Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
ProgrammerNerd wrote:
You are likely reading this due to the fact that you are either.
a. Surprised to see this old thread revitalized.
b. Have not seen this thread yet and are surprised such has been bumped.
c. You want to continue a discussion that took place on IRC.

A. I did physically roll my eyes for someone bumping a topic like this.


ProgrammerNerd wrote:
1. The lack of evidence during the time period in which "Jesus Christ" supposedly existed.

What? And you think there's more evidence he didn't exist? Josephus mentions him, Wikipedia states "There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically...", and Tacticus, an accepted Roman historian, mentions him too.

ProgrammerNerd wrote:
2. The so called evidence (written excerpts) that differ in content. What I mean by this compare Paul with Mark. Notice the drastic change in content. Also if he really were very important why was nothing written down during the time in which he supposedly lived. Many historical figures even of less significance during the same time period have written first hand accounts of their existence.

They're pretty close in content. As Morris M. said, "Pick literally any significant event and youíll find no eyewitnesses can agree on what happened... Given the gospels are attributed to different authors and supposedly written some 20Ė50 years after Jesusí death, itís kind of impressive they agree on anything at all." Seriously, while there are a few differences in accounts, the similarity is amazing anyway. We could discuss individual examples of contradictions, but that'd take a lot of space, and I probably would fail to find an answer to them anyway: that sort of thing is something I'm poor at. There's all sorts of answers though, the MacArthur Study Bible for example.

ProgrammerNerd wrote:
3. Roman's role in the creation of Jesus Christ. Rome you see was generally tolerant of religion and really for the most part had the goal of keeping as many gods feasible on their side. This is incomparable with Judaism's monotheist belief and as such caused conflict with Rome when they conquered them. They ended up creating a kind of "Red herring" one that is compatible with their existing religion in order to control the people.

What? Rome wasn't tolerant of religion at all, especially not Christians... sure they were tolerant of roman gods, but greek gods were the main other ones available, and the two for the most part happily merged. As you said, polytheists can get along, but not monotheists. So what are you talking about, Roman's role in "creating Jesus"? Also, I don't know what you mean by red herrings and compatibilities etc - maybe you could rephrase that part?

ProgrammerNerd wrote:
4. The reuse of aspects from other religions. If "Jesus" were so great of a person and real, why is that there is such overlap with other religions and actually lets ask the question "why isn't everyone a Christian?". To answer this rhetorical question lets use some syllogism. I have personally witness church full of people praying for the conversion of the world, this taking place in a Roman Catholic church. "Jesus" claims that prayer is 100% effective.
Matthew 17:20 wrote:

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Well, Christianity doesn't reuse aspects from other religions, it differs greatly from anything else at it's time, though many imitations and offshoots have come. And obviously the reason not everyone is a Christian is because people like you find the idea of being supremely ruled by a God very repulsive. Some join religions with gods they think are nicer gods, and others know there's a God and hate him bitterly so they tell everyone that they know he doesn't exist.
And the part about prayer not working - I'm being honest, I don't see prayer working for me. I pray, but don't see any effect ever. But I think God will do whatever he wants, whether I pray or not I guess, so... that's just the way it is. I think it's logical to add to that quote from Jesus "if it's what God wants to do". I know that means there's no point to prayer, but it's something I struggle with!

ProgrammerNerd wrote:
I remain an atheist. One who actually is proud to be one and who accepts reason and science over religion and just to let everyone know there are people in this world who actually do not know they can become an atheist. I do not mean this in a literal sense, instead I mean they think they cannot do it, maybe they think someone will react poorly, disciplinary actions, whatever the case may be what you will find is that is just your imagination and it will not happen to you. Your imagination may have also made god possible for you and by deciding to question that fake being you are a step in the right direction. Don't stop there. You can do it! You can become an atheist.

I think being a very proud atheist is common. As a Christian though, I think you'll regret it one day! Everyone can see there is a God - to say there isn't is illogical - and when you state proudly there isn't one, it's probably highly offensive to him. Even I don't like people stating I don't exist for whatever reason.
And as sneelhorses posted, Answers In Genesis and a lot of other people have, eh, answers, proving hundreds of times that your religion of worshiping yourself as god is inferior science and logic to the religion of Judeo-Christianity.
CalebHansberry wrote:
Everyone can see there is a God - to say there isn't is illogical - and when you state proudly there isn't one, it's probably highly offensive to him. Even I don't like people stating I don't exist for whatever reason.


No, not everyone can. I can't, so stop putting words in my mouth. It's not that I refuse to believe but what I think is plausible. I don't think it's plausible for some existential being to govern us. I don't think it's plausible for this existential being to create us.

I believe in Science. I believe in the atoms, the atomic bonds & properties that hold us, the animals and the plants together. The very same atoms that create our atmosphere, that form rock solid or gaseous planets and the atoms which create stars. I will not accept judgment from a being created in a book of lore.

I let my actions define who I am among those I am around. I work hard to impress my coworkers and go above and beyond for my customers, I hear it everyday in the feedback I receive. I don't need to go home to pray for thanks and forgiveness because I worked for my accomplishments and made my own mistakes; I am my own individual and am responsible for my own actions, good or bad. I don't need to prove anything to anyone, real or existential.
Okay, sure, but has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Shaun is my god. I know this as an absolute fact.
I will be responding to these arguments in reverse chronological order meaning I will start with the most recent post first

merthsoft I am not sure what you are getting at.

ComicIDIOT: Amazing post, If you were delivering a speech I would give you a standing ovation.

CalebHansberry wrote:

A. I did physically roll my eyes for someone bumping a topic like this.

I did not and here is why. Despite the fact that I may disagree with some of the points brought up in response to my post I am please to see that people argued there points in an intelligent manner.

CalebHansberry wrote:

What? And you think there's more evidence he didn't exist? Josephus mentions him, Wikipedia states "There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically...", and Tacticus, an accepted Roman historian, mentions him too.

Yes, but note that the way you phrase it makes it a half truth. Although there is direct evidence that "Jesus" is a myth as in Rome's role in creating him. The lack of evidence also is certainly relevant in this discussion and ends up being evidence to support the Jesus myth theory. If this does not make sense to you think of a proof by contradiction. The way it works is we first define the opposite of what we want to prove for example if we wanted to prove that the square root of two if irrational we would assume it is rational and then identify a trait it should have if it were really rational and then we identify why this is wrong and therefore we have proven what we wanted to accomplish. We can use proof by contradiction to prove that Jesus never existed. First lets assume what would happen if Jesus were real. We would have evidence writing during the time period in which he existed not after.

CalebHansberry wrote:

They're pretty close in content. As Morris M. said, "Pick literally any significant event and youíll find no eyewitnesses can agree on what happened... Given the gospels are attributed to different authors and supposedly written some 20Ė50 years after Jesusí death, itís kind of impressive they agree on anything at all." Seriously, while there are a few differences in accounts, the similarity is amazing anyway. We could discuss individual examples of contradictions, but that'd take a lot of space, and I probably would fail to find an answer to them anyway: that sort of thing is something I'm poor at. There's all sorts of answers though, the MacArthur Study Bible for example.
I read the entire article you linked to and I know you want to focus solely on #1 (The Gospels Donít Agree on Anything) as that is the most relevant to this discussion. So I will do such. First of all asking a random person on the street what they saw is quite different than writing a book about a person you supposedly knew. Also it is impossible for the gospels to be an eyewitness account from the author due to the fact that they were written after the time period in which "Jesus" supposedly existed. You may be tempted to make the argument that the gospels are a collection of eyewitness accounts however they are not in fact and even supporters of the Christian religion around the time period in which the gospels were written did not believe in Jesus in a way that contemporary people if at all. Here is a good article that discusses this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html
Also if you would have read http://www.holybooks.info/matthew.html you would have found out that Matthew copied Mark so it is no surprise that they matched up. The same is true for other gospels. The article on pbs.org brings this up by saying
Quote:

But in terms of literary dependency, Matthew and Luke construct their story around the plot provided by Mark.

What he is saying is that they are based upon as in they had access to Mark's writing so it is no surprise that they would have some form of consistency.

CalebHansberry wrote:

What? Rome wasn't tolerant of religion at all, especially not Christians... sure they were tolerant of roman gods, but greek gods were the main other ones available, and the two for the most part happily merged. As you said, polytheists can get along, but not monotheists. So what are you talking about, Roman's role in "creating Jesus"? Also, I don't know what you mean by red herrings and compatibilities etc - maybe you could rephrase that part?

Yes you are right I may have gotten stuff mixed up when writing #3. I also did a poor job of explaining. Disregard point #3 and instead use this argument. The reason Rome created Christianity was to pacify and control the poor. This article does a good job explaining the history behind this http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2012/10/how-christianity-was-used-to-enslave-europe/#more-214

CalebHansberry wrote:

Well, Christianity doesn't reuse aspects from other religions, it differs greatly from anything else at it's time, though many imitations and offshoots have come. And obviously the reason not everyone is a Christian is because people like you find the idea of being supremely ruled by a God very repulsive. Some join religions with gods they think are nicer gods, and others know there's a God and hate him bitterly so they tell everyone that they know he doesn't exist.
And the part about prayer not working - I'm being honest, I don't see prayer working for me. I pray, but don't see any effect ever. But I think God will do whatever he wants, whether I pray or not I guess, so... that's just the way it is. I think it's logical to add to that quote from Jesus "if it's what God wants to do". I know that means there's no point to prayer, but it's something I struggle with!

First of all I am happy to see that you are questioning the power of prayer keep doing that. As Thomas Jefferson once said
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

If you want to believe in god at-least don't do so because you are afraid.

CalebHansberry wrote:

I think being a very proud atheist is common. As a Christian though, I think you'll regret it one day! Everyone can see there is a God - to say there isn't is illogical - and when you state proudly there isn't one, it's probably highly offensive to him. Even I don't like people stating I don't exist for whatever reason.
And as sneelhorses posted, Answers In Genesis and a lot of other people have, eh, answers, proving hundreds of times that your religion of worshiping yourself as god is inferior science and logic to the religion of Judeo-Christianity.

Yes it is common to be a proud atheist and in fact we are on the rise. And no sir, I will not regret this at all. I do not see any form of god and I am not worshiping myself. I do believe science and logic to be superior to religion.

ordelore wrote:
My 2 cents:
1) The historical Jesus will most likely never be known. Religious interpretation has erased the real Jesus and replaced Him with a more sanitized version.
Yes you are right he will never be known because he does not exist. Your explanation is what is wrong, there is no real Jesus. I have already defined and explanation as to why I say such. It would do yourself a favor to define why you think there is a real Jesus.

ordelore wrote:

2) Just because you don't believe in the Bible's stories does not mean that one should not believe in the good news. Take the Bible, and use its good teachings to make your life better.

Well yes I will not deny that there are some good moral aspects that we can learn from. Assuming thou shall not kill refers to all people and not just those of the same tribe the later of which Richard Dawkins says is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNqSrA7Mos I will need to do further research on this.
However I would like to point out that you do not need to get these morals from the bible. Take for instance this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Ten_Commandments many of these are actually better than the Ten commandments and avoid religion thus removing the need for the bible.

DJ_O wrote:
What about people who are calculatorians? Shock

Lets pretend this is a real well established religion with lots of people. You would have many Christians saying they will go to hell and they will utilize poor arguments with an emphasis towards ad hominem. Meanwhile atheist would go after the concept instead of an individual and point out logical fallacies and problems with their religion.

sneelhorses wrote:

Well, if I'm correct in my representations of everyone: it means for the Christian that all non-Christians will be in hell, for the atheist it means all atheists and non-atheists will have the same fate.


This is my point exactly on what Christians believe also goes along with the previous paragraph in regards to how people would react to calculatorians

MateoConLechuga wrote:
My take on everything- What is the alternative? If one does believe, and ends up being correct in the end, then what does that mean for the opposite side? Just a thought... Smile

The alternative is to not believe. I do not think you have heard of the atheist wager before. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager if you have not. So by not believing you may in fact get the same supposed benefits that a believer would get.

allynfolksjr wrote:
This is nice and all, but shouldn't you people be applying for college or something? It's that time of year!

Yes I admit this thread did look like it took a fair amount of time away from people however when it comes down to it all participants in this thread made the choice to spend the amount of time that they did on it.

sneelhorses wrote:

First and foremost, by "evidence during the time period" I assume you mean a historical record. I can't imagine you would be talking about any other type of evidence.

Yes I am referring to a historical record. More specifically I am referring to a record writing during the time in which "Jesus" supposedly lived.

sneelhorses wrote:

And to counter this, I would say that there are many historical records of Jesus' existence. First and foremost, the Bible itself is a historical record. The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are all historical records of Jesus' life.

No they are not. I have already covered this towards the top of the post when I link to an article from pbs.org

sneelhorses wrote:

Aside from the Bible, which will obviously be dismissed by some, there are non-biblical records of Jesus Christ's life, or existence at least, ironically often written by people who were hostile towards Christians. Many records, including three of the gospels, mention the darkness that occurred when Jesus was crucified. This is mentioned in the bible in Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44-45. This period of darkness was mentioned by several other ancient writers, among them Thallus (a secular historian whose works are lost but often quoted), Cornelius Tacitus (a Roman historian who mentions the crucifixion as well), and Phlegon of Tralles in his work The Olympiades. While it is true that these records are (mostly) mentioning the darkness that happened that day, there are records also of Jesus Christ's existance. The writings of a Thallus (previously mentioned) and Phlegon are referenced by Julius Africanas who quoted them around 220AD and mention the existance of Jesus Christ. Josephus, a Jewish writer acknowledged the existance of a wise man called Jesus, although he did not claim that he had any divine authority. Many ancient Jewish documents mention the existance of Jesus, one of them below:
"It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), "He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him." But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover." (b. Sanhedrin 43a)

With many non-biblical sources mentioning the existance of Jesus, and no possible way to prove the contrary, I would say there is plenty of evidence for the existance of at least a wise man Jesus Christ who was executed.

No every single source of so called evidence you have mentioned was produced have after his supposed death. If he were real such writings would have been written when he was alive. Also citing a bible verse does not help you win your case because remember, I am an atheist to me that is a book of lies and has little persuasion values. This reminds me of this image:




sneelhorses wrote:

I'm not sure how to further address this point, nor do I know exactly what you mean by "compare Paul with Mark." Regardless, you seem to have excluded all FOUR gospels from being "written first hand accounts" and so there is not much more I can say here that I have not already said.

What I mean is compare Paul's writings about Jesus to Mark's writings about Jesus, they are quite different in content.
Also the gospels are not first hand accounts and as such I have excluded them as being such. The reason for this is due to the fact that

sneelhorses wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this point, but I would have to completely disagree with your statement "Rome you see was generally tolerant of religion". Rather than elaborate on this point, however, I would like to direct you to somewhat-neutral Wikipedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire) and most certainly secular National Geographic (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline_09.html) articles that detail the persecutions Christians faced in this time.
I admitted to messing up on this one and have made corrections already towards the top of this post.

sneelhorses wrote:

Since you have taken the liberty to outsource opinionated articles, so will I. I would like to direct you to https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/seeds-of-dissent/ for more on related matters.
Sorry but the article you linked me to was not quite relevant to the bible verse I posted.


sneelhorses wrote:

I would also like to point out that this side note argues that Jesus does not exist because he allegedly said something incorrect. I will not interpret this verse or others like it right now, the article above should do a good job of that.

Not allegedly but did say something incorrect. If he were real and so were god, prayer would be 100% effective just like god and Jesus said.

sneelhorses wrote:

In addition, I seem to recall ProgrammerNerd saying he would leave emotion out of this as much as possible, which he clearly did not do in this post.

Yes I did for the most part, I guess I did screw up in this regards however it was very minor.
All this talk about cyclic arguments reminds me of this forum topic.
Quote:
merthsoft I am not sure what you are getting at.


You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.
merthsoft wrote:
Quote:
merthsoft I am not sure what you are getting at.


You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.


This makes absolute perfect sense to me. Very Happy
I'm all out of bubblegum. I'll deal with you in order of smackdown-age required.

sneelhorses wrote:
I would like to direct you to https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/seeds-of-dissent/ for more on related matters.

Answers in Genesis is essentially the worst source you could have picked. If you want to know why, you should read backwards a bit in this topic. Young Earth Creationism is complete nonsense, both scientifically, and biblically, and defending Young Earth Creationism is the sole purpose of AIG as an organization. But since we're allowing proxy arguments, I see your Ken Ham and raise you St. Augustine's commentary on Genesis:
Quote:
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren, ... to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call on Holy Scripture, .. although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.


sneelhorses wrote:
Well, if I'm correct in my representations of everyone: it means for the Christian that all non-Christians will be in hell

There are at least 4 competing schools of Christian thought on this matter, along two different axes (plus some hybridized views of the middle two rows), depending on who you think is "saved", and what you think the alternative is.


It's also worth pointing out that the Biblical teaching on what "saved" means is not "float around on clouds playing harps", but rather "get a new physical body and live in a newly restored Earth".

ordelore wrote:
My 2 cents:
1) The historical Jesus will most likely never be known. Religious interpretation has erased the real Jesus and replaced Him with a more sanitized version.

If you think Jesus is sanitized, it would do you good to actually read what the gospel accounts say about him. Because it's radical enough that 2000 years later we still haven't managed to do anything quite like it.

ordelore wrote:
2) Just because you don't believe in the Bible's stories does not mean that one should not believe in the good news. Take the Bible, and use its good teachings to make your life better.

This is actually the thing that makes the least sense to claim of anything you could say about Jesus. To quote C.S. Lewis:
Quote:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: Iím ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I donít accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic ó on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg ó or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.


CalebHansberry wrote:
And obviously the reason not everyone is a Christian is because people like you find the idea of being supremely ruled by a God very repulsive. ... Everyone can see there is a God - to say there isn't is illogical - and when you state proudly there isn't one, it's probably highly offensive to him.

This really isn't true. I can and will argue to a standstill, on purely logical grounds, anyone who asserts they have a proof either for or against the existence of God. Logic doesn't have any answers for us here, just defenses of possibilities. Knowledge of God (and of everything else, for that matter) is grounded in experiential reasoning, and that's not something you can argue someone into on deductive grounds.

comicIDIOT wrote:
I believe in Science. I believe in the atoms, the atomic bonds & properties that hold us, the animals and the plants together. The very same atoms that create our atmosphere, that form rock solid or gaseous planets and the atoms which create stars.

What does this mean? On what grounds? What is your epistemology? Are you claiming to be a naturalist, in the philosophical sense?

comicIDIOT wrote:
I will not accept judgment from a being created in a book of lore.

I don't know anyone who would. I'm not sure why that's relevant here, unless you're preconditioning your argument that you don't need to believe in God by assuming he doesn't exist, which seems a bit circular.

comicIDIOT wrote:
I am my own individual and am responsible for my own actions, good or bad.

Are you? Where does a belief in responsibility for your actions (or your existence as an individual) arise from physics? How are you possibly defining "good or bad" in that context?


ProgrammerNerd wrote:
ComicIDIOT: Amazing post, If you were delivering a speech I would give you a standing ovation.

In that case my challenges for him are leveled at you as well.

ProgrammerNerd wrote:

We can use proof by contradiction to prove that Jesus never existed. First lets assume what would happen if Jesus were real. We would have evidence writing during the time period in which he existed not after.

(Can't resist: http://i.imgur.com/rHg89X0.jpg)
Your implication falls apart due to lack of knowledge of how the ancient world actually worked. Scribes are expensive, literacy rates are low, the Jewish oral history tradition is incredibly strong, and the earliest Christians were almost unilaterally from working-class backgrounds. A notable exception is Paul, who, it turns out, is writing, at the very latest, 20 years after the crucifixion (and 20 years before the rest of the New Testament).


ProgrammerNerd wrote:
Yes you are right I may have gotten stuff mixed up when writing #3. I also did a poor job of explaining. Disregard point #3 and instead use this argument. The reason Rome created Christianity was to pacify and control the poor. This article does a good job explaining the history behind this http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2012/10/how-christianity-was-used-to-enslave-europe/#more-214

You don't seem to grasp the difference between the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, which only began to exist as a centralized entity in the early 11th century, nearly 1000 years after Christianity had begun, and more than 600 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. It took 300 years after the founding of Christianity to even get an emperor who professed Christian beliefs, at which point the Roman empire was in free-fall.

Quote:
I do believe science and logic to be superior to religion.

See my previous question set for Comic.


Quote:
Yes you are right he will never be known because he does not exist. Your explanation is what is wrong, there is no real Jesus. I have already defined and explanation as to why I say such. It would do yourself a favor to define why you think there is a real Jesus.

You're simply incorrect. There are no serious scholars of religious studies who believe this to be the case, any more than there are serious biologists who reject evolution. It says something about just how wrong you are that Bart Ehrman, a PTS-trained Biblical scholar and agnostic who makes a living publishing sensationalized textual/historical criticism of the New Testament, and with whom I share no other opinions about New Testament scholarship, are here in agreement.


Quote:
Well yes I will not deny that there are some good moral aspects that we can learn from. Assuming thou shall not kill refers to all people and not just those of the same tribe the later of which Richard Dawkins says is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNqSrA7Mos I will need to do further research on this.
However I would like to point out that you do not need to get these morals from the bible. Take for instance this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Ten_Commandments many of these are actually better than the Ten commandments and avoid religion thus removing the need for the bible.

Here it comes to a head: you want to define morality, but want to reject any spiritual basis for morality. So what, exactly, in your mind, makes murder ethically different from a banana? Are not, in your view, both merely the result of particle trajectories that have been determined since the creation of the universe?

Quote:
Meanwhile atheist would go after the concept instead of an individual and point out logical fallacies and problems with their religion.

I only want to highlight this, so we can all bask in the delicious irony later.

Quote:

Not allegedly but did say something incorrect. If he were real and so were god, prayer would be 100% effective just like god and Jesus said.

Assuming we're talking Matthew 17 still, this is a case of problems arising from reading the Bible without knowledge of the author or the audience. Being able to identify the Jewish pattern of hyperbolic metaphors is a critical skill if you're going to read the Bible, and, to be fair, one that a lot of Christians struggle with as well. Prayer is a dialogue.
elfprince13 wrote:

sneelhorses wrote:
I would like to direct you to https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/seeds-of-dissent/ for more on related matters.

Answers in Genesis is essentially the worst source you could have picked. If you want to know why, you should read backwards a bit in this topic. Young Earth Creationism is complete nonsense, both scientifically, and biblically, and defending Young Earth Creationism is the sole purpose of AIG as an organization.

Two things:
1. You cannot discredit everything AiG says merely because it defends Young Earth Creationism. That would be like someone discrediting an argument made on this thread because the author is a Christian (although it probably has happened).

2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.
I firmly believe that the Young Earth Creationism simply just doesn't add up. Take for instance the light from stars which sometimes takes millions of years to reach us. Or rock that has existed on earth for almost 4.4 billion years. Or the fact that fossils of dinosaurs walked the earth 65 million years ago. I am not saying that Genesis is incorrect at all, but I am just saying that the idea of such a young earth just doesn't add up, both physically and biblically. Sorry if this goes against anyone; that's just my personal 2 cents.
Sorry for not responding to everything all at once, but I must respond to Mateo - remember, God created light *before* stars. If he created the particles that made the stars, it only makes sense he created the light particles coming from the stars, all in their position. And there's no proof that rock or fossils are 4.4 billion or 65 million years old - the dating methods have been proven unreliable, and alternate dating methods place the age of those things at thousands of years instead. "Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earthís age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists."
Lastly it adds up biblically - to say the world was created just as it says in Genesis fits the whole bible fine, but to say there was evolution involved does not. Roughly 2000 years passed from the beginning of time to the destruction of the world, 2000 years to the birth of Christ, and 2000 years from then til now, just as the bible says. Also, Jews know that the world was made in 7 days - that's the reason their week is set up the way it is, and the reason there is a week, it's no coincidence. This article's 10 points are all good ones proving a young earth too.
I personally don't think that an organization whose whole goal is to prove themselves correct is necessarily unbiased. I realize the fact that there is a God, and he did indeed create the world. But it never in the bible defines how long a day had to have been. I apologize if I seem offhanded, but this is definitely one of the things that I struggle with in my own faith.
sneelhorses wrote:
2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.


This seems to be the most on-topic point here. Just saying.

I beg to differ, the Big Bang Theory has some pretty substantial evidence, I'll list some articles for this but not all of them.

Recent:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/physics-cosmic-inflation-031714.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/

Historical:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Accelerating_Universe.htm

Now let us move on from the start of the universe and focus on how old the earth is. How do you scientifically date the Earth from a book? What scientific records and discoveries can I take to my scientist friends and have them independently verify these claims. We have dinosaur fossils from all over the world that date back billions of years and multiple carbon-datings have put the age of these fossils within a few million years of each other.

We're landing on comets that have water on them, the hypothesized source of life (source is last available archived page before becoming unavailable). We look for planets with water because multiple studies have shown that "life" forms easiest here.

What scientific studies can you link to me from YEC about these two topics?
comicIDIOT wrote:


This seems to be the most on-topic point here. Just saying.

I beg to differ, the Big Bang Theory has some pretty substantial evidence, I'll list some articles for this but not all of them.

Recent:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/physics-cosmic-inflation-031714.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/

Historical:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Accelerating_Universe.htm

Now let us move on from the start of the universe and focus on how old the earth is. How do you scientifically date the Earth from a book? What scientific records and discoveries can I take to my scientist friends and have them independently verify these claims. We have dinosaur fossils from all over the world that date back billions of years and multiple carbon-datings have put the age of these fossils within a few million years of each other.

We're landing on comets that have water on them, the hypothesized source of life (source is last available archived page before becoming unavailable). We look for planets with water because multiple studies have shown that "life" forms easiest here.

What scientific studies can you link to me from YEC about these two topics?


This seems relevant, from a few pages back:
elfprince13 wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Wait, Eeems, you really believe that the earth and moon are six thousand years old? Shock I don't think I've previously found a math and science slash engineering slash programming person (ie, intellectual, logical, cerebral) who is that much of a Fundamentalist. Fascinating.

I know of at least a couple people with doctorates in astronomy and astrophysics who are Y.E.C.s., based on a premise that rejects uniformitarianism (the idea that the laws of physics have held constant throughout history). In general I find their theological justifications for this position to be on shaky ground, but their argument does follow rationally from the fundamental premise of inerrant scripture--which makes it a much better place to begin a debate with intellectually serious YECs than empirical evidence which will always be interpreted in light of a particular worldview.

The theories in question are referred to as white-hole cosmologies, and they're both consistent with GR and handle the ancient starlight problem, but require the universe to have curvature properties that is incompatible with the empirical evidence.

Also, I'm sad you didn't respond to my critique of your earlier post.


sneelhorses wrote:

Two things:
1. You cannot discredit everything AiG says merely because it defends Young Earth Creationism. That would be like someone discrediting an argument made on this thread because the author is a Christian (although it probably has happened).

Ken Ham is a self-aggrandizing jerk, which should at least cause other Christians to look at him askance as a public figure representing our faith. More importantly though, his understanding of scriptural teachings is horrifically lacking, and spreading his views around is an embarassment. "16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," doesn't get you to "all scripture is historiography and suitable for use as a science textbook". It's pretty clear that, for example, "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." should not be used to argue for a geocentric model of the universe. Given that (a) Genesis 1 is in similarly poetic form, and (b) it explicitly conflicts with the Genesis 2 account: what came first? Plants? Or people? Genesis 2 says people came before any shrub or plant had yet sprung up. Genesis 1 says plants were created the 3rd day and people the 6th, it should be pretty obvious that these passages have a different intention than literal historiography.

This also isn't some crazy modern idea intended to subversely discredit scripture: the arguments against a literal 7-day creation event date back to at least St Augustine in the 4th century A.D.

sneelhorses wrote:

2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.

This is straight up nonsense. In the three relevant fields of hard science, physics and biology point exclusively to an old universe and an old earth, and contentions in geology are based on "God-of-the-gaps" arguments for flood geology, rather than any serious explanatory mechanism.

CalebHansberry wrote:
And there's no proof that rock or fossils are 4.4 billion or 65 million years old - the dating methods have been proven unreliable, and alternate dating methods place the age of those things at thousands of years instead. "Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earthís age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists."

This isn't true. K-Ar dating is quite reliable, and there are not "literally hundreds of dating methods that could be used". If you really think there are, provide some citations.

CalebHansberry wrote:
Lastly it adds up biblically - to say the world was created just as it says in Genesis fits the whole bible fine, but to say there was evolution involved does not. Roughly 2000 years passed from the beginning of time to the destruction of the world, 2000 years to the birth of Christ, and 2000 years from then til now, just as the bible says.

Speaking of flood geology, the only geographically plausible candidate for Noah's flood was about 8000 years ago during the Holocene glacial retreat.

CalebHansberry wrote:
Also, Jews know that the world was made in 7 days - that's the reason their week is set up the way it is, and the reason there is a week, it's no coincidence. This article's 10 points are all good ones proving a young earth too.

The yom isn't even necessarily the length of a day. The length of the week is symbolic in nature.

MateoConLechuga wrote:
I realize the fact that there is a God, and he did indeed create the world. But it never in the bible defines how long a day had to have been. I apologize if I seem offhanded, but this is definitely one of the things that I struggle with in my own faith.

You (and sneel and caleb) should read Francis Collins "The Language of God", or check out the resources from BioLogos.
Sorry, I was meaning to reply then I got sidetracked and forgot all about it.

elfprince13 wrote:
comicIDIOT wrote:
I believe in Science. I believe in the atoms, the atomic bonds & properties that hold us, the animals and the plants together. The very same atoms that create our atmosphere, that form rock solid or gaseous planets and the atoms which create stars.
What does this mean? On what grounds? What is your epistemology? Are you claiming to be a naturalist, in the philosophical sense?


I have no understanding of religion. I know some the key points of Christianity but after that, I know nothing and what I do know is likely incomplete and my opinions may be misinformed. I don't even know what a naturalist is or if there other branches like we have Satanists, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, etc. I've gone to Bible Study, I've gone to Church. Not with my family but with friends and I've always failed be interested. I admittedly live an ignorant life towards religion of any kind. For me to say I'm a naturalist would be a poor decision on my part, as (1) I don't know anything about this premise and (2) I don't like hopping on to the first thing that sounds like what I believe without knowing more about it. You can come back to me in a few months but I likely won't have put much time into researching this branch, or any other for that matter.

Quote:
comicIDIOT wrote:
I am my own individual and am responsible for my own actions, good or bad.

Are you? Where does a belief in responsibility for your actions (or your existence as an individual) arise from physics? How are you possibly defining "good or bad" in that context?


I believe responsibility from ones actions comes from the emotions that we associate with similar actions over time. For the sake of argument, going forward I'm defining responsibility and consciousness as an emotion, since you can feel responsible just like you can feel happy and sad. Lumping emotion with physics is illogical but the chemical reactions underlying the emotions of a job well done are observable through scientific equipment. I don't think "I feel good after volunteering because God wanted me to." I think "I feel good because I helped those who needed my help today and I know I made a difference to them, even if it's the only time they'll smile this month." And thus my definition of Good & Bad. Doing something bad would be something that didn't help someone smile today or from prior experience. "I took the last cookie, I don't like it when others take the last cookie without asking. I should have asked, I was bad." That's obviously a very low level example, as that's something you'd teach a child, but that's the best way to convey my thought here. It could also stem from "I did this before and the recipient wasn't happy. This person didn't have an expression towards my action, I bet I was a bad person." Then we get to more complex situations where some people thought ill of my actions where others supported them over multiple events. So how do I judge if I did the right thing in that scenario? But that's a rhetorical question about morals. Wink

This was closely related to the paragraph above but I have taken a tangent since I broke that paragraph in two. I like to took at something and know the reasons for what's happening and "Because God..." doesn't work. I like to look at something and know where it came from and "Because it's in the Bible" doesn't work. The research I've seen has all be people trying to prove that what is written in the bible is true, they have the box of a puzzle and the pieces from hundreds of other puzzles. Where "real" scientists have the pieces to the same puzzles but no box, they have the freedom to say "Oh, this piece goes over here with the pieces for this puzzle." compared to the Christian Scientists who dismiss everything that isn't a part of theirs. They're flying by the seat of their pants, and one piece to a puzzle can completely change the image to a puzzle; maybe it's a corner they hadn't found a piece for and weren't expecting a penguin in this halloween puzzle. Now, we're trying to figure out what a penguin has to do with it where as Christian Scientists would look at the Bible and say "Nope, no penguin in this puzzle." and throw it out.
CalebHansberry wrote:
Sorry for not responding to everything all at once, but I must respond to Mateo - remember, God created light *before* stars. If he created the particles that made the stars, it only makes sense he created the light particles coming from the stars, all in their position. And there's no proof that rock or fossils are 4.4 billion or 65 million years old - the dating methods have been proven unreliable, and alternate dating methods place the age of those things at thousands of years instead. "Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earthís age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists."
Lastly it adds up biblically - to say the world was created just as it says in Genesis fits the whole bible fine, but to say there was evolution involved does not. Roughly 2000 years passed from the beginning of time to the destruction of the world, 2000 years to the birth of Christ, and 2000 years from then til now, just as the bible says. Also, Jews know that the world was made in 7 days - that's the reason their week is set up the way it is, and the reason there is a week, it's no coincidence. This article's 10 points are all good ones proving a young earth too.


Agreed here with Caleb, carbon dating has been proven to be ineffective, and if I remember right, they have very wide error margins. In addition, all we can discover about the speed of light is the two-way speed (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light), it is a flawed assumption to say that light has to have taken millions/billions of years to reach earth. And honestly, fossils provide some of the best evidence for Creationism, and also Young Earth Creationism.

Additionally, atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity, especially with the new atheist churches popping up.

In final addition, when new scientific data is discovered, it can be interpreted a variety of ways. If the interpreter is too stubborn in his views (Christian, secular, atheist, young earth, old earth, whatever), he will sometimes refuse to acknowledge the evidence as valid of the opposing belief. I think everyone is guilty of this, myself included sometimes.
Quote:
And honestly, fossils provide some of the best evidence for Creationism, and also Young Earth Creationism.


No. No. A thousand times no (to the Young Earth part, at the very least).

Fossils have been dated through a process called radiometric dating to be millions of years old. That is all.
How is this flawed? Where are your scientific sources for your claims?You mention "there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe" and yet you haven't given me any of this research and scientific study.

sneelhorses wrote:
2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.
pimathbrainiac wrote:
Quote:
And honestly, fossils provide some of the best evidence for Creationism, and also Young Earth Creationism.


No. No. A thousand times no (to the Young Earth part, at the very least).

Fossils have been dated through a process called radiometric dating to be millions of years old. That is all.

Radiometric dating has several flaws, most of them are discussed here:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/decay.htm (admittedly this site seems sketchy)
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

Besides the possible flaws in these methods, it overlooks a simple exchange of arguments:
- An all powerful God could create rocks that "date" to however old he wants them to be
- Well, why would God try to deceive the human race?
- God did not say that the rocks were millions of years old, people interpreted them that way
- Well didn't God know that humans would date them that way?
- Yes, but that doesn't mean that God wouldn't have created them with certain amounts of radioactive materials inside

I'm sure you could imagine how this argument would continue, but it's not an impossible point.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
» Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 19, 20, 21  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 20 of 21
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement