Evil Atheist Conspiracy

Uhh a quick question... Medjai, are you a humanist?
Just curious - a "yes/no/I don't want to answer that" - will suffice.

UH this kind:

"Humanism as defined by Merriam-Webster"

3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
 
First and foremost I would like to ask that you don't use William Lane Craig's, who is NOT involved in the field of study that Hawking undertakes, criticisms of the man.

Pop, you are bending the meaning of thermodynamics. I think you need a quick lesson on it,  if I may have your e-mail address I will gladly show you how the law works and what it actually means, to do so here would take up to much space though.

Lion, Pascal's wager! You can do better than that, can't you? I actually live a very fulfillng life as an Atheist.

CCGR, Imaginary time is part of a mathematical equation. Hawking actually develops real equations that *gasp* work *gasp*. Craig is using a tact on those who are ignorant in the areas of higher mathematics to belittle Hawking.

Max, thanks for the compelling argumentation. Oh wait, it was just an insult, such Christian morals should set an example for all of mankind.

Ultima, I don't need absolute proof to believe in God, but I need to see at least reasonable evidence... I understand what you are saying though.

Landover Baptist was a little joke I added, the site is hillarious so I couldn't resist. Sixty second sermon, anyone?

Energy can neither be created or destroyed, yet it can be changed from one form to another. Additionally,
energy = mass.

The difference in the 'beginning' is that some think it was purely natural in causation (assuming there was causation because this is debatable), or that there was supernatural intervention. The fact that natural instances do occur and supernatural ones do not is why many consider the latter to be 'wishful thinking'.

I promise to respond tonight guys, I am in a rush at the moment. Later!

I am not a humanist. I follow no specific doctrine. Good question though!
 
i wasnt implying that because i am a Christian my life is more fulfilled than yours, just saying personally i dont think i would be as fulfilled as i would be with Christ
 
I'm not trying to find fault in you Medjai but could you please do me this one favor? I'm a little on the slow side (if you know what I mean?) and I'm finding it really hard to understand about 3/4ths of everything you say. Do you think you could maybe cut back on OH,SAY...Most of the big fancy words and just say what's on your mind?  After all,how do you expect the simple folks like me to understand what the heck you are trying to say?

mycatz2fat-maybe if you start by eating a banana and a granola bar every morning things will come out more easily-
 
What is reasonable evidence, Medjai? For the documented, historical apostles of Christ, they needed nothing further than to see him ascend to heaven after he had been dead for three days, and had walked about doing wonderful things for forty days, to walk to their deaths professing their faith in what the Romans wanted eveyone else to believe was a merely dead man.

No man willingly dies for what he knows is a lie. Know that right now and think about it. NO ONE DOES. No one will lose their life for something they know is a lie. These people saw their leader die on a cross. Everyone who was present there saw it too. Five hundred + people saw him alive after his death.

What evidence do you need? The words of several documents related to His life? Josephas' history? What's it gonna take? I'll tell you this right now (not that I expect you to be ignorant of this) but what it takes for one man's faith to be solidified may not be what it is for you or me.

For me, it wasn't growing up in the Baptist church. It was thinking after a while of what it was. And when I thought about it, well, hey. A testimony doesn't much matter here, I guess.

Regardless, give me a few arguments you have (and I did poorly word that first one against omniscience and hellfire for you). PM em or post em. I don't care which.




And my catz2fat...no cussing dude. Just be calm or don't post. Because we need to be setting Christian exmaples here. Anger is not a Christian virtue. Ever.
 
Thank you for your replies, Pop, you can be expecting an e-mail by today, I have a lot to write out.
smile.gif


Ultima, simple fact that none of this is documented in any other source than that of the Bible leads one to question its validity. The numerous contradictions within the 'divine' book lead one to question its divinity.

The Bible is the only 'historical' (and I use that word extremely loosely) document claiming the supernatural. As such it requires better validation than it currently provides. Most of the stories in the Bible were written 500+ years AFTER the things they claim happened.

"No man willingly dies for what he knows is a lie."

This is a good point Ultima, I agree with it except in cases of insanity. Another problem could be that people will give their lives for something they think to be true. Their thinking it to be true doesn't make it so.

Jesus was born in Nazareth? Wait, that's impossible, since Nazareth didn't exist until 200 years after his birth...
 
As far as I've seen, the Bible is extremely historically accurate. Any theist OR non-theist archaeologist can tell you of its worth when researching the history of Israel and the Mid-East in general, because that's exactly what the Old Testament is. Every society has left behind some record of their past. The Hebrews wrote theirs in a book. Not only does the Bible prove history, but history proves the Bible.

Van
 
Yes, the Egyptians had accurate historical texts as well, yet these texts claimed that the Pharoh's were Gods. I guess because of the accuracy of their texts we should assume such things to be true?

There are accurate portrayals in the Bible. Not everything is accurate of course, and many things are overexaggerated.

The flood for example, was just implemented and stolen from the Gilgamesh flood story.
smile.gif


If I tell you the history of my life in a completely factual manner, and than add that I have superpowers, the logic you are following requires that you would believe me. I hope you see the flaw in such thinking.
 
maybe the flood affected many races of people and that's why it's in their history? I read that a few native tribes have similar stories passed down from generation to generation etc. Just adds more credibility if history backs it up.

The Jews use the 5 OT books and the Muslims borrow from the OT as well but they change a few things. There is some common ground between some religions.
 
Yet archeology doesn't support a global flood.

It does however support a large flooding of a lake, it became known as the Red Sea (or the Black Sea, I'm not sure which). Many towns are buried in that sea.

To the writers, such a flood WAS GLOBAL, even though it wasn't. This shows that the Bible was written through the eyes of man, and not through the wisdom of God.

It is known that a flood did occur, which is why so many peoples wrote of it. Though many overexaggerated it, this is the case in the Bible's claiming a world wide flood.

If the flood wiped everyone out, it wouldn't be in other culture's histories. Think about that...
 
I know what your saying about global flood and killing all the races. According to the Bible Noah and fmaily and his sons' familes were spared. There were probably interracial marriages and spread from the earth that way.  So there is a starting point and a common story for people around the world we know of it today.  

The way the Bible decribes the flood makes it sound global.

It says all the humans saved Noah's family were killed.  Humans can reproduce quite well and there were people all over the place.

The mountains were covered (pretty deep eh?)

Both Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) use words to describe Noah's flood which are different than the ordinary words for flood. In this way, Noah's flood was represented as a totally unique occurrence. [Hebrew / "Mabbool" - Greek / "Kataklusmos" (cataclysm)].

This is all based ont he Bible which you don't believe in and that's your choice.  

Regarding archeaology, there have been fish skeletons found in mountains etc, how else would they get there?  surely not by flying unless that would be a missing link?  j/k  
tounge.gif


but here is a good site that addresses these questions

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html
 
You must be referring to the sea shells found on the Hemylayas (sp?).

The Hemylayas were at one time flat, plate techtonics led to their becoming mountains. Plate techtonics is observable, and testable. You can not honestly deny that this occurs.

Smaller mountains do not have any fish skeletons on them... coincidence?

The Gilgamesh flood story even has a Noah-like character. You should give it a read some time. Both stories are very familiar.
 
Hey wait Medjai...your Flood thing just screwed you over...because there are over 2000 cultures' claiming there was a flood that killed a lot of things. Aztecs even say as much. The Sumerians, of course, have a very famous one (what was it? The wrath of the gods in their piddly god wars upstairs?). The Hebrew one as well.
Except three days of rain wouldn't wipe out the world, as forty days of it would...and then we look at geological factors that support the fact that a global deluge took place, that kinda puts a kink in a lotta stuff.

DUde....Josephas. Secular history for the Romans. Could not deny Christ's resurrection. Secular history. It's not just the Bible. There are several documents that coincide and support it.

Medjai, plate tectonics moves at a remarkably slow snail's pace...to claim that tectonics formed the Himalayas would be saying something akin to multiple thousands of years shoved those mountains up...why not just have the mountains pre-made from the start, and maybe some subterranean shift started the tectonic shifts? Like, say, a huge water source held underground was suddenly let loose and that just set the plates to moving? Also, continental drift is A THEORY. It is not proven to be fact.

Ehhh...the New Testament letters written concering Christ's resurrection and life and Paul...written maybe thirty years after his resurrection. Thirty years...not 500 years. You want 500 years you look to Islam and THAT has multiple contradictions...I have yet to see a contradiction in the Bible.

If you could, name one, please.

And also, several archaelogists (namely, secular) have made several mistakes concering the timeline of the Mid-East and certain events recorded in the stratum as recorded in certain documents, and that makes them jump up and down like little kids. But their timelines are off, and that screws them over and that encourages them to say things like, "Solomon never existed because the Middle Bronze Age didn't come about until two hundred years AFTER he was supposed to have existed. So ha, Christians!"



Now here's something for you, Medjai. The twelve apostles were totally different classes to themselves. Fishermen, a doctor, a tax collector, a treasurer...geez man, these are the apostles: simple men. Twelve men who witnessed Christ's death and resurrection. It's even recorded that Thomas, who was present for the death before the apostles scattered like rabbits from the Romans, did not believe that his master had resurrected, even though everyone else said so. Called em crazy, he did, and then he met his God face to face, and saw the wounds, and touched them, and felt flesh.

Crazy men? Five hundred crazy people? And if it was a hoax, explain why the Jewish leaders wanted it covered up and well-protected so that no man could take his body and say: "Look, our leader resurrected as he said he would!" They guarded that place life and limb.
And yet, it still got out. Why would the Roman government want to cover it up? They wouldn't. So it's illogical to conclude the Romans were lying about Christ's resurrection, and it is highly fallible to claim that over five hundred people were all simultaneously insane, and five hundred insane people all spoke of the same man and the same wonders and the same event.





Now, if you don't mind, Medjai, name me a contradiction.
 
Of the Josephus manuscripts we have, very few contain that passage referring to Jesus that you mention. Add to that the fact that he was JEWISH, and it's safe to say that it was added in by Christians. Seriously.

And the contradictions and errancies in the Bible are endless.

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html

192 issues. Many of the problems he points out are worth looking at. And thinking about. I especially recommend the sections entitled "Jesus, the Imperfect Beacon". A few of those points have brought some of my evangelical freinds grasping for threads.
 
The flood thing, it didn't screw me over. You see, those cultures survived the flood to talk about it. Interesting...
A flood happened, as I said, it created the Red (maybe Black) sea. It wasn't global and it didn't wipe everyone on earth except for Noah and family out.

Again you mistake that of which a 'theory' is. Continental drift is a fact and a theory. As I have stated before 2 + 2 = 4 is a theory. A theory is something that has been observed, tested, and never falsified despite tons of attempts.

Plate techtonics move slowly, maybe the fact that the earth is several billion years old can account for that? Additionally, considering the enormous amount of movement required, movement at the speed around an inch a year is rather fast.

The five hundred 'witnesses' are only recorded in the Bible.

The apostles are again only recorded in the Bible. You are using circular logic.

1. The Bible is divine because it says it is.
2. The Bible says Jesus had witnesses and apostles and that he was resurrected.
3. Jesus died and was resurrected from (1) and (2).

This is completely fallacious.

You then start trying to discredit science... You fail to realize that discrediting science in no way gives rise to your notion of the SUPERNATURAL.

A 'god of the gaps' is no God at all. Asking someone how something happened and then saying that because they don't have an absolute answer, "God did it." is an intellectual cop-out and in no way even supports the idea of God.
 
1500 years after the apostles...we have Fox's Book of Martyrs.
1500 years. Enough time for myth to develop. True? But is it myth to describe executions? Is it myth to describe letters from Roman officials?
I would say Fox's is a highly reliable source regarding the early years of Christianity's persecution up to Fox's time...and if Fox's are verifiable and reliable, then can we not logically conclude that the others would be?

Excuse me, Medjai, but if evolution cannot stand up to truth multiple times, then can we not easily discard it? I would say it is not theory if repeatedly it has been tested to stand up on its own, and it cannot. I would say that would negate its potential accuracy and factualness.


Here's somethign Medjai. Suppose a guy, and his family. Eight people all together. Three women, three men, and a mother and father of the sons, survive said deluge. People spread. We've noticed that. It would make sense that people would move away from Noah's area of landing. So if family makes more family and more family after that, then people would move away, spreading across the lands across Beringia and into the Americas.

Why not? When people became too large for an area they disperse. Why not with people who had a large lifespan of five hundred years and down as the generations went on? A lot of descendants could be made in such a timespan and to populate the lands.

What makes you you say it was regional? Why not global? The world's geological setup supports a global flood. We have found multiple fossils displaced here and there about the strata where they should not be, according to the evolutionary geological time-scale.

Why would the Hebrews claim that the destruction was worldwide if, in fact, it only killed a few people in a certain region? Because, according to the Bible's time factors, several thousand people would be alive at that point (some a few hundred years old and still kicking), and that would mean they would be dispersed across the lands. How could 2000 cultures say it was a destructive thing that killed all alive except those that (even the Aztecs say that a man on a white bird saved some from the waters) were somehow safe from the waters? 2000 cultures could care less what happened in the Mid-East and if a lake was created. 2000 cultures could not say about a localized flood that massive destruction ensued about it.
It doesn't make sense. It doesn't hold up, and if it does, explain how.


I have not claimed the Bible's divinity based on what it says: I will base it's truth on whether or not its words hold up, and they do. Many things in the Bible were not known to modern science until millennia after they were written. For instance: life is related to amount of blood in body. No blood=no life. Leviticus.

Here are a couple other things I found interesting in Scriptures, science related. But the prophecies...geez man. The odds of so many Messianic prophecies being fulfilled in the Man, Christ, are insane, almost as insane as a cell arising from chance.

350 BC, the fact that the water cycle keeps the land watered is accepted. 2000 BC verses in Job, 36:27-28, Ecclesiastes 1:2 and Amos 5:1 all support such.
1850 AD: the universe is running down. 700 BC it was said as much in Isaiah 51:6 and Psalms 102:25-26
Earth is a sphere suspended in space was accepted around 1500. Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:28 speak as much of this.

Now for something akin to relating to Jesus Christ as the Messiah...seven or so prophecies within the first few chapters of Matthew. Dang. What're the odds? But all throughout his life prophecies related to the coming of a Messiah are indelibly fulfilled in him (granted, only according to the Bible, as it stands: the prophecies are from the Bible about a Man in the Bible...).

Well, Medjai, you gotta tell me this: if the science is discredited, then what else is there? Another science? Founded by and on mistake-prone man? If evolution is discredited, the theory of creationism has even more going for it than it does right now.
For instance, according to evolutionary pattern in relations to geography...canyons are dug out by slow trickles over loooooong times. But what about those dug out in a short time by a quick burst of water? Like Burlingame Canyon (Walla Walla). It was observed to be made in less than six days. 450 m long, 35 m deep at most and 35 at most wide.
Granted this was in 1926, but it was observed nonetheless and recorded. Which really throws a kink in the whole Colorado River formed the G. Canyon over millions of years. Because what if the Colorado River had ripped through the Canyon at extreme speeds with a lot of pressure built up behind it to dig out what is the Colorado River? We have never seen a canyon formed over a long time by a slow trickle, but only in a short time by a quick rush.

Medjai, if evolution shoots itself through the face, then another theory can easily be up for starters. Creationism has a lot going for it...namely, because not even the human mind can fathom ctyological structure all too well. How, then, did chance make it happen, and keep the cell alive throughout the process? ATP generators can't form over a slow time, or else the cell is dead already. Cellular mitosis can't take its fine sweet time forming, or else the cell won't last mid-transition. Vacuoles are necessary for certain cells, and they can't mix themselves up once or the cell screws up and evolution goes back to square one.

The odds against random chance forming cellular life is astronomically bogus. You have got to get me a credible source that can give me solid evidence that supports how a cell survived the millions of years it would take for it to last...and by then, it would have been dead trillions of times over. A cell is not meant to last. They're there, they lickety-split and it's over for them. Then their copies take over. But geez, a cell would have to have had chance perfectly make it in a single shot, as it is NOW as we see it today, or else cellular evolution could NOT take place. And if it is as it is today, then cellular evolution never took place.
 
Some things you should read...

Five major misconceptions about evolution READ!

Go here to see how evolution is both a fact and a theory.

An example of evolution.

Much of human evolution is well documented by the fossil record. This set of articles covers the fossil evidence for such human ancestors as Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Creationist arguments about these fossils are also confronted.

Transitional fossils among vertebraes.

Evolution and chance?

Please don't bother responding unless you actually read this stuff.

I made this same post in another thread, we are talking about the same thing.

I will add some 'flood facts' though.

Key problems with a global flood.

In regards to your whole tid bit on 20,000 cultures recording the flood.

On what you said about geological strata finds in regards to fossils.

Dinosaur foot prints in coal

When you have read all of these, feel free to respond, otherwise you are just ignoring the facts.
 
Reading that Jesus, The Imperfect Beacon I notice a big fallacy in the guy's words concerning the rooster's crowing after thrice denial via Peter: he neglected to mention the other three books that claim Peter denied Christ MORE than once...Luke 22:54-62 (thrice), John 18:25-27 (twice), Matthew 26:69-75 (thrice)...Mark and John are the only ones inconsistent with the 3x crow of the rooster.
That's not an excellent point againt Jesus...

Jesus and the thief on the cross. Who said Jesus stayed spiritually dead for three days? Physically, yes, but he promised the thief he would be with him in heaven.
Sheol was not yet emptied of its captives...Christ's death and resurrection would send them heavenward, those who were right with God. The wicked would remain, however. So, let's assume that on the day Christ died (and it was in the afternoon) that he immediately ascended to heaven, with the captives. An instantaneous thing, not some monumental hellfire battle down South with Satan & Co.
Again, a fallible point. If this is the guy's case all around, geez, how can anyone have problems?

As in reference to the taking up the cross...he neglected to mention that in Jesus' era, the Romans crucified tons of people, so crosses were a common sight, and seeing people carrying their cross for their execution would be a public sight...again, he messed up. (So far the only thing he's got going is Fallacy A)

The terminology varies on the translation of the Bible for Contradiction E...my Bible says foolish ones (stupid person) the KJV would say Ye fool...that was their speech, their words. However, being in danger of hellfire does not necessarily mean being condemned to hellfire instanteously, and if anyone DID possess the right to judge a serpentine backstabber group as the Pharisees, it was this man who knew their ways. (Where is the contradiction of knowing their thoughts, as is often said in the Word?)

The time of the Jews was different. A day would go by from noon to morning, and morning to noon, and noon to morning...(Friday Noon-Sat Morning, Sat Morning-Sat Noon, Sat noon-Sun Morn, three days by my count...the Jews are a different culture than Americans, so yeah, times are different, guy) I remember the time lesson from some Jewish history book, and I thought it was kinda weird.

Argument G is crap again, because he neglects to mention the Trinity that is God...The Son of Man is the Father, and the Father is the Ghost, and the Ghost is the Son, and all are one. They are a trinity. Three in one. Christ is God. He is the only one who had been in heaven (which lends credence to the fact that prior his resurrection, no man had been IN the Kingdom of God (heaven) but had been stockpiled in Sheol (and even the righteous had a place for them in Sheol, see The Rich Man and Lazarus parable)). Yet the Father turned from Him at the end (in heaven, he turned...how is that again? They're a trinity...when you're divine, and not mortal, you're not bound to the confusticating stuff we can't cope with.
As for Elijah, I won't be afraid: I can't explain it. I cannot explain where Elijah is right now, IF he is still alive, and his reappearance elsewhere is merely undocumented. I cannot explain it.
THERE: ULTIMA AVATAR CANNOT EXPLAIN ARGUMENT A AND ARGUMENT G-2!

As for his closing argument against Christ, it is pathetic. The Father cannot abide sin, and so the Father God turned away from the Savior God at that point, the sole comfort the Savior God had at that time, and it was there, with the unbearable weight of the world's sins and pains, that he died, alone. That is why he cried out. I am certain he would rather have been alive and well, and it is repeated throughout the NT that he says: "Not My will, but Thine." He did NOT want to die, but he did, for us.

Geez, Timor. You were worried about THIS?
I think I'll have to email this guy this stuff and check out his editor's response to me.
Some people, though, like that first letter he got, and the apologist he mentioned afterwards, just cannot cope, and do not know what to say.
However, I am a child, and as such, I will make mistakes. Repeatedly. But still...I won't be as bluntly ignorant about the Word as some of these leter-writers are. A tract will prove nothing. In fact, I think hell to be just the opposite of what so many peopel make it out to be: I think it will be a cell for your lonesome self somewhere "out there", where you are left with the thought of refusing God. That's hell to me. That's what I think hell WILL be. But you know what, WHO GIVES A FLYING CRAP?
The big thing is not hell or heaven, but Christ, and IF he is God. I believe he is, for more than He said he is. Mohammed said Allah was the sole god and look how he got his followers: "JOIN ME OR DIE, INFIDEL!" Not the greatest god-character ever, and not the most original.
 
On the Spirit Lake thingie...yeah. ACtually not from the Flood. From Mt. St. Helens herself (just to clear that up). St. Helens erupted, around the base buried a bunch of trees upright into the lake which solidifed so we have trees stuck in the lake. NOT by the Flood.
(Gonna go at it post by post)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top