atheists

[megaman125]

No, It's because you don't provide any convincing evidence. I'm all ears!

No you're not, you've demonstrated time and time again that you don't care to listen to anything from the Christian side. You don't care to give it a reasonable chance. All you do is mock and gloat about how right atheism is and how wrong Christianity is.

You want to prove what I just said wrong? Ok then. (For some foolish reason I'll go along with it again, not sure why I'm going to even these lengths for such a typical atheist.) You want to give this whole Christianity thing a shot? Go read the book More than a Carpenter by Josh and Sean McDowell. That will give you far more than I'm capable or willing to type up on an internet forum. There you go, I just spoon fed you again.

Talk is cheap, maybe you should go to a thread that's not about atheism.

That is the most brilliant thing you're said all day. I'm waiting for Cycel to see if he's willing to move our discussion to another topic, one for us, since our discussion is getting a bit off course.

 

[VanIsland]

“So how come you aren't calling out SweetSavour for the same thing?” --> I haven’t seen any posts by SweetSavour addressed to me that is condescending and/or contains unfounded generalizations. There are 20 pages in this forum. I haven’t been focusing on what everyones been saying.

"Want to know something else? A generalization =/= 100%.” --> So what? Inaccurate and unfounded generalizations are still dishonest.

"are you one of those people that thinks either the Bible must be 100% literal or 100% metaphorical with no other possibilities?” --> I am one of those people who sees the bible as a collection of myths, cultural stories, histories (though biased), poetry, philosophy, etc.

 

[megaman125]

"Want to know something else? A generalization =/= 100%.” --> So what? Inaccurate and unfounded generalizations are still dishonest.

Sigh, once again, I'm taking the troll bait. And once again, a generalization that doesn't hold true for 100% doesn't invalidate the generalization. Is there any part of this that you don't understand?

"are you one of those people that thinks either the Bible must be 100% literal or 100% metaphorical with no other possibilities?” --> I am one of those people who sees the bible as a collection of myths, cultural stories, histories (though biased), poetry, philosophy, etc.

Way to miss the question again. Here, I'll try phrasing it differently. When you "critically examined" the Bible, did you do it under the assumption that every sentence in the Bible was to be taken literally, or that every sentence was to be taken metaphorically?

 

[VanIsland]

@megaman125



"And once again, a generalization that doesn't hold true for 100% doesn't invalidate the generalization.” --> and just because you can think up a generalization does not mean it is valid or accurate.

 

[Kerry]

Christians seem to do this often, asking questions that they don't really want answers to, as if a question that isn't answered is a question that can't be answered. Scientists, when posed with questions, seek answers. Is this worth answering? Will the answer add to the "evidence for evolution" or will it just be ignored because the answer was never seeked in the first place?

"Evolution" doesn't pick anything... it favors organisms that work towards their survival. Domesticating animals makes it easier to get food, and thus helps survival, so in a certain way it could be said that people who domesticate animals have been favored by evolution.

It's hilarious that you asked this question, though; the question itself seems to imply that the *God* "picked us" to domesticate animals, but if you're familiar with the bible, you'll notice that man wasn't allowed to eat meat until Genesis 9:3, so according to the bible, the domestication of animals was never God's original plan. So what kind of point did you plan to make by asking this question?

All of the questions that I have posed are clearly answered in the bible. I am just curious as to how an atheist would attempt to answer such questions. I find it odd that you use the bible to refute my questions.

Never the less it is clear that humans are much much more intelligent than any other creature on Earth. I mean you don't see animals building cities and driving cars or building arenas to play sports in. Clearly we are different. Van island attempted to answer my question about pets, those he listed were farming and not pets. They have no love for the creatures, just using them as a food source. So I pose another question.

Why do we wear clothes, no other animal wears clothes? Why are we ashamed or embarrassed to go the mall naked? When did we start wearing clothes? The bible answers this question, but how does an atheist answer it?

 

[danschance]

SweetSavour

Banned

It is easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.
​

I appreciate the mods and all their hard work

 

[Kerry]

Well I'm not going to be on here very long tonight. I'm about to log off and call it a night ( all the christians said praise God, and all the atheist said praise chance). So I leave you with a question. Why would man go to the forest, cut down a tree, then carve into some image and worship it?

 

[Grey]

Why do we wear clothes, no other animal wears clothes? Why are we ashamed or embarrassed to go the mall naked? When did we start wearing clothes? The bible answers this question, but how does an atheist answer it?

I'm completely serious when I say that is a great question. We wear clothes and chose to wear clothes for several reasons 1. protection from the elements (We used to have a lot of body hair - like animals as covering). 2. Status even 'primitive' tribes in which some wear little more than loincloths those with power (chieftains perhaps) may wear a robe or headdress to indicate their status and distinguish themselves above others. 3. Protection of crucial body areas - aka groin and chest, areas that if you went hunting or climbing you wouldn't want to damage. (I'm likely only skimming the surface on reasons)



Side note: Americans tend to be much more sensitive to nudity than other countries.

 

[Grey]

Well I'm not going to be on here very long tonight. I'm about to log off and call it a night ( all the christians said praise God, and all the atheist said praise chance). So I leave you with a question. Why would man go to the forest, cut down a tree, then carve into some image and worship it?

1. Distraction - if ancient men live to an average age of around 30, farming their entire lives in a dull repetitive harvesting season, its pretty cool to dabble in the cosmos and suggest that something transcends all and reward those who are nice.

2. Monetize - picture the man taking said image into a temple and asking the community for collection, or sacrifices to please said deity.

3. Wonder - Back when science wasn't a thing, people essentially made guesses as to why everything came about by having a religion, or god, and a creation story. (Who knows maybe this wooden image is a representation of the earth, which came out of chaos??)

 

[Bryancampbell]

I have another question, just watched part of a video and thought this up.

How do you explain deja vu? It is said scientist still don't know, for which they have theories but even those can't fully explain how it happens. An example is going to a restaurant, and the waiter slips and drops your food [let's say clams]. At that moment you realized this has happened before in your mind, but this is your first time visiting this restaurant, and your first time ordering clams. You remember every moment, accident, and scene, but this is a first timer for you. How would you explain that?

 

[megaman125]

SweetSavour

Banned

It is easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.
View attachment 56717​

I appreciate the mods and all their hard work

Wow, props to the mods this time. I figured based on a couple other obvious trolls in the past that they would have allowed sweetsavour at least 3 more weeks to run rampant.

 

[Anna20fAustralia]

Sorry bryancampbell, I believe in Jesus but your posting is really immature. It is full of false arguments and points. Please read a bit more before posting. If you ask me any one of your points I will point out how you get it so wrong.....

 

[Anna20fAustralia]

But just to start with. The word 'theory' has a technical meaning in the sciences. I have an 'hypothesis' that the moon is made of cheese. If I took samples and found cheese then it would be a 'theory'. That is, hypothesis + evidence = theory. There is a theory of gravity in the same way that there is a theory of evolution.

This is such a basic point it. Being a Christian does not mean we should not be educated. I know you are only 18 but I am only 21.

 

[CoooCaw]

you are quite right in what you say; therefore evolutionism can ONLY qualify as an hypothesis

But just to start with. The word 'theory' has a technical meaning in the sciences. I have an 'hypothesis' that the moon is made of cheese. If I took samples and found cheese then it would be a 'theory'. That is, hypothesis + evidence = theory. There is a theory of gravity in the same way that there is a theory of evolution.

This is such a basic point it. Being a Christian does not mean we should not be educated. I know you are only 18 but I am only 21.

 

[CoooCaw]

people who wander around arbitrarily deciding how mature someone else is are people who are unsure of their own maturity and are seeking reassurance\

Sorry bryancampbell, I believe in Jesus but your posting is really immature. It is full of false arguments and points. Please read a bit more before posting. If you ask me any one of your points I will point out how you get it so wrong.....

 

[Starcrash]

All of the questions that I have posed are clearly answered in the bible. I am just curious as to how an atheist would attempt to answer such questions. I find it odd that you use the bible to refute my questions.

Never the less it is clear that humans are much much more intelligent than any other creature on Earth. I mean you don't see animals building cities and driving cars or building arenas to play sports in. Clearly we are different. Van island attempted to answer my question about pets, those he listed were farming and not pets. They have no love for the creatures, just using them as a food source. So I pose another question.

Why do we wear clothes, no other animal wears clothes? Why are we ashamed or embarrassed to go the mall naked? When did we start wearing clothes? The bible answers this question, but how does an atheist answer it?

The reason for the domestication of animals is "clearly answered in the bible"? I argued for why it isn't, and even cited it. The reason that I "use the bible to refute your questions" is because I assume that you care what the bible has to say, especially since you're claiming that it is the source of your knowledge. And yet, I still don't see how it is... again, your belief that the bible answers the question "why have humans domesticated animals" is not answered in the bible, and I demonstrated why it wasn't by citing scripture.

I totally agree that it's clear that "humans are much more intelligent" than other creatures, but what does this have to do with wearing clothes? We wear clothes because we both have the ability to do so (opposable thumbs help with this task) and because we have a need for it (people who dress in extreme climates without clothing won't survive), not because of a difference in intelligence. You claim that we're doing it for the sake of avoiding shame or embarrassment, but there are obvious exceptions to this rule -- African natives, the naked Greek Olympians, subjects of renaissance art -- that demonstrate that not everyone feels shame or embarrassment at being naked. The popularity of religions that are squeamish about sex (such as Christianity and Islam) could certainly account for wearing clothes, as the lack of clothing can be explained by the unpopularity of such religions (natives that are "Christianized" often start wearing clothes at the insistence of the visiting missionaries). But did you really want an answer? Does the answer to this question cause you to doubt your position, or were you asking a question that had no bearing on your faith? And if that's the case, why would you expect that a lack of answer would cause us doubt?

And again, we can see that the bible doesn't really answer the question. The story of Adam and Eve implies that sinning necessitated clothes, but why would non-sinners (like Jesus) wear clothes? Either the regular practice of nudity was always wrong or always right, and gaining "knowledge" of its evil through eating of the Tree of Knowledge doesn't change that. Are we seriously to believe that Adam and Eve weren't sinning by being nude simply because they were ignorant of how wrong it was?

 

[Starcrash]

you are quite right in what you say; therefore evolutionism can ONLY qualify as an hypothesis

That's wishful thinking. Richard Lenski caught evolution happening through all of its stages in an experiment with E coli. Selective breeding demonstrates evolution happening through human control (artificial evolution) and we can often see it happening in nature through rapid environmental changes (such as general human immune responses causing new strains of influenza). People who think that evolution is still a hypothesis either have false information about what evolution is, have a lack of information about it, or are in denial. We often see this in fundamentalist Christians because they have a motive for dismissing evolution.

 

[danschance]

That's wishful thinking. Richard Lenski caught evolution happening through all of its stages in an experiment with E coli. Selective breeding demonstrates evolution happening through human control (artificial evolution) and we can often see it happening in nature through rapid environmental changes (such as general human immune responses causing new strains of influenza). People who think that evolution is still a hypothesis either have false information about what evolution is, have a lack of information about it, or are in denial. We often see this in fundamentalist Christians because they have a motive for dismissing evolution.

Adaptation is nothing more than variation with in a species. DNA simply does not allow for speciation. Man has been breeding plants and animals for millenia and never once created a new species.

Evolution is a huge broad umbrella term that can touch on many disciplines within the sciences. Some parts of evolution are true and some are still theory. For you to broad brush all of evolution as pure fact, is a gross mis-characterization and wishful thinking.

Science attempts to learn facts. It was once a "fact" that the sun revolved around the earth, the earth is flat, man can not travel faster than 60 miles per hour, phlogiston makes fires happen and eagles manipulate gravity with their wings. Today's scientific fact (your word) might end up being material for future comedians to mock.

You use the term fundamentalist Christian but there can also be fundamentalist evolutionists who rabidly and strictly adhere to certain axioms about evolution, like it is all true. You might be a fundamental evolutionists as you are claiming it all is proven fact. If it is all a proven fact then there is no need for further experiments. Your zealous devotion to evolution is causing you to be a missionary spreading the word of something you feel so strongly about that you come to a religious, faith based environment and argue for it, post after post.

 

[Kerry]

The reason for the domestication of animals is "clearly answered in the bible"? I argued for why it isn't, and even cited it. The reason that I "use the bible to refute your questions" is because I assume that you care what the bible has to say, especially since you're claiming that it is the source of your knowledge. And yet, I still don't see how it is... again, your belief that the bible answers the question "why have humans domesticated animals" is not answered in the bible, and I demonstrated why it wasn't by citing scripture.

I totally agree that it's clear that "humans are much more intelligent" than other creatures, but what does this have to do with wearing clothes? We wear clothes because we both have the ability to do so (opposable thumbs help with this task) and because we have a need for it (people who dress in extreme climates without clothing won't survive), not because of a difference in intelligence. You claim that we're doing it for the sake of avoiding shame or embarrassment, but there are obvious exceptions to this rule -- African natives, the naked Greek Olympians, subjects of renaissance art -- that demonstrate that not everyone feels shame or embarrassment at being naked. The popularity of religions that are squeamish about sex (such as Christianity and Islam) could certainly account for wearing clothes, as the lack of clothing can be explained by the unpopularity of such religions (natives that are "Christianized" often start wearing clothes at the insistence of the visiting missionaries). But did you really want an answer? Does the answer to this question cause you to doubt your position, or were you asking a question that had no bearing on your faith? And if that's the case, why would you expect that a lack of answer would cause us doubt?

And again, we can see that the bible doesn't really answer the question. The story of Adam and Eve implies that sinning necessitated clothes, but why would non-sinners (like Jesus) wear clothes? Either the regular practice of nudity was always wrong or always right, and gaining "knowledge" of its evil through eating of the Tree of Knowledge doesn't change that. Are we seriously to believe that Adam and Eve weren't sinning by being nude simply because they were ignorant of how wrong it was?

My question was about pets. Domestication of animals was a separate question. Evolution describes animals changing for survival. Such as monkeys using straw to collect ants. Not that they domesticated ants, but learned to use a tool to collect them. Pest serve no purpose other than companionship and have no part in survival. Yet, many humans have pets.

As an atheist I would like to know (curious) how you explain away the following.

Most scientist, agnostics, and atheist agree that the OT was written well before the birth of Christ. I recently got hold of an article written by a scientist that specializes in probability. He said that for 8 prophecies to be fulfilled in one man. The probability was 1 in 10 to the 17th power. To visualise, he gave this example. Cover all 7 continents with white tiles 1.5" square. One of them has red bottom. The number given is the probability of picking the red one. Then, He said the probability of 11 prophecies fulfilled in one man was 1 in 10 to 57th power. There are 462 detailed prophecies in the OT concerning Christ, which all were fulfilled by Him.

Secondly I would like to know how y'all explain Israel. The bible predicted that Israel would be destroyed and its people scattered among the nations. That happened in 70 A.D.. It also predicted that they would become a nation again. That happened in 1948, without one shot being fired.

How do you explain these away? If you don't mind, I would like yalls input.

 

[Bryancampbell]

people who wander around arbitrarily deciding how mature someone else is are people who are unsure of their own maturity and are seeking reassurance\

I met atheist who acted within the questions I asked, I was just wondering why. Maybe I was immature for it.