These Atheists Don't Know Anything
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-04-2010, 05:19 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(17-04-2010 03:17 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  Let's try this with you, hasn't worked so good with the others.

You said "Beyond that, we have the religion issue--these people are cheaters; they say they know something for sure, an absolute certainty, because they have faith. That's all well and good but we atheists would appreciate it if you believers out there would stop confusing 'knowing' with 'having faith'."

This is what the Bible says about faith Hebrews 11:1. This verse says, "FAITH is the ASURANCE of things HOPED for, the CONVICTION of things not seen." We see the words "hope,assurance, conviction--that is, confidence. Now, what gives us confidence?

If you are playing poker and you need a certain card to win a hand, You HOPE you get it, do you have any ASSURANCE that you will? No. So you raise the bet based on your FAITH in the evidence that is presented, maybe the odds, maybe the way your opponent is sweating etc. What if you could see the next card with your x-ray vision, and what if it was the card you needed? You would no longer HOPE to win you would have ASSURANCE you'd win. You'd have ASSURANCE of the thing you HOPED for and you would bet with CONVICTION.

That is why Christians are concerned with evidence, you can't have ASSURANCE of something you don't know you are going to get.

That is why the resurrection is so important to Christians. 1 Corinthians "14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. " So the Bible says that if it didn't happen then "we are to be pitied more than all men"

We will disagree on the evidence for it I am sure, but to the Christian it is not blind faith we operate on.

You must be 'martin'--hello Martin.
As I read your reply, I couldn't help wondering if you had read the rather lengthy cut-and-paste of my January thread 'Complex World vs. Simple Faith'. Further, I wondered what part of it might have led you to think I wanted more apologist reasoning (though I'll grant you , you're a whole 'nother level up from those clowns who harangued me in January!) and if you really believe you're own rationale.
Before we go on, I think you should read C.S.Lewis's tremendous apologist essays and perhaps even his "Surprised By Joy". To date--and believe me when I tell you that I've developed a very discerning palate over the years of debating theism with others--and even debating within myself--I've found C.S. Lewis to be the premiere apologist for Christianity. He should do all your talking for you--no one comes half as close to identifying with the apostate as he, and no one goes about it so open-mindedly.

I would recommend also his sci-fi trilogy, 'tho not as Sci-Fi, but as a beautiful roman-a-clef about faith and conviction--not unlike his more childish septet, The Chronicles of Narnia. Also, for a wonderfully modern take on the issue (albeit from a mormon POV) do read Ender's Game and the seven (or is it eight now?) sequels and prequels by F.Scott Card, although his later stuff is even more morality-laden--but not half so good.

I should warn you (regarding Mormonism or LDS) however, that a great deal was made of one of the twelve lost tribes of Israel possibly ending their particular diaspora upon the American continent--in early American archaeology the great mounds that popped up throughout the Americas were believed to be the work of former Jewish slaves (of the Pharoah) who brought the craft of pyramid-building across to the New World in the distant past. Now, you don't hear much about this nowadays. That's because more modern examinations of these mounds concluded that they were uniquer earthworks found ONLY in the Americas and, therefore, of Native American origin.
So, nowadays, the CoLDS no longer refer to their one-time 'proof' of a christian, or monotheist thread into the past of their new land. It was, however, a big part of recruitment back in the founding days of the nienteenth century! Talk about a foundation built upon sand...

But, back to the battle before us: I have been thinking a great deal of the chronology of 'Faith'--I mean, sure, PEOPLE didn't know about the Earth being round, the Sun being the center we pivot around, or even Atomic Energy; but, surely GOD knew, right? So, why would god tell us that the sun was stopped in the sky when he knew the actual physics of our solar system? Why would he tell us that Christ 'ascended' to heaven when he KNEW that heaven wasn't up in the sky where a plane or a missile could reach it, but (if existant at all) had to be on a different plane of existence, NOT merely a higher altitude?
Why wouldn't he warn us, while making a big deal about that damn apple, that we shouldn't create a nuclear explosion over two Japanese cities? And what about the Japanese? Why were those poor schmucks left out of the big party? Sure, People had a hard time getting there from western Europe in those days, but God wouldn't have any trouble with the trip--why were they excluded by God? huh?
(ha,ha, NOW I've got you! hee-hee-hee)
Excuse the giggling, Martin--but I so enjoy debating theism--I've been known to invite Jehovah's Witnesses into my living room on Saturday morning--they've stopped coming the last few years. I hope it wasn't something I said.

You know, at first, they were 'come as you are' --brought their kids with'em 'n all. But after this one visit, when one of the kids started 'hmm'-ing a little too much at my questions, only old people started coming--and I think some of them got scared because I'm so casual about my Atheism--I presume they're more used to Atheists either slamming the door on them or getting all defensive about being part of such a questionable minority.

Of course, I live in the suburbs of the dreaded Big Apple--most small town and rural communities have little else in the way of community beyond sunday church and so forth, so if I lived out there, I'd probably keep my lack of faith to myself--that's one of the advantages--I believe what I believe but I'll lie about it if a bunch of rednecks start getting in my face--it's always a surprise to me; the level of hostility that emanates from the adherents of the Prince of Peace whenever something exotic challenges their comfortable laissez faire.
[/quote]

I had such high hopes for you, but alas you are like most on this site, full of themselves, and using the same old arguments that with a few minutes of searching you could come up with the answer. I am sure the Jehovah's Witnesses got tired of banging there against the wall and never came back.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is flat.

Not sure what you mean by "sun was stopped in the sky when he knew the actual physics of our solar system?" If you are talking about Joshua, that was one day and if there is a God then certainly could do that. That verse is clear it was one day.

"Why would he tell us that Christ 'ascended' to heaven when he KNEW that heaven wasn't up in the sky where a plane or a missile could reach it, but (if existant at all) had to be on a different plane of existence, NOT merely a higher altitude? This shows your lack of knowledge of the word "Heaven" Sorry it is foolish. There are at least 3 uses of the word heaven in the Bible, and more if you include the word paradise.

The idea that Japan is left out of the Bible is just as foolish. There are approx. 195 countries in the world, based on your Government. So why would you leave out all the other countries? Plus it would not be mentioned as Japan, as that name did exist, plus Nippon is the native name for Japan, plus the Bible mentions the "Kings of the east" which could be China and Japan, China is mentioned as Sinim, as the word China did not exist thousands of years ago it was established in 1949, before that it was known only as separate dynasties and provinces, the Chinese sailed to Japan around 210BC, of course you knew that and you were just testing me.

"Why wouldn't he warn us, while making a big deal about that damn apple, that we shouldn't create a nuclear explosion over two Japanese cities?" So SCIENCE creates the ability to make a bomb that kills, as of 2009 Japan says 823,171 people and you want that in the Bible, why not communism killing 60 million, but that was an atheist government, never mind!

To quote you "ha,ha, NOW I've got you! hee-hee-hee)"

To change your quote from "Martin--but I so enjoy debating theism--I've been known to invite Jehovah's Witnesses into my living room on Saturday morning--they've stopped coming the last few years. I hope it wasn't something I said."

To- xperdum--but I so enjoy debating atheism--I've been known to invite atheists via the computer into my living room everyday of the week , some have stopped coming. I hope it wasn't something I said.
Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2010, 08:49 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
You still don't get it, martin. You believe in something that has no relevance. You imbue your life with a warm and fuzzy faith. You have no need to argue with my reasoning--it has no more to do with your faith than you have to do with my lack of it. You're making your point the hard way. Faith just is--trying to fit it into a rational world view is an unnecessary effort. I'm not trying to change your mind. You should perhaps reciprocate.
p.s. I made a typo in my penultimate post: the author of "Ender's Game" is Orson Scott Card. Why I should mash him together with F. Scott Fitzgerald is beyond me.
You really should read it, and read "Lilies That Fester-Essays on Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.
One last thing--as this is an Atheists website, you probably think you're fighting off Satan's influence in the web's virtual reality. But why aren't you communing with your own kind? I don't know about you but, for me, this 'God-debate' is the least of my concerns--an old issue dealt with long ago. Atheism, by virtue of being a step forward in human understanding, has some very thorny issues to iron out. The reason I joined this group was because I desired to work through some of these issues with fellow atheists. Just as, I'm sure, your faith is not the end of all your trials and questions. We both know we're neither of us changing our minds.
Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2010, 11:06 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(17-04-2010 08:49 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  You still don't get it, martin. You believe in something that has no relevance. You imbue your life with a warm and fuzzy faith. You have no need to argue with my reasoning--it has no more to do with your faith than you have to do with my lack of it. You're making your point the hard way. Faith just is--trying to fit it into a rational world view is an unnecessary effort. I'm not trying to change your mind. You should perhaps reciprocate.
p.s. I made a typo in my penultimate post: the author of "Ender's Game" is Orson Scott Card. Why I should mash him together with F. Scott Fitzgerald is beyond me.
You really should read it, and read "Lilies That Fester-Essays on Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.
One last thing--as this is an Atheists website, you probably think you're fighting off Satan's influence in the web's virtual reality. But why aren't you communing with your own kind? I don't know about you but, for me, this 'God-debate' is the least of my concerns--an old issue dealt with long ago. Atheism, by virtue of being a step forward in human understanding, has some very thorny issues to iron out. The reason I joined this group was because I desired to work through some of these issues with fellow atheists. Just as, I'm sure, your faith is not the end of all your trials and questions. We both know we're neither of us changing our minds.

That didn't take long three responces to your questions and your out! You were the one who claimed "Excuse the giggling, Martin--but I so enjoy debating theism--I've been known to invite Jehovah's Witnesses into my living room on Saturday morning--they've stopped coming the last few years. I hope it wasn't something I said." So you enjoy debating or you don't which one is it?
Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2010, 12:44 AM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
Apologetics are boring.... Changing the meaning of words around to claim the bible said the earth was spherical is just sad...

There is an occasional opinion offered that an early statement of a spherical earth occurs in the 8th century BC, in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...".[10] To support this claim one must address the issue that the Hebrew word translated as "circle" is generally recognized as referring to a plane figure (perhaps the horizon), or possibly the vault of the heavens rather than the shape of the earth.

We find passages that say things like....
Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

God should have known the earth was not inmovable....

And also,
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”.... You can climb up the tallest tree or tower and not see the entire world.. unless it was completely flat.

Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”.... Again... no need to repeat myself.


Apologetics fail and I totally understand why he would loose interest.. as in typing this I have already lost interest.
Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2010, 03:49 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(18-04-2010 12:44 AM)DrNekoDR Wrote:  Apologetics are boring.... Changing the meaning of words around to claim the bible said the earth was spherical is just sad...

There is an occasional opinion offered that an early statement of a spherical earth occurs in the 8th century BC, in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...".[10] To support this claim one must address the issue that the Hebrew word translated as "circle" is generally recognized as referring to a plane figure (perhaps the horizon), or possibly the vault of the heavens rather than the shape of the earth.

We find passages that say things like....
Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

God should have known the earth was not inmovable....

And also,
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”.... You can climb up the tallest tree or tower and not see the entire world.. unless it was completely flat.

Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”.... Again... no need to repeat myself.


Apologetics fail and I totally understand why he would loose interest.. as in typing this I have already lost interest.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on that issue, Dr. Neko, I do so despise the practice of insisting on both biblical accuracy AND biblical ambivalence. The only correct answer is that 'God would have talked to the ancients on their own level'--anything other than that is defensive posturing and merely argumentative. The only trouble with the correct answer is it doesn't address the geographical restrictions of God's interaction with humans. So thank you for the help.

MARTIN>> "The idea that Japan is left out of the Bible is just as foolish. There are approx. 195 countries in the world, based on your Government. So why would you leave out all the other countries? Plus it would not be mentioned as Japan, as that name did exist, plus Nippon is the native name for Japan, plus the Bible mentions the "Kings of the east" which could be China and Japan, China is mentioned as Sinim, as the word China did not exist thousands of years ago it was established in 1949, before that it was known only as separate dynasties and provinces, the Chinese sailed to Japan around 210BC, of course you knew that and you were just testing me."
This is just childish--you know as well as I do that my point was about 'God's rather un-God-like geographical preferences--if He sees every sparrow fall, what about the Far East, Australia, the Americas, and the South Pacific islands. You want to split hairs over inconsequential details to avoid the real question.

"So SCIENCE creates the ability to make a bomb that kills, as of 2009 Japan says 823,171 people and you want that in the Bible, why not communism killing 60 million, but that was an atheist government, never mind!"
Now, martin, you know that's no answer-if God exists, he knows more SCIENCE than we do--or are you one of those "God made fossils to test our faith" nuts?--and knowing that science, He would have done better to warn us away from the tree of Science than the tree of 'knowledge' (old timey speak for sexual congress). Why not warn us against invading the 'New World'--surely God knew that Western Europeans carried germs for which the Native Americans had no immunity (You like stats--look up that death toll estimate).

"That didn't take long three responces to your questions and your out!"

Okay, let's count'em up: 'responses' is mispelled, you're missing a comma, 'your' should be 'you're', and they weren't my questions--they were yours.
I had hoped you would notice (it's one of the reasons I'd posted that old thread) that one big difference between me and the holy-rollers was correct grammar and spelling. What is it with you types, you post where you're not wanted, you make hamburger out of the written word, and cite an ancient adventure story as your prime resource?

Plus:
(1)you didn't respond to my suggestion that you read up on the subject.
(2)You never stay on point once you start the pentecostal rap.
(3)You have childishly specious answers for anything that even sounds un-religion-ey.
(4)You ought to take note of the many apologists who have the sense to try and reconcile their faith with science instead of standing fast in your belief that your faith is everything.
(5)By being on the Thinking Atheist website, you're asking to be allowed to visit and discuss with the people on the site. That usually means that you show some respect for the group you have intruded on. If you are just here to kibitz, take your show on the road.
(6)I said I enjoyed debating theism, not engaging in some kind of kindergarten "Am too!', "Are not!" type of nonsense.
(7)And lastly, (because I don't expect to waste my time on you any further) if I remember my Sunday School CCD training: Shouldn't you be asking for forgiveness for your petty pride and antagonism? Isn't that part of your belief system? Shouldn't you be turning some cheek or other?
-You know, faithful or apostate, you should take a good look at your personality--getting along with people is in some ways more important than being right.
Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2010, 04:04 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(18-04-2010 03:49 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  
(18-04-2010 12:44 AM)DrNekoDR Wrote:  Apologetics are boring.... Changing the meaning of words around to claim the bible said the earth was spherical is just sad...

There is an occasional opinion offered that an early statement of a spherical earth occurs in the 8th century BC, in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...".[10] To support this claim one must address the issue that the Hebrew word translated as "circle" is generally recognized as referring to a plane figure (perhaps the horizon), or possibly the vault of the heavens rather than the shape of the earth.

We find passages that say things like....
Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

God should have known the earth was not inmovable....

And also,
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”.... You can climb up the tallest tree or tower and not see the entire world.. unless it was completely flat.

Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”.... Again... no need to repeat myself.


Apologetics fail and I totally understand why he would loose interest.. as in typing this I have already lost interest.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on that issue, Dr. Neko, I do so despise the practice of insisting on both biblical accuracy AND biblical ambivalence. The only correct answer is that 'God would have talked to the ancients on their own level'--anything other than that is defensive posturing and merely argumentative. The only trouble with the correct answer is it doesn't address the geographical restrictions of God's interaction with humans. So thank you for the help.

MARTIN>> "The idea that Japan is left out of the Bible is just as foolish. There are approx. 195 countries in the world, based on your Government. So why would you leave out all the other countries? Plus it would not be mentioned as Japan, as that name did exist, plus Nippon is the native name for Japan, plus the Bible mentions the "Kings of the east" which could be China and Japan, China is mentioned as Sinim, as the word China did not exist thousands of years ago it was established in 1949, before that it was known only as separate dynasties and provinces, the Chinese sailed to Japan around 210BC, of course you knew that and you were just testing me."
This is just childish--you know as well as I do that my point was about 'God's rather un-God-like geographical preferences--if He sees every sparrow fall, what about the Far East, Australia, the Americas, and the South Pacific islands. You want to split hairs over inconsequential details to avoid the real question.

"So SCIENCE creates the ability to make a bomb that kills, as of 2009 Japan says 823,171 people and you want that in the Bible, why not communism killing 60 million, but that was an atheist government, never mind!"
Now, martin, you know that's no answer-if God exists, he knows more SCIENCE than we do--or are you one of those "God made fossils to test our faith" nuts?--and knowing that science, He would have done better to warn us away from the tree of Science than the tree of 'knowledge' (old timey speak for sexual congress). Why not warn us against invading the 'New World'--surely God knew that Western Europeans carried germs for which the Native Americans had no immunity (You like stats--look up that death toll estimate).

"That didn't take long three responces to your questions and your out!"

Okay, let's count'em up: 'responses' is mispelled, you're missing a comma, 'your' should be 'you're', and they weren't my questions--they were yours.
I had hoped you would notice (it's one of the reasons I'd posted that old thread) that one big difference between me and the holy-rollers was correct grammar and spelling. What is it with you types, you post where you're not wanted, you make hamburger out of the written word, and cite an ancient adventure story as your prime resource?

Plus:
(1)you didn't respond to my suggestion that you read up on the subject.
(2)You never stay on point once you start the pentecostal rap.
(3)You have childishly specious answers for anything that even sounds un-religion-ey.
(4)You ought to take note of the many apologists who have the sense to try and reconcile their faith with science instead of standing fast in your belief that your faith is everything.
(5)By being on the Thinking Atheist website, you're asking to be allowed to visit and discuss with the people on the site. That usually means that you show some respect for the group you have intruded on. If you are just here to kibitz, take your show on the road.
(6)I said I enjoyed debating theism, not engaging in some kind of kindergarten "Am too!', "Are not!" type of nonsense.
(7)And lastly, (because I don't expect to waste my time on you any further) if I remember my Sunday School CCD training: Shouldn't you be asking for forgiveness for your petty pride and antagonism? Isn't that part of your belief system? Shouldn't you be turning some cheek or other?
-You know, faithful or apostate, you should take a good look at your personality--getting along with people is in some ways more important than being right.

You're right because I can't spell that proves God doesn't exist. Plus if you read my earlier post I SIAD EYE DNT NO NYTING ABUOT INGLICH. You have a certain belief, when confronted with logic you run like all the others, you are a sad little, assuming you are a man, man. I will say one thing there are a number of people who I email with from this site, who I have great conversations with, too bad they don't want to do it public.
Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2010, 04:15 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
I have yet to see this logic from you that you are always boasting about... I do however remember your whole rant on how scientists believed dragons existed based on a fictional documentary.....

And you keep dodging questions, changing topics... its amusing.. but not really interesting.
Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2010, 04:29 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(18-04-2010 04:04 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(18-04-2010 03:49 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  
(18-04-2010 12:44 AM)DrNekoDR Wrote:  Apologetics are boring.... Changing the meaning of words around to claim the bible said the earth was spherical is just sad...

There is an occasional opinion offered that an early statement of a spherical earth occurs in the 8th century BC, in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...".[10] To support this claim one must address the issue that the Hebrew word translated as "circle" is generally recognized as referring to a plane figure (perhaps the horizon), or possibly the vault of the heavens rather than the shape of the earth.

We find passages that say things like....
Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

God should have known the earth was not inmovable....

And also,
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”.... You can climb up the tallest tree or tower and not see the entire world.. unless it was completely flat.

Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”.... Again... no need to repeat myself.


Apologetics fail and I totally understand why he would loose interest.. as in typing this I have already lost interest.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on that issue, Dr. Neko, I do so despise the practice of insisting on both biblical accuracy AND biblical ambivalence. The only correct answer is that 'God would have talked to the ancients on their own level'--anything other than that is defensive posturing and merely argumentative. The only trouble with the correct answer is it doesn't address the geographical restrictions of God's interaction with humans. So thank you for the help.

MARTIN>> "The idea that Japan is left out of the Bible is just as foolish. There are approx. 195 countries in the world, based on your Government. So why would you leave out all the other countries? Plus it would not be mentioned as Japan, as that name did exist, plus Nippon is the native name for Japan, plus the Bible mentions the "Kings of the east" which could be China and Japan, China is mentioned as Sinim, as the word China did not exist thousands of years ago it was established in 1949, before that it was known only as separate dynasties and provinces, the Chinese sailed to Japan around 210BC, of course you knew that and you were just testing me."
This is just childish--you know as well as I do that my point was about 'God's rather un-God-like geographical preferences--if He sees every sparrow fall, what about the Far East, Australia, the Americas, and the South Pacific islands. You want to split hairs over inconsequential details to avoid the real question.

"So SCIENCE creates the ability to make a bomb that kills, as of 2009 Japan says 823,171 people and you want that in the Bible, why not communism killing 60 million, but that was an atheist government, never mind!"
Now, martin, you know that's no answer-if God exists, he knows more SCIENCE than we do--or are you one of those "God made fossils to test our faith" nuts?--and knowing that science, He would have done better to warn us away from the tree of Science than the tree of 'knowledge' (old timey speak for sexual congress). Why not warn us against invading the 'New World'--surely God knew that Western Europeans carried germs for which the Native Americans had no immunity (You like stats--look up that death toll estimate).

"That didn't take long three responces to your questions and your out!"

Okay, let's count'em up: 'responses' is mispelled, you're missing a comma, 'your' should be 'you're', and they weren't my questions--they were yours.
I had hoped you would notice (it's one of the reasons I'd posted that old thread) that one big difference between me and the holy-rollers was correct grammar and spelling. What is it with you types, you post where you're not wanted, you make hamburger out of the written word, and cite an ancient adventure story as your prime resource?

Plus:
(1)you didn't respond to my suggestion that you read up on the subject.
(2)You never stay on point once you start the pentecostal rap.
(3)You have childishly specious answers for anything that even sounds un-religion-ey.
(4)You ought to take note of the many apologists who have the sense to try and reconcile their faith with science instead of standing fast in your belief that your faith is everything.
(5)By being on the Thinking Atheist website, you're asking to be allowed to visit and discuss with the people on the site. That usually means that you show some respect for the group you have intruded on. If you are just here to kibitz, take your show on the road.
(6)I said I enjoyed debating theism, not engaging in some kind of kindergarten "Am too!', "Are not!" type of nonsense.
(7)And lastly, (because I don't expect to waste my time on you any further) if I remember my Sunday School CCD training: Shouldn't you be asking for forgiveness for your petty pride and antagonism? Isn't that part of your belief system? Shouldn't you be turning some cheek or other?
-You know, faithful or apostate, you should take a good look at your personality--getting along with people is in some ways more important than being right.

You're right because I can't spell that proves God doesn't exist. Plus if you read my earlier post I SIAD EYE DNT NO NYTING ABUOT INGLICH. You have a certain belief, when confronted with logic you run like all the others, you are a sad little assuming you are a man. I will say one thing there are a number of people who I email with from this site, who I have great conversations with, too bad they don't want to do it public.

you're such a dick
Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2010, 10:14 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(18-04-2010 04:29 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  
(18-04-2010 04:04 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(18-04-2010 03:49 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  
(18-04-2010 12:44 AM)DrNekoDR Wrote:  Apologetics are boring.... Changing the meaning of words around to claim the bible said the earth was spherical is just sad...

There is an occasional opinion offered that an early statement of a spherical earth occurs in the 8th century BC, in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...".[10] To support this claim one must address the issue that the Hebrew word translated as "circle" is generally recognized as referring to a plane figure (perhaps the horizon), or possibly the vault of the heavens rather than the shape of the earth.

We find passages that say things like....
Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

God should have known the earth was not inmovable....

And also,
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”.... You can climb up the tallest tree or tower and not see the entire world.. unless it was completely flat.

Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”.... Again... no need to repeat myself.


Apologetics fail and I totally understand why he would loose interest.. as in typing this I have already lost interest.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on that issue, Dr. Neko, I do so despise the practice of insisting on both biblical accuracy AND biblical ambivalence. The only correct answer is that 'God would have talked to the ancients on their own level'--anything other than that is defensive posturing and merely argumentative. The only trouble with the correct answer is it doesn't address the geographical restrictions of God's interaction with humans. So thank you for the help.

MARTIN>> "The idea that Japan is left out of the Bible is just as foolish. There are approx. 195 countries in the world, based on your Government. So why would you leave out all the other countries? Plus it would not be mentioned as Japan, as that name did exist, plus Nippon is the native name for Japan, plus the Bible mentions the "Kings of the east" which could be China and Japan, China is mentioned as Sinim, as the word China did not exist thousands of years ago it was established in 1949, before that it was known only as separate dynasties and provinces, the Chinese sailed to Japan around 210BC, of course you knew that and you were just testing me."
This is just childish--you know as well as I do that my point was about 'God's rather un-God-like geographical preferences--if He sees every sparrow fall, what about the Far East, Australia, the Americas, and the South Pacific islands. You want to split hairs over inconsequential details to avoid the real question.

"So SCIENCE creates the ability to make a bomb that kills, as of 2009 Japan says 823,171 people and you want that in the Bible, why not communism killing 60 million, but that was an atheist government, never mind!"
Now, martin, you know that's no answer-if God exists, he knows more SCIENCE than we do--or are you one of those "God made fossils to test our faith" nuts?--and knowing that science, He would have done better to warn us away from the tree of Science than the tree of 'knowledge' (old timey speak for sexual congress). Why not warn us against invading the 'New World'--surely God knew that Western Europeans carried germs for which the Native Americans had no immunity (You like stats--look up that death toll estimate).

"That didn't take long three responces to your questions and your out!"

Okay, let's count'em up: 'responses' is mispelled, you're missing a comma, 'your' should be 'you're', and they weren't my questions--they were yours.
I had hoped you would notice (it's one of the reasons I'd posted that old thread) that one big difference between me and the holy-rollers was correct grammar and spelling. What is it with you types, you post where you're not wanted, you make hamburger out of the written word, and cite an ancient adventure story as your prime resource?

Plus:
(1)you didn't respond to my suggestion that you read up on the subject.
(2)You never stay on point once you start the pentecostal rap.
(3)You have childishly specious answers for anything that even sounds un-religion-ey.
(4)You ought to take note of the many apologists who have the sense to try and reconcile their faith with science instead of standing fast in your belief that your faith is everything.
(5)By being on the Thinking Atheist website, you're asking to be allowed to visit and discuss with the people on the site. That usually means that you show some respect for the group you have intruded on. If you are just here to kibitz, take your show on the road.
(6)I said I enjoyed debating theism, not engaging in some kind of kindergarten "Am too!', "Are not!" type of nonsense.
(7)And lastly, (because I don't expect to waste my time on you any further) if I remember my Sunday School CCD training: Shouldn't you be asking for forgiveness for your petty pride and antagonism? Isn't that part of your belief system? Shouldn't you be turning some cheek or other?
-You know, faithful or apostate, you should take a good look at your personality--getting along with people is in some ways more important than being right.

You're right because I can't spell that proves God doesn't exist. Plus if you read my earlier post I SIAD EYE DNT NO NYTING ABUOT INGLICH. You have a certain belief, when confronted with logic you run like all the others, you are a sad little assuming you are a man. I will say one thing there are a number of people who I email with from this site, who I have great conversations with, too bad they don't want to do it public.

you're such a dick

Well put!
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: