atheists

[IntoTheVoid]

so anyways IntoTheVoid ....if you accept the challenge, we can start a thread in Miscellaneous.
i'm thinking it would be something like this:

zone asks IntoTheVoid:

- so, now that we established there was a Roman Empire, is it possible to know for certain there were Caesars who ruled? and can we know their names?

IntoTheVoid says something like:

well, which ones, because i need to check the Historical records.

zone says:

okay. do we know Caeser Augustus existed?

....

like that.
lemme know
i'll be travelling for a week, but Q & A is easy from the road, since my android is smarter than i am.
bye for now...zone

Well it depends what we are going to lead to. If it's just a long winded way of saying there is no way to verify a certain Ceaser then how can I be sure he exists.. And then link that to god we are going to hit a dead end.

Just answer me if that's your goal first.

Oh and btw, my iphone is smarter than your android lol

 

[AvalonXQ]

Is it intellectually dishonest to have an unwavering disbelief in Santa? Or Fairies?

If that "unwavering disbelief" is a 100% certainty that has pre-judged even evidence you don't have yet, then yes - it's intellectually dishonest. The intellectually honest approach is to maintain nonbelief for that which has not been demonstrated, but to leave open the possibility that further evidence could change that conclusion.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The people who truly do not believe in a God are the ones who will never talk about it or admit it... What is the point of talking about something that doesn't exist...
Which makes sense because I don't see people going around the world preaching that Santa Clause does not exist because if someone does believe in Santa Clause; yet they don't have rich parents they won't get anything... Why because who cares....
They don't run around saying that Unicorns don't exist because if someone does believe in them; then their gum drop and lollipop world is about to be destroyed...
So why do it about God...

There's an excellent Youtube video addressing this issue:

Atheists SECRETLY believe in Yahweh - YouTube

The summary is that the reason why atheists bother speaking against it is because those speaking for it are trying to use it as a basis to interfere in their lives; if God and religion were not used as a basis to do that, then likely most atheists wouldn't have anything more to say about it.

 

[zone]

Well it depends what we are going to lead to. If it's just a long winded way of saying there is no way to verify a certain Ceaser then how can I be sure he exists.. And then link that to god we are going to hit a dead end.

Just answer me if that's your goal first.

Oh and btw, my iphone is smarter than your android lol

no, that's not the goal.
the goal was to go through the last few Chapters of the book of Daniel (it can be done in 3 days), and match them to the actual events we know happened in history. the details are so precise, you'd be left with a couple of options as a skeptic:

1) prove the book was somehow forged after the events.
2) prove the events were planned by men to fall in line with the book (we'd need a thesis re: why would anyone do that. also, if anyone is able to orchestrate world events to that degree by using a 'script"...we have another issue - God).
3) the events in the book do not make a close enough match (rest assured, i did this myself, and #3 will not hold up)

the first part would be you verifying for yourself when the Book was written.

you don't need to know the events to begin with, just to verify for yourself a reasonable date for the Book.
use non-christian sources...no agenda

lemme know.
once you have concluded the Book was written at a certain time, we go from there.
you don't have to know or believe what it say until we go through it.
then you make up your mind.

3-4 days max - after you establish a date.
k....z

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Ok. One question first.

Let's say that Daniels prophecies were true. Does that still prove
God? Or does it just prove Daniel was a good psychic?

I need to know the full framework here

 

[IntoTheVoid]

2nd question.

Out of interest, if your asking me to look at the dating... are you able to prove that it was written at the time?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Secular scholarship is in firm agreement that the book was written around 165 BC. I would be interested in seeing what events zone believes unambiguously happened after that point that match up to Daniel's prophecies, since there are very specific events before 165 BC that are identified with each of them.

 

[zone]

Ok. One question first.

Let's say that Daniels prophecies were true. Does that still prove
God? Or does it just prove Daniel was a good psychic?

I need to know the full framework here

re: Daniel proving to be a good psychic.
i suppose you'd need a viable theory as to why daniel the psychic would bother...no dragon fairy tale stuff.
then of course we would have to consider the possiblity of occult (hidden; unknown) knowledge, and what it's source would be.

BUT if Daniel, who claims to have been given the information from God (through God's own means - messengers; dreams etc) is shown to be given (he claims BY GOD) an account of future events, and we discover they all to came to pass precisely....then you can inject whatever possible explanations you wish into the mix after that.

we can go through them, one by one excluding (or not) each possibility.

one of those options ought to, at that point, at least place God on the it's-possible list.

okay...about to travel tomorrow.
but my android is ready - your teensy iphone is just another pretty face.
zone

i'm fine with that.

 

[zone]

Secular scholarship is in firm agreement that the book was written around 165 BC. I would be interested in seeing what events zone believes unambiguously happened after that point that match up to Daniel's prophecies, since there are very specific events before 165 BC that are identified with each of them.

could you please cite all sources?
i will do the same.
just the hotlinks is sufficient.

let us create a NEW THREAD in Miscellaneous: THE BOOK OF DANIEL

i'll do it it now and you fellas and anyone else interested can post there.
then we won't derail the atheist thread any more.

k...off to do it now, then will link to it here.
zone

 

[zone]

could you please cite all sources?
i will do the same.
just the hotlinks is sufficient.

let us create a NEW THREAD in Miscellaneous: THE BOOK OF DANIEL

i'll do it it now and you fellas and anyone else interested can post there.
then we won't derail the atheist thread any more.

k...off to do it now, then will link to it here.
zone

okay, here it is:

The Book of Daniel
http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/74208-book-daniel.html#post1196930 < click

 

[Cycel]

Hi Zone,

You may have missed my post so I thought I’d take a moment, correct a typo that may have confused my meaning, and post it again.

(i)

he sure invested a lifetime getting all bothered about something that summed up to ZERO for him.

But, you see, it doesn't sum up to zero for him. At every step creationists are attacking evolution and attempting to prevent it from being taught; and what is Dawkins? He is a teacher of evolutionary biology. This issue of God affects him directly.

Oh, and he’s not invested his life time into attacking belief in God. He’s written only one book on the subject and about five on evolution. Since about age 15 he’s spent most of his intellectual resources studying and researching evolution. Not till his 50s did he begin addressing the issues surrounding religion. I think he became interested in 1995 when he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. This role made God his business.

(ii)

and he never proved a thing.

As a devout Christian, that’s what you might expect, but I’ve talked with people on-line who were pushed into atheism by reading The God Delusion, and two or three years back I saw a thread asking anyone who’d become an atheist from reading Dawkins' book to respond. I was surprised at the number who owed their atheism to Dawkins.

PS, I’ve seen both these claims made in the past by others. You’re not the first.

 

[Phillipy]

I'm not sure about the other questions, but I can help with:
"If people originated with or from monkeys, why then isn't it fully proven to be not a theory?
Why do they call it a theory, but still teach it through books and school?"

This is to confuse the two different definitions/usages of the word theory. There's the colloquial sense: a hypothesis or speculation, and separately there's the scientific sense: a framework of understanding that explains the observed facts and has successfully demonstrated predictive power.
Gravitational theory is the latter, predictive power can be found in propositions like "if you let go of an object in the future, it will fall".
Evolutionary theory is also the latter, predictive power can be found in where specific transitional fossils will be found (e.g. Tiktaalik), and how populations will change in reaction to changing reproductive selective pressures, e.g. adaptation, and the diversification and huge physical changes in the canine family tree and other domesticated species like corn.

It's still called a theory because in the scientific sense, an explanative system of understanding never ever stops being called a 'theory' no matter how well established by evidence it becomes. There is no amount of evidence for gravity that will change the label of the field from 'gravitational theory', theory isn't being used in a way that represents lack of confirming evidence.

 

[Starcrash]

Is it intellectually dishonest to have an unwavering disbelief in Santa? Or Fairies? Should I look at all sides first and just sway towards the stronger evidence? I'll wager you are 100 percent convinced neither of the above exist. And if you say you aren't then your just falsely saying to try and reinforce your point.

See, What's happening here is what always happens in this type of discussions. We end up not debating the issue at hand anymore, we just start arguing about arguing.

Of course I'm not convinced that Santa or Fairies exist, and I can come to that conclusion by weighing the evidence. But if someone discovered Fairies actually existed and were hidden somewhere, and can demonstrate with proof, then I would believe in them. It is rational and intellectually honest to do so.

I don't want to argue about arguing. I hate it, too. But I also dislike irrationality, and you're setting a bad example of atheism when you self-justify your unwarranted certainty. If the bias was taken out of the equation, and a Christian was demonstrating that same kind of certainty, you'd immediately recognize how wrong it was.

 

[Kerry]

Dang guess I ran them all off. Come y'all can do better. If possible or if chance can do it for you maybe in a million years.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Dang guess I ran them all off.

You ran all of whom off?

 

[Kerry]

Hi , are you an atheist, praise God I have been looking for one, yes I ran the others off and they will not talk to me anymore. So how you doing . tghings are good and what would you like to discuss?

 

[Kerry]

Oh well, guess I ran that one off too.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Oh well, guess I ran that one off too.

Your clothes question was answered . You never acknowledged it

 

[Cycel]

Hi , are you an atheist, praise God I have been looking for one, yes I ran the others off and they will not talk to me anymore. So how you doing . tghings are good and what would you like to discuss?

Hi Kerry, was there a specific line of reasoning you frightened them away with? Personally I always like to focus on the creation account and Noah's flood. I believe these are two very weak links, that once removed, allow Christians to accept the validity of evolution.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I still don't know who Kerry thinks he ran off. I think he has delusions of grandeur.