no proof of? You may disagree with the proof I and 173 million other people have, but so be. Unbeliever save your misapplication of the ad populum fallacy, not interested.
(03-04-2010 09:55 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(02-04-2010 05:12 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Look dog, dude what you said was not dope! Sorry all of sudden I channeled Randy Jackson sorry, my kids love American Idol.

So no actual response, then. Right.

Quote:I want to give you an assignment to watch ANY debate by top people in their field.

Nice dodge.

Quote: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.

Don't care.

Quote:My question is why? I look forward to your answer.

Why? Because it is a live debate. It is fundamentally different to one on the internet. Besides that point, they are not me, and I am not required to debate the same way that they do.
Again, if the only objection you can raise is that "No one else goes through and names every single fallacy", you have no case. If you really intend your posts here to carry any weight, remove the fallacies.
In any case, your objection is flawed. During a debate, people do point out fallacies - including in the debate you linked to. They simply don't use the official names.
So either stop utilizing fallacies or stop complaining when I take you to task for doing so. It's pathetic.

Now I'm curious, though. What's your answer to this question? How do you justify this "objection" to my arguments?

Quote: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.

The Garden of Eden, the Noachian flood, the crumbling of the walls of Jericho, pretty much the entirety of Exodus, Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale for three days... Many of the events in the Bible are either physically impossible or, in the case of Jericho, simply contradict the evidence.

Let's take the Flood first, what evidence do I need to prove to you that it happened?

You need to learn the fallacies first and stop misapplying them. I have shown you many times how you misapply them but you refuse to learn. Show me transcripts of the logic and debate classes or teams that you are on or have been on at any other level than high school and we can continue with your fallacies, other than save your fingers because it is not worth it.
Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2010, 07:16 PM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
Fine.

1. Where did all the water come from to cause the flood? Where did all the water go afterwards?

2. How did ALL the animals (even ones as far away as Australia) make their way to early Palestine?

3. How was it that the carnivore's did not eat the other animals, seeing how they were trapped on a boat approx. 450 feet long?

4. How did such a small ship hold so many animals? (estimated at about 16,000 of each type * 2 (one male, one femail) = 32,000).

5. How did the human race get rekindled with only Noah, his wife, 3 sons and their daughters? A lot of incest?

I expect answers to these, martin. Not a 'god did it' or 'god helped' answer. Use science.
Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2010, 07:31 PM
 
RE: Supermanlives1973’s kryptonite!
(03-04-2010 07:16 PM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  Fine.

1. Where did all the water come from to cause the flood? Where did all the water go afterwards?

2. How did ALL the animals (even ones as far away as Australia) make their way to early Palestine?

3. How was it that the carnivore's did not eat the other animals, seeing how they were trapped on a boat approx. 450 feet long?

4. How did such a small ship hold so many animals? (estimated at about 16,000 of each type * 2 (one male, one femail) = 32,000).

5. How did the human race get rekindled with only Noah, his wife, 3 sons and their daughters? A lot of incest?

I expect answers to these, martin. Not a 'god did it' or 'god helped' answer. Use science.

I will give it my best shot, but once again you cut and paste from every atheist site. I am gone for a day, so Monday. Have a nice Easter!
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: