The Religion Discussion

[bluesclues]

well my nonsensical and irrelevant questions sure back you into a corner.
so let me get this straight your moral qualities are based on a book/teachings that its origin cannot be verified and in this book there claims to be an all powerful, omnipotent, all seeing, all knowing, divine, just and kind god who gave 10 very specific rules/laws to follow but the only person whom it was "revealed" to cannot be proven to exist nor can the supposed location where it happened which was occupied by an unknown number (at least 1 million) of freed slaves be archaeological or geographically found.the only evidence to be found in the bible.
now we're supposed to believe that these freed slaves and the millions of people before them for tens of thousands of years thought that rape, murder and theft was ok. only til this fairy tale at mt sinai that its not ok.
come on.
as i quoted by the comedian Christopher Hitchens
“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

we do not get morals from religious texts, religious texts gets it from us.

fine then.. amuse me...

what evidence or line of reasoning did you use to support the OPINION made in hitchen's quote? or do u just support it because when he said it, it sounded funny and made you laugh so u adopted it through being socially engineered?

also.. by your belief, is man an animal?

note the questions i ask you are actually answerable. they have a track that can be traced. the questions u ask me require more archaeological discovery or for hidden documents to be released to fill in those blanks. the bible admittedly has blanks in the story. we all know this. 1st and foremost was the discussion of jesus childhood days. its missing. alot is missing. what you want me to answer is from what is missing. or as i said, irrelevant to the theme and purpose of religion and so was not included. why it is irrelevant is because the answer to those questions do not change whether or not you will be saved. everything we need to know about that is already in the book. what is the purpose in answering those questions?

[crock101]

To the people who actually believe that the bible is the word of god and is genuine fact,let me ask.
In genesis when eve meets a talking snake ,is that a factual account?

In numbers 22:21 when balaam's donkey starts talking,is that a factual account?

When a virgin gets pregnant ,is that a factual account?

When a man is made from dirt ,is that a factual account? Does dirt even have the necessary materials needed to produce human beings ?

Remember to disagree with the bible is to disagree with god , if you believe in that sort of thing.

I must say that I find these claims to be highly unlikely. just because a story makes you feel all warm and cuddly inside does not make it true .

[Habit7]

crock101 do you believe an inanimate objects can come to life?

[crock101]

Inanimate object, like what, a vacuum cleaner or a toothbrush. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that is possible,but the night is young and I might watch night at the museum 3 later.so you never know.

Why do you ask, do you believe that vacuum cleaners can come to life?

[bluesclues]

To the people who actually believe that the bible is the word of god and is genuine fact,let me ask.
In genesis when eve meets a talking snake ,is that a factual account?

In numbers 22:21 when balaam's donkey starts talking,is that a factual account?

When a virgin gets pregnant ,is that a factual account?

When a man is made from dirt ,is that a factual account? Does dirt even have the necessary materials needed to produce human beings ?

Remember to disagree with the bible is to disagree with god , if you believe in that sort of thing.

I must say that I find these claims to be highly unlikely. just because a story makes you feel all warm and cuddly inside does not make it true .

so just ignore my questions then and make new ones. good to see u are able to focus on what ur talking about and demonstrate a point to your pursuit.

[Habit7]

Inanimate object, like what, a vacuum cleaner or a toothbrush. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that is possible,but the night is young and I might watch night at the museum 3 later.so you never know.

Why do you ask, do you believe that vacuum cleaners can come to life?

What you think occurred for abiogenesis?

[GRIM]

what evidence or line of reasoning did you use to support the OPINION made in hitchen's quote? or do u just support it because when he said it, it sounded funny and made you laugh so u adopted it through being socially engineered?

well the human genome project has shown what darwin observed almost 200 years ago.evolution cannot be denied.
i dont know about being socially engineered as i was and still am raised in a religious home but my inquisitive nature lead me to ask questions of religion which it has not been able to answer without blindly saying god did it.
dont get me wrong i sometime wonder if god does exists but the evidence put forward by the religious
is well... too dumbfounded to believe.

also.. by your belief, is man an animal?

is there any scientific evidence proving otherwise?
again the human genome project.evolution cannot be denied.

[crock101]

Are you trying to compare the idea that simple rna compounds which are known to form spontaneously , at some point mixed together to form DNA and early life via single celled organisms, with the idea that a supernatural being took dirt and used it to make a fully formed human being?
This idea has been around for awhile now, it has not been proven as fact yet, if it is proven to be wrong it will be disregarded in favour of a better explanation.
I am more that willing to change my mind if the evidence demands it, something tells me that no amount evidence stacked up in front you is going to make you change you mind on this topic.

And by the way abiogenesis would not be able to explain a vacuum cleaner coming to life

[Slartibartfast]

Wow blues... you went completely off the rails there didn't you. Anyway, I still did not see any proof of yours (in that wall of text) showing how the golden rule is objectively theistic in any way. Even if God himself really did whisper it into your ear, it is still an atheistic moral law.

The converse to the point you are trying to argue is like saying anything I say would be athestic because I'm an atheist. So if I say "God is the source of all pain and suffering" by your argument that would be an athestic statement because an atheist said it.

However, it is a theistic statement because it references God.

Your Golden rule is therefore atheistic until proven otherwise. That's the beauty of objective statements. The meaning behind them is not subjectively dependent on the person saying them.

If the Golden rule lacks all reference to God and the Golden rule is the objective source for all morality then morality does not need to reference God. Morality can therefore be derived independently of God. Even if God existed (which you also cant prove) then we wouldn't even need him.

Now Habit's only argument is that only God has moral authority. But with faith (I.e. boastful opinionated ignorance) as your only proof for God you see that this argument quickly breaks down. God exists only as your opinionated belief and what makes your belief more relevant than anyone else's?

Anyway. Work picking back up these days so I won't get to put in as much time into disproving you guys as I normally do. This should give you, blues and habit, ample time to come up with a better argument.

Till then have fun bangin rocks together and calling it science.

[bluesclues]

what evidence or line of reasoning did you use to support the OPINION made in hitchen's quote? or do u just support it because when he said it, it sounded funny and made you laugh so u adopted it through being socially engineered?

well the human genome project has shown what darwin observed almost 200 years ago.evolution cannot be denied.
i dont know about being socially engineered as i was and still am raised in a religious home but my inquisitive nature lead me to ask questions of religion which it has not been able to answer without blindly saying god did it.
dont get me wrong i sometime wonder if god does exists but the evidence put forward by the religious
is well... too dumbfounded to believe.

also.. by your belief, is man an animal?

is there any scientific evidence proving otherwise?
again the human genome project.evolution cannot be denied.

well the info u posted on your perspective really helps. and i totally understand what you mean. i will deal with the tough questions. priest and pastors have always avoided some questions with the words as you say "God works in mysterious ways" or words to that effect. but you cant really blame them, you are expecting one human being to know all that is in the mind of God when you ask certain questions. a priest or pastor is not necessarily a prophet and thus wouldnt be able to explain God's modus operandi. and still even the prophet has to seek consultation on some issues to be able to explain. but i will only deal with what can be verified in the scripture(if we are talking about a scriptural passage) or can be verified in historical/archaeological evidence or both. that way i dont put any conjecture on the table. using the very scientific method, we deal with the facts only. we acknowledge them and take only what they tell us. suppositions on missing data cannot be valued in the same light. and just leads a conjectural discussion.

so now that we acknowledge the atheist and scientific viewpoint of man as an animal. can an animal consent to sex? either with another animal or with a human being?

to be clear we are on the topic of rape. im dealing with that perspective first. the perspective that our primitive ancestors were rapists. my point of view is that there is a professional way of seeing something and there is a perverse way. i commit that you present the perverse way when you repeat atheist rhetoric. it is a pointed statement filled wit vitriol towards religion itself. but i will demonstrate that it is unfounded.

so the question we need to pursue now is the previously stated. can an animal consent to sex? what is the law governing animals in the wild regarding sex? are any of these things a concern to them? age difference, consent, sibling sex. do animals recognize the unethical act of rape as unethical? do they have law enforcement for rape offenders to be tracked down and brought to justice?

[Habit7]

Are you trying to compare the idea that simple rna compounds which are known to form spontaneously , at some point mixed together to form DNA and early life via single celled organisms, with the idea that a supernatural being took dirt and used it to make a fully formed human being?
This idea has been around for awhile now, it has not been proven as fact yet, if it is proven to be wrong it will be disregarded in favour of a better explanation.
I am more that willing to change my mind if the evidence demands it, something tells me that no amount evidence stacked up in front you is going to make you change you mind on this topic.

And by the way abiogenesis would not be able to explain a vacuum cleaner coming to life

So inanimate objects can come to life, and though you don't know how, you have faith there is a naturalistic explanation for it?

[crock101]

Habit .....wow...just wow.
Did I not just say that I don't know.
If the evidence suggests that it was aliens who seeded life on earth I would go with it ,as long as the evidence was sound ,whether I liked the idea or not. that is the exact opposite of faith . Facts don't care about my or your feelings .

[Slartibartfast]

Straw men arguments... straw men arguments everywhere...

I'm convinced blues clues bought Habit's account because Habit had more credibility before. However after the last few pages of logical fallacies and childishly illustrated erroneous videos it seems that Habit is as much a lost cause as any other fundie.

[Habit7]

Habit .....wow...just wow.
Did I not just say that I don't know.
If the evidence suggests that it was aliens who seeded life on earth I would go with it ,as long as the evidence was sound ,whether I liked the idea or not. that is the exact opposite of faith . Facts don't care about my or your feelings .

You said

This idea has been around for awhile now, it has not been proven as fact yet, if it is proven to be wrong it will be disregarded in favour of a better explanation.

How is that inconsistent with what I said in response prior? For you, inanimate objects can (have the possibility to) come to life, this is not incredulous for you. While you don't have the fact, you have faith/confidence/hope that there will be a naturalistic explanation. Why are you walking this back, are you ashamed?

Also you cant say you "don't know" but then ridicule another explanation, that is contradictory. Either you really don't know and therefore you have an unbiased view to all explanations. Or you believe you know but just lack the evidence to substantiate your belief.

And I find it quite telling that in your quest to dismiss any idea of an intelligent, external being starting life on Earth, you punt to panspermia. Which is faith that an intelligent, external being started life on Earth.

But then again let me recount. You don't know, but it can't be special creation. It could be panspermia, but you are waiting on the evidence.

[crock101]

Yes ,you are right I don't know how life started on earth and I admit it freely ,I am in no way ashamed to be honest on this topic.and humbled by my ignorance of it.

You on the other hand are under the impression that you do know how life began.all well and good ,except the reason you think you know is because you read a book that claims to have the answers.
A rather interesting book that says there is a magical being in the sky,gives no explanation to how he came about.
This being was apparently bored because he jus upped and made the universe one day.
Gets lonely and starts creating life , no reasonable explanation on how given again.
Makes a fully formed man out of dirt ,again not much explanation given.
Decided not to use dirt the second time , instead uses a rib from the dude he made earlier to make a woman,again no explanation given to the method used.
Puts them in a garden and populates it with a talking snake who has his own agenda,again no explanation as to why he would sabotage his own creation.
At some point down the line brings a talking donkey in to the mix,again no explanation as to how a donkey's vocal cord suddenly has the ability to vocalize human speech.
Then we get a pregnant virgin,again no explanation on how god's supposed non physical sperm turn into physical human sperm to impregnate the chick ,no mention if it was full on sex or if he is a premature ejaculator ,or even the size of his penis or did he use a turkey baster.
His offspring can raise the dead , heal the sick, but only helps those that he happens to pass by on his strolls .no explanation on his abilities other that "it's a miracle".
Along the way this book promotes slavery,rape,bigotry,infantide,oppression of women,murder of heretics,murder of adulterers,murder of people of different religions.This list could go on for a while.
So yes I ridicule this belief, it has shown itself to be wrong enough times for it to entirely ignored as an alternative explanation to the emergence of the cosmos and life.

It takes a very arrogant person to look at the world around them and think themselves, "yup this has all been set up to allow one select species of primate to have a conversation with the big guy in the sky,it all about us".
I do not share this arrogance , but I can spot a BS story when I see one.

[crock101]

Yes ,you are right I don't know how life started on earth and I admit it freely ,I am in no way ashamed to be honest on this topic.and humbled by my ignorance of it.

You on the other hand are under the impression that you do know how life began.all well and good ,except the reason you think you know is because you read a book that claims to have the answers.
A rather interesting book that says there is a magical being in the sky,gives no explanation to how he came about.
This being was apparently bored because he jus upped and made the universe one day.
Gets lonely and starts creating life , no reasonable explanation on how given again.
Makes a fully formed man out of dirt ,again not much explanation given.
Decided not to use dirt the second time , instead uses a rib from the dude he made earlier to make a woman,again no explanation given to the method used.
Puts them in a garden and populates it with a talking snake who has his own agenda,again no explanation as to why he would sabotage his own creation.
At some point down the line brings a talking donkey in to the mix,again no explanation as to how a donkey's vocal cord suddenly has the ability to vocalize human speech.
Then we get a pregnant virgin,again no explanation on how god's supposed non physical sperm turn into physical human sperm to impregnate the chick ,no mention if it was full on sex or if he is a premature ejaculator ,or even the size of his penis or did he use a turkey baster.
His offspring can raise the dead , heal the sick, but only helps those that he happens to pass by on his strolls .no explanation on his abilities other that "it's a miracle".
Along the way this book promotes slavery,rape,bigotry,infantide,oppression of women,murder of heretics,murder of adulterers,murder of people of different religions.This list could go on for a while.
So yes I ridicule this belief, it has shown itself to be wrong enough times for it to entirely ignored as an alternative explanation to the emergence of the cosmos and life.

It takes a very arrogant person to look at the world around them and think themselves, "yup this has all been set up to allow one select species of primate to have a conversation with the big guy in the sky,it all about us".
I do not share this arrogance , but I can spot a BS story when I see one.

[Habit7]

Saying that you are humbled by your lack of knowledge and then ridiculing something you claim not to know is not an act of humility. It is an act of contradiction and condescension.

It like saying I dont know Spanish, but what that Spanish-speaker just said was rubbish.



And it is with that same horrible logic you approach your cursory understanding of Bible which you raise issues that have been discussed many times over in this 700pg thread.

So you are not bringing anything profound and by investigation, you are open to even more incredulous beliefs while claiming to know nothing.

So dial back the angry atheist/internet Dawkins, its been done many times already.

[crock101]

While I do not speak Spanish I do have enough exposure to other languages to know when someone is clearly not speaking it .the same thing is used for simple logic ,I have been exposed to it enough to spot when someone is not using it.
I will not take a story about talking snakes and donkeys as fact without proof.extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which these stories provide none.

[Habit7]

While I do not speak Spanish I do have enough exposure to other languages to know when someone is clearly not speaking it .the same thing is used for simple logic ,I have been exposed to it enough to spot when someone is not using it.
I will not take a story about talking snakes and donkeys as fact without proof.extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which these stories provide none.

Neither I have evidence of inanimate objects coming to life nor of aliens descending on Earth to spawn life with no explanation of who spawned their life in the first place (infinite regress).

BTW you can have exposure to countless amount of languages but if don't know the language someone speaks, you cannot make an intelligent deduction of what they said, far less to ridicule it.

[crock101]

Habit

What does any of that have to do with people who believe a ludicrous story about a talking snake and a talking donkey.
Do you believe that at one point on earth there was a talking snake and a talking donkey?
A simple yes or no will suffice,even a "I don't know" Will do,but I feel a diatribe may be in the near future where you never actually answer the question , as you do backflips trying to rationalize the existence of a talking snake and donkey.

[Habit7]

Well as I said before crock101 you are bringing nothing new viewtopic.php?p=6878580#p6878580

But yes, I believe that once angelic beings used a snake and a donkey to communicate. I know as a naturalist this is incredulous to you.

But then again with patchy evolutionary evidence you believe that a primate a little bigger than a rat, eventually became the talking primate you are today. So you are the one who believes in talking animals, I don't.

[crock101]

Well at least now we are getting somewhere. You buy a story that claims that at one point on earth a snake and a donkey was able to use speech to communicate with human beings and i do not buy the story.If I have misrepresented your position please say so.

[crock101]

One question I do still have for the faithful, why would God make cassava?
I know on the surface it is a silly question , but let me elaborate, why make a food supposedly with us in mind,place it underground and coat it in cyanide. Remember ,cassava is perfectly good to eat when handled properly and deadly when not.just imagine how many people lost their lives trying to eat it before someone finally figured out how to do it safely.
If you believe that God made it then you would also believe he coated it with cyanide , but why?
Maybe it was to keep the other animals from getting to it ,but if that was the plan why aren't all root vegetables coated in cyanide too.was he trying to kill us?
I seems a bit odd .
As recent as 2005 27 children died as a result of eating cassava in the Philippines,why would a loving God make a poison in the first place.

[megadoc1]

One question I do still have for the faithful, why would God make cassava?
I know on the surface it is a silly question , but let me elaborate, why make a food supposedly with us in mind,place it underground and coat it in cyanide. Remember ,cassava is perfectly good to eat when handled properly and deadly when not.just imagine how many people lost their lives trying to eat it before someone finally figured out how to do it safely.
If you believe that God made it then you would also believe he coated it with cyanide , but why?
Maybe it was to keep the other animals from getting to it ,but if that was the plan why aren't all root vegetables coated in cyanide too.was he trying to kill us?
I seems a bit odd .
As recent as 2005 27 children died as a result of eating cassava in the Philippines,why would a loving God make a poison in the first place.

how come you only chose to speak on the bitter variety of cassava? I grow cassava home here and and I don't have to handle it "properly",I just pull it out boil it and eat! I also learnt that planting pigeon peas next to your cassava makes them bitter ..also In guyana the bitter variety is boiled until the poison comes out (look up cassareep ) they use it to make a dish called pepper pot, it gives the food a certain flavor and it preserves the food ,you can leave that pot on your stove for months and only reheat when you ready to eat, some claimed to have had food cooking in that pot for years
so how come you only came across with a negative position on bitter cassava?
check yuh biasing circuit dude , the same food that you claim killing people is regarded greatly

[Cantmis]

God make lion. Lion kill man. God make man. Man kill lion.

[crock101]

I like cassava,I never said that I didn't, I think you are missing the point here.
The question is ,why would a loving God put poison in food.

[Habit7]

One question I do still have for the faithful, why would God make cassava?
I know on the surface it is a silly question , but let me elaborate, why make a food supposedly with us in mind,place it underground and coat it in cyanide. Remember ,cassava is perfectly good to eat when handled properly and deadly when not.just imagine how many people lost their lives trying to eat it before someone finally figured out how to do it safely.
If you believe that God made it then you would also believe he coated it with cyanide , but why?
Maybe it was to keep the other animals from getting to it ,but if that was the plan why aren't all root vegetables coated in cyanide too.was he trying to kill us?
I seems a bit odd .
As recent as 2005 27 children died as a result of eating cassava in the Philippines,why would a loving God make a poison in the first place.

still could never understand how big men with sense in their head could believe in "God"

when there is suffering all over the world, entire villages wiped out by disease and acts of war, thousands of children just dying because of no access to clean water or food

you have to be a real muffler bearing to believe all that is part of gods plan and the children/people deserve their suffering

So if a God exist, everybody would be living in bliss?

if a god as you describe it exists, then people would not be suffering as they do just because of the area they are born

simple as that.

if your god exists, he is worse than the devil you fear.

The God I worship, the God of the Bible, created a perfect world. The world was corrupted when man, a free moral agent, chose to disobey and bring death into the world. God foreknew that man would fail and devised a plan to redeem sinful man while being just in judging sinful man. God entered into His own creation and suffered, in fact He suffered much more than any man did under the wrath of the Father while on the cross. The Book of Isaiah chapter 53, 700 years prior prophesied Him as the "Suffering Servant." Thus those who put their trust in Him and repent of their sin will receive the bliss lost when Adam sinned.

In Christianity the problem of suffering is explained and dealt with. If however, you claim that because there is suffering God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we judge suffering? Suffering is then just the circle of life with no substantial cause or any significant end. Therefore if anyone encounters any kind of suffering they should just take their life because their endurance of suffering is of no consequence.

As a Christian, a suffering world points to a consequence of sin, much like the sin in my life. It is ultimately dealt with by God destroying it as corruption or me receiving God's perfection while He takes my sin and my punishment.

As an atheist, suffering should make you a nihilist.

[Slartibartfast]

Apparently reading the bible properly turns you into an atheist. Hmm

http://www.christianmegapolis.com/from-christian-faith-to-atheism-interview-with-yuri-stasyuk/

EDIT: The post above this is by far the funniest reply to "Why did God coat some vassava in cyanide?" Habit you real entertaining yes. I guess crock made a good point tho. You can always tell when a someone makes a good point against you. You quote an irrelevant or previously disproved reply by yourself and then ignore the question after.

I noticed you haven't given a real response to my posts for the last 10 pages or so. Wonder what that means.

[crock101]

Ok since cyanide in cassava has habit chasing his own tail,how about this.

 Acanthamoeba Keratitis is an eyeworm that borrows into your eye, where it eats it until you are blind ,sometimes even reaching your spinal cord causing paralysis.
What loving God would make such a thing,it's only skill set is to cause human suffering .maybe it's to deal with sinners,but wait ,didn't Jesus already die for our sins , or did I read that wrong?

 here is a report about a woman who had one and had to stay awake for 7 days in hospital while eye drops were put in every 10 minutes to kill it before she went blind

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... sight.html

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

I recently found Jesus a couple weeks ago and so I am now a believer in many things, just wanted to share this with you guys. God does exist, you just need to look hard enough.