The Anti-theist Thread

[BeardofPants]

Wayfarer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The burden of proof still rests witht he claimant. Show me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BeardofPants Furthermore, you are in the anti-theistic thread, YOU are supposed to be convincing US.



I am still waiting Wayfarer. Convince me.

[Cirdan]

BOP,

That's why the fundementalists invented creationism; it's you put you on the defensive. It takes advantage of your scientific thought which allows possibilities. Something not allowed in their religious thought which came up with the idea. It's a gimmick even they don't believe. If they have to convince you with evidence alone, as opposed to traditional scientific thought which requires reproducability, they fall on their face.

[jerseydevil]

Well now they're trying to pass off a new term and call it a new theory. There is nothing scientificallly that backs up creationism and absolutely nothing that says the earth is 6,000 years old or whatever.

When I lived in the midwest - most people believed in creationism and would not listen to any other possiblities. I generally stay out of religious conversations with my freinds in Indiana.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan
BOP,

That's why the fundementalists invented creationism; it's you put you on the defensive. It takes advantage of your scientific thought which allows possibilities. Something not allowed in their religious thought which came up with the idea. It's a gimmick even they don't believe. If they have to convince you with evidence alone, as opposed to traditional scientific thought which requires reproducability, they fall on their face.

Yes well, it is interesting that me, you, FrodoFriend, Afro Elf, JerseyDevil, and Rogue Elf (forgive me, if I forget someone), have so far been defending our beliefs, and providing facts, and logic for them to pick apart. But they haven't been returning the favour. Now it's our turn. Give us your arguments, 'twit', and we'll lampoon you!

[BeardofPants]

And it would be nice to stop the psuedo fact flinging please.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well now they're trying to pass off a new term and call it a new theory. There is nothing scientificallly that backs up creationism and absolutely nothing that says the earth is 6,000 years old or whatever.

When I lived in the midwest - most people believed in creationism and would not listen to any other possiblities. I generally stay out of religious conversations with my freinds in Indiana.

I came from Florida so I know what you mean. When I was a kid the were no other possibilities. I got thown out of confirmation class for asking too many questions. Creationism can't be a theory because it requires faith as a prerequisite.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
And it would be nice to stop the psuedo fact flinging please.

Kudos to those of you doing the leg work to provide the information and hard data to support your right to not beleive.

I've avoided this subject for a while (for obvious reasons) so it was nice to get updated. I'm confortable with not believing but I can't abide relentless proselytizing. I really don't like satanists; beleiving the part of the religion the religion uses as a scapegoat is masochism.

[jerseydevil]

Well I never believed in hell. And Pergatory and Limbo were completely out of the question.

The devil is an excuse for people to blame something they do "bad" on external forces. People need to take responsibilty for their own actions

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan


Kudos to those of you doing the leg work to provide the information and hard data to support your right to not beleive.

YES! Many thanks for those others who have been helping me out in this debate. I have a bad tendency to wander in, waist high in mud! So, thanks for helping me out! It's great to see SOME scientific, and logic arguments employed, considering this IS the Anti-theistic debate!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I never believed in hell. And Pergatory and Limbo were completely out of the question.

The devil is an excuse for people to blame something they do "bad" on external forces. People need to take responsibilty for their own actions

And on the flip side, people also need to realise that THEY can be special, and do great & momentous things, without help from an outside influence. C'mon people! I'm thoroughly sick of hearing about people who done amazing things, and said that it was the Good Lords work. They did it, NOT him/her/it/Tree!! Grrrr....

[FrodoFriend]

Hmm, I'd just like to point out a few things.

1) Order can not be 'invalid' anymore than a rock can be invalid. Order is something that either exists or does not exist, not something that is valid or invalid. What the heck is an 'invalid' order, Wayfarer? Give me an example, please.

2) 'Atheistic religion' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

3) "The burden of proof still rests with the claimant. Show me" - Why don't you show me? Give us some concrete proof here. And your order/chaos ideas are not proof.

4) Is anyone willing to explain where God came from? This was RE's question, and no one has yet answered it.

5) No one has answered Anduril's posts from the "Theism" thread either. Too difficult to answer, I suppose. I'll summarize one of them again:
- The Christian God cannot possibly exist, because it is impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent (both characteristics of the christian god). Anduril proved this very well, and I'd like to see someone disprove it. Basically, if God is omniscient, he knows what he himself will do in the future. Since he knows, he has to do it - making him not omnipotent. Or, if he does something else, he's not omniscient, because he didn't know what he was going to do beforehand.
- In the words of the Simpsons: "Could God create a hotdog so big even God couldn't eat it all?" Whether you answer yes or no, God ends up conspicuously not omnipotent.
- God sacrificing Jesus. If he's omniscient, he knew Jesus be resurrected. Some sacrifice.
- So if there is a God, he cannot have the typical characteristics of the Christian one.

6) My question which no one has yet answered: If God knew from the beginning how everything would work out, why bother? Why bother to set Adam and Eve up if you're know they're going to fall? Why not just make them sinless? An omnipotent being could do that, right? Why go through the whole spiel of sinning and redemption and revelation if you already know how it's going to turn out and you're controlling it all? I guess it must be really boring up there in heaven . . .

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
My question which no one has yet answered: If God knew from the beginning how everything would work out, why bother? Why bother to set Adam and Eve up if you're know they're going to fall? Why not just make them sinless? An omnipotent being could do that, right? Why go through the whole spiel of sinning and redemption and revelation if you already know how it's going to turn out and you're controlling it all? I guess it must be really boring up there in heaven . . .

I'm guessing this 'story' was set up by some mysogynistic male, for Eve to take a fall. Thereby relegating women to her 'rightful' place. Just another myth, I guess.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


And on the flip side, people also need to realise that THEY can be special, and do great & momentous things, without help from an outside influence. C'mon people! I'm thoroughly sick of hearing about people who done amazing things, and said that it was the Good Lords work. They did it, NOT him/her/it/Tree!! Grrrr....

I also feel the same way. People just need to take responsibilty for themselves regardless. They did it - not some higher or lower power.

[mirrille]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
4) Is anyone willing to explain where God came from? This was RE's question, and no one has yet answered it.
6) My question which no one has yet answered: If God knew from the beginning how everything would work out, why bother? Why bother to set Adam and Eve up if you're know they're going to fall? Why not just make them sinless? An omnipotent being could do that, right? Why go through the whole spiel of sinning and redemption and revelation if you already know how it's going to turn out and you're controlling it all? I guess it must be really boring up there in heaven . . .

From my extensive Catholic education (haha! ) as i recall, the whole point of God is that he didn't come from anywhere. He was always there. This is what those in the business call a Mystery. But it's a Divine Mystery, which makes it sound special. Although it really means that it's a way of making things sound Deep and Spiritual when one has no idea what one is talking about, or would rather not think about it. Understandable. That Mystery is quite a doozy and I would not like to be the one responsible for solving it.

For the second question. Yeah. that bothered me too. I've decided that the whole point of that story is that people hate themselves. They don't think they can't be good on their own so they come up with this original sin deal. It also conveniently brings in the need for a saviour. Religions like saviours. Prophets in particular just can't get enough of them. Prophets also like to write things down (the literate ones, anyways). These writings can later be put together into something called a "bible".

[afro-elf]

For thousands of years, man thought the earth was flat. And up until about fifty years ago man was certain that the atom was the smallest building- block in the universe. Man was wrong about those things, so couldn't there be a slight possibility that man is wrong about evolution as well?

I don't see how this is at all unreasonable. Do You? Yet the author claims that the evolutionist, in admitting that it is reasonable, is 'betraying science'.

I would just sub reasonale with POSSIBLE. Its possible that britttany spears is satan incarnate, its possibe that i'll be able to take some genetic material from tolkien's grave and resurect him, it's possible that william shanter will win an academy award.


well maybe not the last one

In actuality, the roman catholic church accepted and sponsored astronomers until it was urged to decry them by the scientific aristolian league. They did so not because of what thier religion taught, but because the intellectuals of hte day (who were usually priests or otherwise privilidged) didn't want to accept that the classical greek and roman philosophies (i.e. heliocentricism) were wrong.

that’s just plain wrong

a handful of greeks postulated a helio-centric view however

European learning was based on the Greek sources that had been passed down, and cosmological and astronomical thought were based on Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's cosmology of a central Earth surrounded by concentric spherical shells carrying the planets and fixed stars was the basis of European thought from the 12th century CE onward. Technical astronomy, also geocentric, was based on the constructions of excentric circles and epicycles codified in Ptolemy's Almagest (2d. century CE).


The Catholic Church supported a
largely Aristotelian physical world view, skilfully woven into Christian
theology by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).


well the bible DOES support a GEO-cenetric view

The mobility of the sun
The most important biblical quote supporting a geocentric universe can be found in the Book of Joshua. This will be used as the starting point for our scriptural cosmology.

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

The miracle of Joshua appears again as a reference in The Book of Habakkuk.

Habakkuk 3:11
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear.

The evidence in support of a geocentric model is overwhelming here. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. He did not order the earth to cease rotating nor did he qualify his statement with the divine knowledge that the sun was merely made to appear stationary. The sun was commanded to stand still because it is the sun that moves. Descriptions of its motion can be rather poetic.

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

The stability of the earth
On the other side of the geocentric coin, if the sun moves then the earth must not move. There are a few passages which more-or-less forbid the motion of the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

In addition, the notion of an earth with a "foundation" is quite common. This leads one to conclude that the earth is quite stable.

2 Samuel 22:16
Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the Lord at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

Psalms 18:15
Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

Psalms 102:25
Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Proverbs 8:27-29
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,

Isaiah 48:13
My hand laid out the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.

John 17:24
Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.

The firmness of the earth's foundation is open to some discussion, however. Earthquakes may or may not be allowed.

Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.

Isaiah 24:18
He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

[afro-elf]

You also make a false assumption that creationism can and has been disproved. I submit once more that if it has in fact been disproved, then you should be able to convince me. It is not the facts which disagree with christianity, merely conjecture and hypothesis, and the sensibilities of many institutions.

simply the bible says the earth was made in six days

so if you add up all the generations your that bishop did you will not get even close to the age of the earth

why would god try and decieve us by making all of our dating methods constantly wrong by billions of years.

Despite that science proved the world was round, when the Pope said it was flat; despite science proving that man was not created into the form we currently possess, and that we must've evolved; despite everything we've learned - we must believe that there's a possibility that we've been wrong this whole time. That the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around us, that God created the universe, as we know it, in 6 days - merely 30,000 years ago.

1) I addressed it before. The pope was acting on behalf of the current scientific elite. He had no justification from Christianity in saying this.

Wrong see my prior post part I

2)This is still unproved. You expect me to accept your word for it despite the lack of evidence

simply humans or their ancestors where not there "IN THE BEGINNING" they appeared millions of years later. would you expect their fossils to contemepory with all the other homind fossils

3)Flat earth and heliocentricism are not christian ideas.

wrong see my prior post part I

4)Please answer me this: If there is a god powerful enought to create all the matter and energy in the universe, from nothing, why could he not do it in six days? Furthermore, the christian God exists outside of linear time, and thus could take as long or as short as he wants to

here you are begging the question

also WHERE in the bible does it say that god is outside of linear time

5)The belief in an old earth is the result of gradualism. It cannot account for what might happen if things have not always been exactly the way they are. Tell me, do you think thignsa have always been exactly the way they are?

so are you saving god changed his mind makes things different
but if he is all knowing why would he change things

there have been meteor strikes, climate changes things do change but it doesn't mean that things have to all be radically altered as if by magic

[afro-elf]

Correct. I believe (have faith) that the sun will come up tomorrow. It may not, but i am still perfectly justified in believing it will.

it is justified because you have experience with it. it is sensory.

heaven aint

the snowflake forms because of ordered principles governing how water molecules work. Read my reply to cirdan on the subject.

and those ordering principles could be the a matter of choas falling it a pattern we could take this arguement back to an infinte regressuion of circle arguements

The anarcy is not the source of the order. The civil government results from people who see that anarchy isn't working and do something about it

here we delve into semantics the fact of anachary led people to make a change

ordered governments don't pop out of nowhere

[afro-elf]

Impossible. Aristotle said that everything has to come from an unmoved mover. Infinite Regression is 100% impossible. It had to start somewhere with someone.

as far as artistotle



Although in many areas Aristotle advocated a modern scientific approach and he collected data in a scientific way, this was unfortunately not the case in astronomy. As Berry writes [2]:-

There are also in Aristotle's writings a number of astronomical speculations, founded on no solid evidence and of little value ... his original contributions are not comparable with his contributions to the mental and moral sciences, but are inferior in value to his work in other natural sciences ...
As Berry goes on to say, this was very unfortunate for astronomy since the influence of the writings of Aristotle had an authority for many centuries which meant that astronomers had a harder battle than they might otherwise have had in getting the truth accepted.


as far as infinite regression


ok where did god come from/ or any supernatural force

you say it always was why can't nature have always existed

[afro-elf]

If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.

you assume that the rate are constant through out time

The prelunar landing predictions of evolutionary scientists gave great concern to the astronauts. Their predictions were that due to a presumed 4.5 billion year age of the moon and the rate of influx of dust and the lunar physical processes of rock break-up, the astronauts might be lost in a great depth of dust on the moon.4 Fortunately the evolutionary predictions of great dust depth were wrong. Our astronauts were not lost in the predicted "quicksand" of age-accumulated dust on the moon. The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct.

where did you get this from? a creationist site?

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Twilight
I don't think that science is ever going to prove absolutaly for sure between evolutionism and creationism. Obviously complete proof is incomplete in both directions. That is where faith comes in again. A faith in something that we can't see, and can't prove with any tangible things. I can't prove it, but I can feel it to where I know that it is true without a doubt in my mind that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he died for our sins. You can ask me how I feel it beyond a reasonable doubt. I can see the way in which Christianity has brought total change to people, myself included. Take the disciples for example. They turned from wimps to people willing to give their lives for their beliefs. There are just so many internal things, like prayers are answered in miraculous ways. I am not talking about vague things, but specific prayers answered for. Ask any practising Christian and they will tell you how effective prayer is. A large part of Christianity is the relationship between us and God. It woudn't be relationship if it was just a one way thing. God responds in ways that we can feel. It is a bit hard to describe to somebody that hasn't felt it, and it is differant in each person. I think I am starting to ramble, so I will just leave it at this. Myself or others can provide more as neccesary

HUMMM as if others religionist don't same the same about their religion

so what's the diference?

[afro-elf]

to emplynx


hemogoblin thing


still does prove a CHRISTIAN god