Jan 11, 2009

Top 10 Reasons I'm Atheist

1.    If we truly had one creator speaking to prophets, it would do so consistently, not contradictory as thousands of different religions have proven.
2.    Living by the means of man helping man, and realizing time on earth is not a practice run, creates an urgency of life that requires fulfilling.
3.     I asked my four-year-old daughter where the stars came from. She confidently said “The moon made them.” I followed by asking “Then where did the moon come from?” She strongly asserted “Daddy, the moon is the boss. Nobody made the moon.” This is an unmistakably familiar mindset; and rightfully embarrassing for an adult to hold such similar thought.
4.     Demeter, Jesus, Apollo, Horus, Zeus, Mithra, Yahweh, Tammuz, Ganesha, and Allah are only 10 of the thousands of gods recorded in history. An Atheist is not one that refuses to read religious doctrine; it is often one who reads too many. 
5.     In the technicalities of most religions, there is no difference between a believer that dies before having time to repent, and a nonbeliever that rejected the doctrine altogether.
6.     If the Christian god created humans as sinners, how could it rightfully expect us to believe the corrupt messengers it has sent to teach us the way of life?
7.     “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?” – Epicurus
8.     All babies are Atheists. Religions are taught depending on the location and era in which you are raised. Being born in the U.S. in 1974 does not make you right, it most likely just makes you another Christian. That’s no better or worse than the person born in Tibet in 1955, who proudly worships the Dalai Lama.
9.     It is better to find your own answers and make an educated decision, than to intentionally remain uneducated and make a fearful one.
10.  Only for the sake of argument, if I were to astonishingly find myself face to face with a supreme being, I would expect to be judged on my life as a humanist, and how I treated others, (just as most Christians plan to be judged on character, not on the actual Ten Commandments). If my positive actions were ignored, and I was instead judged on using my intelligence to doubt religious doctrines created by human sinners, I would rather be eternally punished than bow to such an unfair tyrant who made things seemingly impossible for humans to succeed at this horrific game.

       After more than a year of responding to comments on this and continuing my debates and investigations into religion, and my own psychology, I realized there was an 11th, and most important reason for my atheism...

11.  I simply refuse to be a hypocritical, disingenuous Christian. I could go through the motions, attend the churches, shake the hands, follow the rituals of whichever religion or denomination of Christianity I liked the best, sing the songs, and help with the luncheons. That still wouldn't make me a believer. It would make me a pretender. I am honest with myself and those around me that these things don't make sense to me. That doesn't make me a bad person. It makes me an atheist.

785 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 785   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Alex

I wrote that after another post that seems to have been removed. I'm not making accusations I'm just stating it was posted and then wasn't there. I responded to the ignorance v. stupidity comment and in short ask what would you say to an astrophysicist, microbiologist, geneticist etc. that believes in the biblical account of creation? They are not stupid or ignorant in their field. The comment about dinosaurs shows strong evidence for a young Earth. I dinosaurs and man coexisted then that helps destory the old Earth thinking. I think that if an atheist kept an open mind to the possibility of a creator and examined the evidence in favor of creation he would see that it is a rational and logical explanation.
-Matt

Alexander said...

Matt
Okay but you said something that contradicted you. You said "in short ask what would you say to an astrophysicist, microbiologist, geneticist etc. that believes in the biblical account of creation? They are not stupid or ignorant in their field." That right there is contradicting. You're saying that they aren't ignorant "in their field". Their field is not religion, but astrophysics, microbiology, and genetics etc. You're saying that because they know what they're doing in their position, they must be right about everything else they believe. There's that thing again, what was it called? Oh yeah, ignorance. Good luck.

Alex

Anonymous said...

-Alex

I said "in short" because I was summarizing my earlier post that was removed. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about creation science. You are dodging my question. What would you say to a scientist who believes in creation?
-Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex

Atheism does require faith. You have no proof that there is no creator. You simply have very strong feelings that we are here by random chance. Shane Bonanno says the theory behind creation is a quantum fluctuation, which is a theory, not proof. It takes faith to believe theories which have not been proven. You may have evidence to help support your secular world view but I can use the same evidence that you have to help support my biblical world view. You cannot prove me wrong. I cannot absolutely prove you wrong either. We both have faith in our beliefs. You don't know there is no creator. Saying you "know" there is no creator means you have absolute proof. I know I have two hands. I don't believe it. They are right there. This is not a contradiction to my faith either. I can say that I know there is a creator because we are here and we know that nothing cannot create something. We know that something cannot come from nothing. Would you disagree? No scientist has ever created something purely out of nothing in his laboratory. Think about it. Even Stephen Hawking says the universe has a beginning. If it has a beginning then something started it. It couldn't have been just a quantum fluctuation because something still had to create the necessary matter to create a big bang. You also asked why God allows wars to happen in his name? God created man perfect. When man brought sin into the world his eyes were opened and he knew good and evil. God has given us free will. Man can choose to do what he wants. So yes, wars have been fought in his name but for him to stop it would be for him to take our free will. Without free will you would love and worship him right now. He wants you to come to him. He doesn’t want robots. Mans own nature causes these wars. The Bible says that the time will come when all suffering will end though. You say Occam’s Razor tells us not to believe in God. This is not true. I think you are looking at a different form of the razor. If you mean that we should choose the simplest explanation then surely Gods creation is simpler than secular reasoning. If you mean we should remove things that cannot be observed then we have to remove a lot of secular reasoning. Occams Razor works great for my biblical world view. It is easy to understand that God created our existence rather than the universe has been here infinitely and extreme! Odds were beat which led us to this discussion. What proof do you have there is no god. I would like to discuss it.
-Matt

Alexander said...

Matt

If I met a scientist who believed in creationism, I wouldn't say anything. I don't judge people based on their religion.

There is proof behind evolution. There is no proof behind creationism. You decide.

We did not come from nothing, found their way to our planet and evolved.

Believing in god is losing free will. If god has everything planned out, you can't make any decisions for yourself.

The belief that there is an all powerful being is controling everything is much harder to believe than that there isn't. The only conceivable way that there could be anything close to a god, in my perspective, is if life were a "brain in a jar" situation. But I like to believe that I can make my own decisions.

Alex

Anonymous said...

was reading the last posts and i would say there is evidence for god. theres alot. also id say if you dont believe in evolution then your insane...now if you believe in Darwinism then your CRAZY!!! there is never been proof of one genome turning into another genome. Also there is proof on creationism would you like me to list it??? You decide then if its proof or not. I think you've been stumped Alex...

Emilio

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - Wow! So you ignore ALL evidence that says dinos and humans lived at the same time and come up with that crazy-assed idea? Hmm, are you a genius or an idiot. I'm voting for the latter. There are so many things wrong with your delusion, I don't even know where to start.

Dimondwoof said...

@Emilio - I would love to see your "proof" of ID. I'd also like to see your "evidence of god". If it's true, you would be the first person I have ever encountered that provided such proof.

As for the proof of a genome turning into another, yes there is. If you choose to ignore that proof, that just shows your foolishness, it doesn't prove that it doesn't exist.

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - In response to your questions "what would you say to an astrophysicist, microbiologist, geneticist etc. that believes in the biblical account of creation? They are not stupid or ignorant in their field."

I would say they were not experts in their fields and that they were as delusional as any other xian. However, just because a "scientist" believes in god, doesn't lend proof that your god exists. Even if 100% of the people of the world "believed", that doesn't lend even the slightest credibility to the belief.

You also might want to look up the word "faith". "Faith" is believing something despite either no evidence supporting, or (in the case of xianity) mountains of evidence against a particular concept. Atheism is the LACK of belief. It is the LACK of "faith". It is NOT believing any crazy-assed superstition just because it makes you feel better about yourself. Atheism does not require any "faith".

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - Oh, and by the way, I CAN "prove" that the bible is flawed. And if the bible is flawed, that means it is not the "perfect word of god". And if it is not the "perfect word of god", you can't take anything it says as truth. Therefore, between the arguments of the "biblical world view" and the "secular world view", the secular view has evidence supporting it, whereas your biblical view can be proved to be delusional.

You also bring up the tired old argument of "something can't come from nothing". We don't know how the universe started. But just because you have a wild fantasy about it, doesn't prove that true. You must come up with actual evidence for a theory. The argument that "you really, really want it to be true" is not evidence. That a creator created everything is an argument out of ignorance. "We don't know, so by default my fairy tales must be true" just doesn't hold any water.

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - "Occams Razor works great for my biblical world view. It is easy to understand that God created our existence rather than the universe has been here infinitely and extreme!" Yes, that works for a simple mind that does not want to evaluate evidence. It's much simpler to just believe in magic. it's just not real, that's all.

Dimondwoof said...

@Emilio - by the way, there is no "belief" in "darwinism", as you call it. (Adults call it Evolution, since the theory has "evolved" since Darwin proposed it).

Just in case you missed it, the "SCIENTIFIC Theory of Evolution" is an attempt to explain the "SCIENTIFIC FACT of Evolution". The difference between a "SCIENTIFIC Theory" and the theory of creationism is that a "SCIENTIFIC Theory" is a means by which we explain an observable, empirical phenomenon, as opposed to any making up delusional superstitions to explain things.

Alexander said...

Emilio:
I believe whole-heartedly in evolution. If you want to call me crazy, go ahead, but don't be offended if I call you ignorant and stupid. You are dismissing the proof and believing in what is said the loudest (metaphorically, of course). There is proof against god and creation and nothing for it. Stumped?

Dimondwoof:
I respect your arguments, but Matt is actually being intelligent at some times. There were some things that were a bit, for lack of a better word, stupid, but other things he said have been intelligent (but still ignorant).

Matt:
I'm still waiting for your reply. Debating with you has been fun.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

@Alexander - Thanks for the reply. I'd like to correct you on something, though. You don't "believe" in evolution. You "accept" evolution. The difference being that you have been presented with evidence for evolution and, after scrutinizing that evidence, you have come to the conclusion that it is valid and therefore acceptable. Creationism requires a "belief" because it requires the acceptance of a premise that has no evidence (the "creator"). That is why a "belief" requires "faith", whereas acceptance of a scientific premise does not.

As for calling Matt an idiot, you are correct. I should not have been quite so harsh. It's obvious that he is regurgitating arguments that have been debunked for years, over and over, but you are right in that he might not have come across someone who articulated responses in such a way as to show him that they are all invalid. Usually I strive to dispel invalid ideas, I guess I was just in a foul mood when I posted that.

@Matt - My apologies for calling you an idiot. I know better and I present no excuse. Not that I capitulate that any of your arguments have any validity at all, but I acknowledge that you apparently haven't done enough research to know that there is abundant evidence to prove that your arguments are fallacious.

Alexander said...

Dimondwoof

Well I guess technically you are correct, but it is just a grammatical error. I mean, don't get me wrong, I did make a mistake, but it's not a big deal. Thank you for correcting me though. Umm, I don't really have a lot to say since we're on the same side, but if you'd be fine with sharing information about yourself, I'm interested in where your name came from and maybe how old you are if you're fine with that too. I'm 15 and my name is just my name.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

@Alex - Actually, I think it's not just a grammatical error, but a rudimentary difference. It allows xians to put their beliefs on equal ground with actual real science. As Matt says "You simply have very strong feelings that we are here by random chance." I think it's important to distinguish between "believing" in a superstition and accepting a scientific premise.

As for me, I'm a 49 year old "recovering xian". Just kidding, I never did really believe. I was raised xian, but never bought into it. As soon as I was old enough to think for myself, I realized it was completely nonsensical. The "dimond" part of my name is an ancestral family name. I've raised wolf hybrids, so tried to get the name "dimondwolf", but that name was taken in Yahoo, so I went with "dimondwoof".

You can tell how delusional Matt is when he says things like "I'm not religious, but I believe in god". Like somehow that means he isn't delusional. It's actually pretty hard to communicate with people like that who like to change the meaning of words just to throw the conversation off. But I believe it's important to call people on their BS. It'll be interesting to see if either me or Emilio respond to any of my postings about their fallacious delusions.

Anonymous said...

@dimondwoofy

Whoa! What is up with all this atheist hate!?!? I guess not believing in a all loving God makes you hate people... I would love to debate you and have a serious discussion with you on Darwinism. If you feel like being educated please email me at jxclown3@hotmail.com. I really don't think we'll get anywhere on this blog with everyone putting their input. Just leave your hate at home and I would love to show you the "evidence"

Emilio

Anonymous said...

Alex

I have been trying to respond to you but my comments won't post. I'll be surprised if this one does.

Alexander said...

Emilio

Evolution. And there are many examples of it everywhere. Think of humans. There is proof that we evolved from Homo Habilus into Homo Erectus and eventually into what we are today (which is still constantly changing). We know this because we have found remains of beings in between the stages. We have bones that create a timeline of sorts of human evolution. And what do we have proving the existence of a god? I thought so.

Alex

Alexander said...

Anonymous (I'm guessing Matt)

You must be suprised.

Alex

Anonymous said...

@Alex

Please feel free to email me as well.

Emilio

Anonymous said...

@Alex

Please explain the "brain in a jar" situation. I don't understand. For me believing in God has made certain tough questions easy to answer. Like what came first the chicken or the egg? Easy, God designed birds to lay eggs then created birds. So there was a bird first then it laid an egg. the chicken probably was a product of natural selection, similar to evolution but not the same. Also, what's the meaning of life? My belief is it is to except Jesus Christ in your life, breaking the bondage of sin and being able to get back into fellowship with the Father for all of eternity. I don't struggle with those two questions. Last thing is that you are 15 years old. You are a child. Don't blindly follow anyone or anything. Don't believe anything anybody says without looking it up for yourself first. Many people will hear someone say something and just believe it. I was not always a Christian, or believed in God. I didn't grow up in a church family. I learned on my own and Jesus came into my life and I excepted it. I hope you have done research to back up you claim that there is no proof of creationism. There is a lot of bad information out there but here are two of my favorite websites and I hope you at least visit them for a few minutes with an open mind. alwaysbeready.com and answersingenesis.org.

Matt

Anonymous said...

@alex

I'm having problems posting on here. It will post, but then it will delete. Sorry If you're not getting my replies.

Matt

Anonymous said...

@alex

I think you are confusing creation science and religion. They are not the same. I've already stated that I am against religion too. I am a Christian which means that I have a personal relationship with God. It is not a religion. Creation science is taking the same evidence that secular scientists use and applying it to a biblical world view. So how would you respond to an educated rational scientist who believed in the biblical account of creation and engaged you first. I'm not trying to attack you here, I hope you don't think that. A lot of the evidence for evolution is questionable and is being questioned more every day. There also is a lot evidence for creation. I don't quite understand your third statement. If you mean aliens or bacteria or something came to our planet by whatever means then evolved, that still doesn't explain how the universe got here. That microorganism still had to come from somewhere which goes back to nothing cannot create something. Believing in God is not giving up free will. It is a choice I make because I have free will just like you choose to not believe. If there was no free will everyone would worship God. This is why God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of eden. Bear with me for a second please. God commanded Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree. Doing so would bring sin into the world. sin breeds suffering. So what was the point of the tree? why not leave it out? The world could still be perfect like God created it without the tree. Because in order for there to be free will there must be a way to oppose something. there must be a choice. God knew that man would sin yet he still gave him a way to oppose him. So you can make decisions for yourself and we do it every day.
Matt

Alexander said...

Matt

Have you ever seen the movie The Matrix? That's basically the "brain in a jar". It's where you can never be sure if this is reality or if your just a brain in a jar that is connecting you to a program.

Answering your questions, the egg came first and there is no meaning so make everyday count.

And finally, my favourite. Yes, I'm 15, but you probably didn't know it until I stated it. That's because unlike most (if not all) of my peers, I'm not an idiot. Physically, I am still a child, but maturity-wise, I am at least 20. I know a lot and I know how to use it to the best of my ability. You said not to believe anything anyone says without looking it up first. One, I usually don't need to do that. Two, I was taught to believe in god. My dad is a Christian and I still go to church every Sunday. I am who I am because I didn't believe everything I was told. I learned on my own that the closest thing to magic is slight of hand. There is no pixie dust. There is no raising from the dead. I thank you for your thoughts, but this is one 15-year-old who is completely sure of who he is.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - the definition of "religion" is "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny". If you believe in a magic sky fairy, you are religious. If doesn't matter if you follow a particular sect of your cult or are off in your own delusion someplace.

Yes, for you, believing in magic makes the tough questions easy: How did we get here? Easy, MAGIC! What is the meaning of life? Easy, to be a slave to a magic sky fairy! What came first, the chicken or the egg? Easy, the chicken magically appeared, so that must have come first! You're right. Believing in a magic fairy makes life's questions so much easier to answer. None of the answers are anywhere close to correct, but they are easy answers to make up, so they must be right!

The only "proof" of creationism is that you want to believe in your god so badly that he MUST have created everything. There isn't a single shred of "science" involved. Science is following the evidence to it's conclusion. Creationism is assuming you are right and only looking (and usually manipulating) evidence to support your superstition. I know that sounds the same to you, but, in reality, there is a huge difference.

If the argument that you have is that god must have created everything because you can't create something out of nothing, then where did god come from? And, by the way, that is NOT the scientific consensus. We don't know where everything came from. But even if you are right and something can't come from nothing, it just moves the question back to where did the creator come from?

And, if there was a creator who created everything, where did it go? There is certainly no evidence that a supernatural being is "directing" anything now, so why create something as vast as the multiverse and then just disappear?

The bible is so full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out fallacious lies that it can't possibly be true. So, if the bible is just a bunch of ramblings of illiterate, nomadic, goat-hearding, barbarians, who other "proof" do you have of your particular delusion that the earth was created by magic and all the science in the world is completely wrong?

Dimondwoof said...

@Emilio - You MUST be xian, because it's only xians that just to the word "hate" so quickly. Since you missed it completely, I do not "hate" you are Matt. The sentiment is actually disgust. For people to proclaim that they are right in their delusion, simply because the really, really WANT to be right leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

As for your "proof", wouldn't you rather prove me wrong in an open forum? If your "proof" is so staggeringly profound, I would assume that you'd want to share it with the world, not hide it. Personally, I prefer public forums because I have nothing to hide. I am absolutely sure that everything you can come up with, much like all of Matt's arguments, is either so circumstantial that it ludicrous or so off-base that is it completely delusional. But I'm happy to put the challenge out there for you to prove me wrong in public.

David Smalley said...

Guys,

The tone here is getting a little out of hand. Let's keep the conversation productive. I'm noticing some 'shut down' language.

When we become offensive, on either side, despite how wrong the other person is, we begin to use words that cause the other person to simply become defensive and stop listening.

This is counterproductive to everything the Dogma Debate stands for.

I appreciate those of you who are participating in a spirited debate. That, I like. But throwing around words like 'stupid' just won't get us anywhere.

I too, am disgusted by many religions--by the brainwashing, and the countless levels of insensitivity to adverse affects; but we aren't any better if do the same to them, that they are doing to their children.

Insults, guilt, and shame, are not methods of education; regardless of what religions teach.

Carry on, I'm enjoying the debates.

Alexander said...

Matt:
I'm not feeling like you're attacking me, don't worry. But I do have to agree with Dimondwoof. Believing in god does make you religious.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that "nothing can't make something". Well, if god made the universe, what made god. It couldn't have been himself because nothing can't make something. And if it was another god, what made that one. Would there just be a never-beginning chain of gods? And if there is, who decided that there should be. Surely, there must be a more logical, scientific explanation.

David:
I don't think I've been doing most of that. I do just post on here because I like the debating. But then again, I am a teenager and we are "rebellious". I'm fairly sure I haven't been rude, but I'll still keep that in mind when I post in the future.

Everyone who reads my posts:
I have also noticed that my posts can sometimes seem a little harsh in tone. Please be aware that this is not the case. I am not a mean-spirited person, but people do usually assume that others are angry when they can't actually see or hear the emotion.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

@Alex - I'm pretty sure he was speaking indirectly to me, Alex. I'm assuming it was regarding my comment that Matt was either the most genius person in the world (because he is smarter than all the scientists put together) or he's an idiot for not actually looking at most of the evidence. He probably responded without noticing the msg that I posted apologizing for the remark that I thought it was the latter.

@David - Yes, I definitely need to keep my tone more civil. I usually do, I'm not sure what sets me off about Matt. I will strive to keep my tone more civil.

@Matt - So, how is "creation science" any different than religion? Does it not base it's whole premise on there being a supernatural "creator being"? Does it not base the timeline of the age of the earth on some sort of biblical nonsense? If not, what does it base it's theory (notice I did not call it a "scientific theory") on?

Anonymous said...

Something cannot come from nothing. Something exists so therefore something created it. Great secular scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. So something started or created the universe. Well, what created that something? This type of circular reasoning can lead to people thinking the universe is infinitely old. infinity is not a real number so that doesn't work. But something had to be around forever. what we know is that the universe had a beginning. What I believe but cannot prove is that God is an eternal being who exists outside of the universe and created the universe by whatever means he decided to use. The bible tells us he spoke it into existence. The bible tells us God is eternal and he is the beginning and the end. Even Richard Dawkins said that he cannot be 100% sure there is no god. It was in an interview with Ben Stien. He also believes in intelligent design, just that aliens might have designed us not God. I will begin to post real science that supports creation and ID. -Matt

Alexander said...

Matt

You said that "Something exists so therefore something created it". This is not always true. Yes, something exists, therefore it had a clear beginning, but it doesn't mean that something created it. The cats that we have as domestic animals weren't always around, but they didn't just come into being a while ago. They evolved. It was their brains trying to improve upon themselves so they can keep surviving.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - okay, according to you, something can't come from nothing. So who created your god? According to your "logic", he couldn't have come from nothing. And if your god can be everlasting, why can't we move one step closer and say the multiverse is everlasting? There is actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support that theory.

Your bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out fallacious lies. So anything that it says about god is immediately suspect. We can pretty much assume that it's just superstitious, nonsensical fairy tales until there is some external evidence that supports anything it says. And even then, that doesn't give any credence to anything else it says, it just means that it managed to get that particular tidbit right, by chance. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

As to Dawkins, I see you've managed to take what he says completely out of context. But did you really think you could get that by people who advocate rational thought? Do you really think that we don't know who Dawkins is, or heard him speak at all? Yes, he capitulates that he can't be 100% sure there is no "divine being". But he is just as sure about that as he is sure there are no pink unicorns. Are you saying there are pink unicorns in your closet because you can't be 100% positive that there aren't? However, he (and almost every other rational thinking person on the planet) IS sure that YOUR god doesn't exist. Why? Because your god has contradictory attributes. It is physically impossible for your god to exist. And we are as sure as we possibly can be that no other "divine being" exists, since there is no evidence to support it.

Also, since we apparently have to go over this again and again, because you don't seem to be able to understand it - belief in something does not lend any credibility to the existence of that thing. It doesn't matter if every person on the planet "believes" in your god. That gives no support whatsoever to the actual existence of your god. And since there is no ACTUAL EVIDENCE that your god exists, the logical conclusion is that it is just a superstition that you hold despite the evidence against that belief. By the way, that is the definition of "delusion"; believing in something despite either lack of evidence for, or (as in xianity) mountains of evidence against it.

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - Apparently we also must go over the "evidence out of ignorance" concept again, as well. Just because we don't KNOW something (such as how the universe began), that doesn't mean that anything you dream up is the only and correct answer. Us not understanding how the universe was created gives absolutely no credibility to your argument that is "must have been a creator". Or that your particular delusion must be correct. Let me put it to you this way: Prove to me that it wasn't Siva that created the universe. Or prove to me that it wasn't Zeus that created the universe. Prove that it wasn't the Great Spaghetti Monster that created the universe. If you can prove any of these things without also eliminating your god, I'll capitulate. And, by the way, you can't use the argument "because it's in the bible", because, as I've said, I can prove the bible is just a bunch of nonsensical fairy tales that can't be trusted.

Anonymous said...

@ the 49 year old and alex

I think the same thing is happening to me like it was for Matt. My stuff is not posting. Well like I said I wish you would email me. I'm not scared. In fact you could post our debate on here. Anyways I'm sure you will decline. Most people do when they don't have a crowd to back them up. Just because you have so much "hate" doesn't mean I hate you or you "disgust" me. I'll pray for you. I was really looking forward in refuting your case...

Emilio

Dimondwoof said...

"In the 12th chapter of Joshua is given a list of 31 kingdoms which were conquered by Israel. This was in the fifteenth century B.C. From this time forward they are represented as a mighty nation by Bible historians.

Rameses III overran Canaan and conquered it between 1280 and 1260 B.C. The Egyptian records give a list of all the tribes inhabiting it. The children of Israel-- the Hebrews-- were not there. In the 5th century B.C., when Herodotus, the father of History, was collecting materials for his immortal work, he traversed nearly every portion of Western Asia. He describes all its principal peoples and places; but the Jews and Jerusalem are of too little consequence to merit a line from his pen. Not until 332 B.C. do the Jews appear upon the stage of history, and then only as the submissive vassals of a Grecian king."

John E. Remsburg, The Bible (1901), pg. 263.

Dimondwoof said...

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

Dimondwoof said...

The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).

Dimondwoof said...

In short, the ONLY people who believe the biblical accounts of history are people who are so emotionally invested in their superstition that they will manipulate anything to prove themselves wrong.

Dimondwoof said...

How's this for a biblical fallacy? The "great flood".

Noah managed to go over the ENTIRE earth to collect 2 of every species. That is MILLIONS of animals. He put them on a boat that he built that was 450 yards long by 5 yards wide with 3 levels, each about 10 feet. The rain lasted 40 days (and, for some reason, it is specified that it also lasted 40 night, which is the wording of a fairy tale, so there is a clue there), but land didn't "reappear" for 6 months. Now, after the land reappeared, EVERYTHING is dead. Have you ever heard the term "salting the earth"? It means to put salt on it so as to make sure nothing grows there. After being under SALT WATER for 6 months, there is no food for the animals. Let's be gracious and say that plants started growing in the next growing season. That means that Noah would have had to store food for, let's say 200 million animals for 2 years. All on a boat that was so big, and had to carry so much weight, it couldn't have physically been made out of wood.

Dimondwoof said...

The "Great Flood" part 2 - In order to cover the earth, it would require 4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres of water. That is 3 TIMES more water than is current on earth. It would have had to rain at a rate of 5.5" PER MINUTE. That amount of destructive power would have completely demolished a wooden boat within minutes.

The amount of energy that would have been released in a torrent like that would have risen the earth's temperature to 2,780.33 F. By the way, lead melts at 880 F. Not only that, the weight of all that water would have distorted the earth's crust to the point that it would still be recovering today. Not only that, but it would be impossible, because at that temperature, would would have turned, not to steam, but to plasma. And the weight of the water would have actually turned it into a completely different element at sea lever and below.

All in all, this is absolute proof that no biblical story can be taken seriously.

Dimondwoof said...

The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho DIDN'T EXIST at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists.

Dimondwoof said...

By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Dimondwoof said...

Another bit of proof that the bible is all total fairy tales is the lack of proof that jesus even existed. All of the "books" where written years, if not decades, after his birth. How could anyone have known, word for word, what he said? Where is The Book of Jesus? If his word was so important, why didn't he write it down AT THE TIME? If he was such an influential person, where are the supporting documents? Where are the accounts of his existence OUTSIDE of the bible? Not only that, if the bible is so "perfect", why didn't jesus fulfill all the "prophecies" that were supposed to foretell his coming?

Even if you find a few accidental consistencies between the bible and archeology, all that means is that someone managed to correctly write down things that were happening at the time. Bring up archeology as supporting the divinity of the bible would be comparable to, if in the last chapter of a math book, someone wrote that Ra, the Egyptian sun god, really existed, saying that was proof because, well the book was right about 1 plus one being 2, so therefore EVERYTHING that it says must be true. Actually, it would only be comparable if the math book also said the square root of 10 was 5. As I said, even if by accident there are a few things in the bible that turn out to be true, doesn't give it any credibility. There are too many things that are completely false.

And, by the way, I didn't say that NOTHING in the bible was true. I just said that you can't take anything that is says seriously of it's own accord.

Alexander said...

Wow, you guys have been busy while I was at school.

Emilio:
As you expected, I graciously decline. Not because I don't have a crowd backing me up (because for a while I was the only atheist posting), but because I'm a teenager and I don't like giving my e-mail away to just anyone. I'm sure you understand.

Dimondwoof:
Sorry, I didn't read all that because (again) I'm a teenager and I didn't really want to. I hope it's all up to snuff (not that all my stuff is) and I'll be back here again later this evening.

Matt:
I know you didn't post and I hope that it's not because you can't again. If you get this, please post again. I liked debating with you.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

Correction - "All of the "books" where written years, if not decades, after his birth." should have been "after his DEATH." And none of the people who actually wrote the books of the bible actually knew him personally.

Also, there are some serious questions about the book itself if it is claimed to be the "perfect word of god".

Why would there need to be a committee to "decide" which books should be included and which books should be excluded from the final version of the bible?

Who wrote the books? None of the people that the books are about actually wrote them.

Why is it that only 2/3 of the words of the original are actually translated? If this was a book of all ages, why would it be written in such a way as to not be translatable a mere few hundred years after it was written?

Why would god have not put his "only son" with the Chinese, who actually had an advanced culture and a written language that survives to this day? Why put him in a backwater, barbaric, illiterate part of the world that would remain unstable for thousands of years?

No, there are just to many logical fallacies for the bible to have any credence.

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

Thank you for showing your ignorance. I will remain calm and try to explain a few things for you. Noah had two of every kind of animal not species. Two dogs, two cats, two birds, etc. that "evolved" through natural selection, adaptations and breeding. There was not a million animals. Also rain is freshwater. A God who created the universe also doesn't have to play by the rules. If I made a video game I could write whatever code and do anything I wanted to. You the player couldn't. You could try to learn as much as you could about the game but I could always write new code.
-Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex

what's up. you have a valid concern about giving info out, but at the same time how much spam do you get anyways. also, you're not giving out your social or anything. but don't do it if your not comfortable. I'll post some info for you soon. i'm working right now.
-Matt

Anonymous said...

"The Bible is unarguably an incredible book. It is the best selling, most quoted, most published, most circulated, most translated, most influential book in the history of mankind. There is no close second.But why should anyone believe that the Bible is actually true? Might not the Bible be a fraud? Might not it be an ancient book of mythology, filled with the fanciful, yet deceitful writings of men? What about other books, like the Qur'an? or the Book of Mormon? What makes the Bible any different than those books? Those are questions that intelligent, critical thinking people are asking today. Those are the questions I used to ask about the Bible. We need to, as Christians, be able to answer these questions (1 Peter 3:15). So, in our time together this evening I’d like to share with you some of the evidence that I think demonstrates that the Bible is indeed what it claims to be, the inspired, trustworthy Word of God.

I want to do that by bringing to the witness stand, if you will, ten witnesses or evidences that all testify to this truth. My prayer is that, if you are already a Christian, your faith in the Bible will be strengthened, and if you are a skeptic that you will reconsider your skepticism.
The first witness or evidence for the Bible’s trustworthiness is...
1. FULFILLED PROPHECY
Fulfilled prophecy is something that sets the Bible apart from every other religious book. There are 26 other religious books that people of faith believe are divinely inspired (the Vedas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Mahabharata, the Upanishads, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Tripitaka, etc.). Of these twenty-six books, none of them, not a single one, contains any specific, fulfilled prophecies! The Bible, however, is filled with hundreds of specific, detailed prophecies that were written hundreds of years before their fulfillment! In fact, an amazing 27% of the Bible (more than 1 out of every 4 verses) contains what was predictive prophecy at the time that it was written. And the authors of the Bible did not just predict some vague things like Nostradamus or Jeanne Dixon (who by the way, have proven to be wrong over and over again), they were very specific. Consider some of the more than 100 different and very specific prophecies made concerning the Messiah, who the Old Testament prophesied would come. The Old Testament foretold, hundreds of years in advance, very specific details about: the Messiah's ancestry, that He’d be born of the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3, 22:18), of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12f), etc. The city in which He would be born (Micah 5:2), that He’d come while the temple was still standing (Malachi 3:1), that He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that He would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6), that He’d be rejected by His own people (Psalm 118:22; 1 Peter 2:7), the precise time in history when He would die (Daniel 9:24-26; 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct the city of Jerusalem in 444 B.C. This was fulfilled to the very year.), how He would die (Psalm 22:16-18, Isaiah 53; Zech 12:10), that He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27-32), and there are many more. All of these prophecies and hundreds of others have been literally fulfilled."...

-Matt

Dimondwoof said...

One other thing that I might note is that, just because science has not discerned exactly how the multiverse, or even universe was first created, that doesn't mean that we don't have a damned good handle on how the earth, sun, indeed our entire solar system formed. Even if there was a magic fairy that existed outside of our reality that created our reality using her fairy dust, that doesn't lend credence to the delusional fantasy of xianity.

Every other "holy book" in the world has just as many "truths" as the bible. Does that mean they are all the "perfect word of their gods" as well? If so, that means the bible is nothing special. If not, what makes the bible any better than any other? Why is YOUR version of creation any more reliable than any other religions?

Dimondwoof said...

According to Jesus’ admissions, as well as the Bible’s prophecies, Jesus of Nazareth could not have been the Messiah. This of course, would invalidate Christianity as we know it. The compilation presented here shall be split in three sections. The first shall be the biblical prophecies that were made in order to identify the messiah, which Jesus does not fulfill. The second shall be the prophecies that Christians use to say that Jesus was the Messiah, yet they clearly fail. The third set shall be the prophecies and statements Jesus made yet they are false and have never came true.

Dimondwoof said...

Prophecies to Identify the Messiah, Which Jesus Does Not Fulfill:

1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.

Dimondwoof said...

Prophecies Christians Use to Verify Jesus as the Messiah, Yet Clearly Fail:

4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

5) Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.

6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.

7) "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1. Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").

8) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.

A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

Dimondwoof said...

Statements Jesus Made Which Are False:

9) Jesus in John 14:12 & Mark 16:17-18 said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." This implies that Jesus’ true followers should be able to routinely perform the following tricks: 1) cast out devils, 2) speak in tongues, 3) take up serpents, 4) drink poisons without harm, and 5) cure the sick by touching them and MANY other of Jesus’ "works". Curiously I have yet to see a Christian that can do any of the above on demand.

10) In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it." In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus’ name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely.

11) Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection (1 Corinthian 15:14-17). Yet Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights. Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only one and a half days, so he could not have been the messiah by his own and Paul’s admission.

12) Jesus’ prophecy in John 13:38 ("The cock shall not crow, till thou [Peter] hast denied me three times") is false. Mark 14:66-68 shows the cock crowed after the first denial, not the third.

13) In Mark 10:19 Jesus said: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." Jesus needs to re-read the Ten Commandments. There is no Old Testament commandment against defrauding. The only relevant statement about defrauding is in Leviticus 19:13 , which says : "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor." This is an OT law, but is not listed with the Ten Commandments. Surely, if Jesus was god incarnate he would know the commandments.

14) "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13). If Jesus is in heaven, how can he be down on earth speaking? Moreover, according to 2 Kings 2:11 ("and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") Jesus was not the only person to ascend into heaven, nor was he the first. Elijah preceded him and apparently Enoch did also ("And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him"--Genesis 5:24).

Dimondwoof said...

15) In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." This obviously has to be false, for Jesus was supposed to lay dead in the tomb for three days following his crucifixion.

1 6) Jesus says : "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy" (Matthew 5:43). This statement does not exist in the OT either. In fact, Proverbs 24:17 says, "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth…"

17) Jesus is reported to say: "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it" (Luke 16:16). Certainly every man is not pressing to enter the kingdom of God. The very fact that I am an atheist (one third of the world’s population does not believe in a god) proves this verse to be false.

18) "Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" (Matthew 12:5) Nowhere does the OT state that the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath and were considered blameless.

19) "Yea; have ye never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise'" (Matthew 21:16). Jesus is quoting Psalm 8:2, which says, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies…". "Perfect praise" has little to do with "ordaining strength because of thine enemies." Another misquotation!

Dimondwoof said...

20) "But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him" (Mark 9:13). There are no prophecies in the OT of things that were to happen to Elijah.

Jesus, in all his "God incarnate" wisdom, contradicts himself:

21) Jesus consistently contradicts himself concerning his Godly status. "I and my father are one." (John 14:28) Also see Philippians 2:5-6 Those verses lead us to believe that he is a part of the trinity and equal to his father being a manifestation of him. Yet, Jesus also made many statements that deny he is the perfect men, much less God incarnate. Take the following for example: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17). "My father if greater then I." (John 14:28) Also see Matthew 24:26 Clearly, Jesus is denouncing the possibility of him being the Messiah in those three verses.

22) Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 23:17-19 and Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show. Clearly Jesus should be in danger of hell too?

23) Does Jesus support peace, or war? Matthew 5:39 "Resist not evil, but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Also note Matthew 6:38-42 & 26:52 where Jesus teaches non-resistance, Non-violence. Now read (Luke 22:36-37) Where Jesus commands people to take arms for a coming conflict. (John 2:15) Jesus uses a whip to physically drive people out of the temple.

24) Matthew 15:24 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of lsrael,". This would of course mean that he is here only to save the Jews. The scriptures repeatedly back up this notion that Christ is savior to the Jews and not the gentiles (see Romans 16:17, Revelations 14:3-4 & John 10). The contradiction lies in what Jesus later tells his followers: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19).

Dimondwoof said...

25) Can we hate our kindred? Luke 14:26 Jesus says "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." John 3:15 "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." Also see Ephesians 6:22, 5:25, & Matthew 15:4

26) Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matthew 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matthew 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword").

27) Deuteronomy 24:1 & 21:10-14 all say that divorce is allowed for the simple reason if a "man no longer delighteth in his wife". Yet Jesus comes along and breaks his father’s law by saying in Matthew 5:32 that adultery is the only way one can be divorced.

28) In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he lived? The gospel did not appear until after his death.

29) Matthew 6:13 Jesus recites a revised prayer and states, "Don’t bring us into temptation." God is the cause of everything, even Satan. God has been leading people into temptation since the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, the trees of life and knowledge would have never been there.

Dimondwoof said...

30) Matthew 12:1-8 Jesus thinks it’s okay to break his father’s laws, by breaking the Sabbath day. He states that he is basically exempt for such fiascoes and that he is Master of the Sabbath.

31) John 3:17 Jesus contradicts himself when he says, "God didn’t send his son into the world to condemn it, but to save it." Jesus seems to forget his own stories.

32) James 4:3 If your prayers are not answered, it’s your own damned fault. This is in direct contradiction to where Jesus says "seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be known to you".

33) "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true" John 8:14, "If I bear witness of myself it is not true." John 5:31

34) "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20), versus "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always" (Matthew 26:11 , Mark 14:7, John 12:8) and "Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am thither ye cannot come" (John 7:34). Is this the kind of friend one can rely on?

Dimondwoof said...

35) "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11 & Luke 6:18), versus "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Matthew 19:9). In the book of Matthew, Jesus said a man could put away his wife if one factor-- fornication--is involved. In Mark and Luke he allowed no exceptions.

36) Jesus is quoted: "Judge not, and ye shall be not judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:37 & Matthew 7:1), versus "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Jesus stated men are not to judge but, then, allowed it under certain conditions. As in the case of divorce, he can’t seem to formulate a consistent policy.

37) "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46, (also note the time before crucification where Jesus prays for the "cup to passeth over me") versus "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, for this purpose I have come to this hour" (John 12:27 RSV). Jesus can’t seem to decide whether or not he wants to die. One moment he is willing; the next he isn’t.

38) In Luke 23:30 ("Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, fall on us, and to the hills, cover us") Jesus quoted Hosea 10:8 ("...and they shall say to the mountains, cover us; and to the hills, fall on us"). And, like Paul, he often quoted inaccurately. In this instance, he confused mountains with hills.

39) "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they know him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:11-13). John the Baptist was beheaded, but Jesus was not. And what did John the Baptist restore? Nothing!

Dimondwoof said...

40) We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18 & 36) yet Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments-Matthew 19:16-18 (saving by works)-if he wanted eternal life.

41) In Luke 12:4 Jesus told his followers to "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." But Matthew 12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54, & Mark 1:45 show that Jesus consistently feared death. Jesus went out of his way to hide, run, and attempt escape from the Roman and Jewish authorities.

42) Matthew 5:28 says to sin in "your heart" is considered a sin in itself. The messiah is supposed to be God incarnate, not able to sin, yet in Matthew 4:5 & Luke 4:5-9, Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert, which is sinning in his heart. Jesus also took upon all the sins of the world during his crucifixion, so how can it be said that "Jesus was the perfect man without sin"? This would lead one to believe he was not the Messiah.

43) Jesus told us to "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matthew 23:17 ("Ye fools and blind"), Matthew 12:34 ("0 generation of vipers"), and Matthew 23:27 (". . . hypocrites . . . ye are like unto whited sepulchres. . .") are excellent examples of hypocrisy.

44) Did the people of Jesus’ generation see any signs? (Matthew 12:38-40) Jesus announced that no signs would be given to that generation except the Resurrection itself. (Mark 8:12-13) Jesus announced that no signs would be given to that generation. (Mark 16:20) They went out preaching, and the Lord confirmed the word through accompanying signs. (John 20:30) Jesus provided many wonders and signs. (Acts 2:22) Jesus provided many wonders and signs. (Acts 5:12 & 8:13) many signs and wonders were done through the apostles.

Dimondwoof said...

45) Jesus commands the disciples to go into Galilee immediately after the resurrection. Matthew 28:10 Jesus commands the disciples to "tarry in Jerusalem" immediately after the resurrection.

46) Matthew 28:18 & John 3:35 both tell that Jesus said he could do anything. Yet Mark 6:5 says Jesus was not all powerful.

47) Jesus says in Luke 2:13-14 that he came to bring peace on earth. Matthew 10:34 Jesus back peddles and says he did not come to bring peace on earth.

48) Did Christ receive testimony from man? "Ye sent unto John and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man." John 5:33-34 "And ye shall also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." John 15:27

49) Christ laid down his life for his friends. John 15:13 & 10:11 Christ laid down his life for his enemies. Romans 5:10

50) Deuteronomy 23:2 says that bastards can not attend church unto the tenth generation. If Jesus was spawned by Mary and Jehovah as the Bible claims then he is technically a bastard and should not be the leader of the church.

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - So, what's your next bit of "truth"?

Anonymous said...

..."The skeptic says: “Maybe Christians inserted those prophecies back into the Old Testament after Jesus lived.” Not a chance. How do we know? There exists today hundreds of manuscript copies of the Old Testament that predate the time of Christ’s birth. These ancient copies of the Old Testament, dating back to the third century B.C., verify that these prophecies concerning the Messiah were already in place. In 1947 a shepherd boy tending his father’s sheep in Qumran, north and to the west of the Dead Sea in Israel, made an amazing discovery while looking for a lost goat. There in Qumran, in a hillside cave that had laid untouched for nearly two thousand years, he discovered an ancient collection of hand written copies of the Old Testament. These scrolls had been hidden in caves by the Essenes, a Jewish sect living in Qumran, 2,000 years ago. These scrolls and writings (now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls) represented every book of the Old Testament except the Book of Esther, and are considered one of the greatest discoveries in modern times. It ’s manuscript evidence like this Isaiah scroll that dates back to about 100 B.C. that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Old Testament, and its many prophecies concerning the Messiah, was finished long before Jesus was even born.
The skeptic says: “How do you know that the Dead Sea Scrolls date back to before Christ?” Teams of scholars determined the scrolls age by examining 1. The pottery that housed the manuscripts 2. The weave and pattern of the manuscript cloths 3. The form of the characters 4. The spelling of the words 5. The coins found alongside the manuscripts.
The skeptic says: “Perhaps Jesus was not the Messiah, but just accidentally or even deliberately set out to fulfill these prophecies.” First, it’s hard to think of any person deliberately setting out to fulfill prophecies that would result in a short life and an excruciating drawn out death on a cross. Secondly, how does a man deliberately choose the lineage he is born into, the time period in which he is born, -the city in which he is born? Was the fulfillment of these prophecies an accident? Peter Stoner, a mathematician, and Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, in his book Science Speaks (Moody 1963) calculated the odds of a single man fulfilling just eight of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as the mathematical improbability of 1 in 10 to the 17th. That is a HUGE number. One in ten to the seventeenth power. That's a one with seventeen zeros after it (100,000,000,000,000,000). If we had 100 quadrillion 1” x 1.5” tiles we could cover every square inch of dry land on planet Earth. The fact that these prophecies and hundreds of others have been fulfilled, even though they were spoken hundreds and even thousands of years before their fulfillment, is strong evidence that a God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, orchestrated the Bible’s completion. A great book that discusses these fulfilled prophecies is Every Prophecy of the Bible by Dr. John Walvoord. It discusses the fulfillment of nearly 1,000 of the Bible’s prophecies. So evidence number one: fulfilled prophecy.... ( article by Charlie Campbell alwaysbeready.com)-Matt

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

slow down! I just skimed over what you put and I saw many many errors and misunderstandings of the scriptures. stop for a while and i will refute each one.

-Matt

Anonymous said...

..."Allow me to give you three examples:
A. Pontius Pilate

The New Testament authors tell us that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea at the time of Christ who oversaw Jesus’ trial and then sentenced Him to death by crucifixion (Matthew 27:2; Luke 3:1). Was he a legendary figure that the authors of the New Testament invented? No. In June of 1961, a team of Italian archaeologists was digging in Caesarea, on the shore of the beautiful Mediterranean Sea in Israel, about fifty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem. While digging in the jumbled ruins of a Roman theater these archaeologists made an amazing discovery. They found a limestone block about three feet tall and two feet wide that had been turned upside down and reused as part of a flight of steps during one of the renovations of the theater. It bore an inscription in Latin mentioning “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”

This is an amazing evidence outside of the Bible that Pontius Pilate was an actual historical person, that he reigned in the position ascribed to him by the Gospels, and that as prefect he would have had the authority to condemn and pardon as the Gospel accounts report. Since the time of this discovery in 1961, Pilate’s official residence at Caesarea has also been identified..."

Anonymous said...

..."Caiaphas

The New Testament tells us that the name of the Jewish high priest at the time of Jesus was Caiaphas (Matthew 26:3). Caiaphas was the one who presided over the late night Jewish trial of Jesus wherein Jesus confessed Himself to be the Messiah resulting in His condemnation (Matthew 26:57–68). It was also in the courtyard of Caiaphas’s house that Peter denied knowing Jesus (John 18:24–27). Was Caiaphas a New Testament fabrication? No.

In 1990 a team of construction workers building a water park approximately two miles south of Jerusalem accidentally unearthed a first-century burial cave. A bulldozer unintentionally broke through the roof of the cave. The yield of this discovery was an uncharacteristically ornate ossuary (a bone box used in burial) with an inscription on it in Aramaic that read “Joseph, son of Caiaphas.” Inside the ossuary were the bones of a man who was approximately sixty years old at the time of his death. Although the Gospel writers and the Roman historian Josephus referred to the high priest as “Caiaphas,” Josephus tells us that his full name was “Joseph Caiaphas,” the very name etched into the side of the ossuary. “Biblical scholars are convinced that this was the man who presided over the trial of Jesus.”...
-Matt ( still charlie campbell)

Anonymous said...

David Smalley

I am having a considerable amout of trouble posting comments. They post but when I click "newest" they are gone. Any suggestions? I don't want to think they are being deleted. I the debate. It strengthens my Christianity. Thank you. -Matt

Dimondwoof said...

"Pontius Pilate" - okay, so he existed. Where is the Roman documentation that shows that jesus actually existed. As I said, just because the authors of the bible used some real history to write their fairy tales, doesn't mean everything they said was true.

Anonymous said...

Ok. hold on.

Anonymous said...

..."Ancient Historians
Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55 120 A.D.) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for his moral “integrity and essential goodness.”(1)
Tacitus is best known for two works — the Annals and the Histories. The former is thought to have included eighteen books and the latter to have included twelve, for a total of thirty.(2) The Annals cover the period from Augustus’ death in 14 A.D. to that of Nero in 68 A.D., while the Histories begin after Nero’s death and proceed to that of Domitian in 96 A.D.
Tacitus recorded at least one reference to Christ and two to early Christianity, one in each of his major works. The most important one is that found in the Annals, written about 115 A.D. The following was recounted concerning the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed."(3)
From this report we can learn several facts, both explicit and implicit, concerning Christ and the Christians who lived in Rome in the 60s A.D. Chronologically, we may ascertain the following information. "... -Matt

Dimondwoof said...

“Joseph Caiaphas” - Same situation as Pontius. Just because the bible used some existing characteres, doesn't provide support or anything that involves them on the stories. My wife is a fiction writer and she looks for existing people base characters off of, too.

Anonymous said...

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm#ch9

-Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex and diamondwoof,

It is tiring to copy and paste all of this evidence. It is also a little frustrating since I have to try over and over to post. I'm getting all of this information from alwaysbeready.com If you don't want to check it out I will continue the copy paste struggle because I love God. I will asume that you will look into it because I believe that you will not let this magical fiction go unchecked! Also I must get back to work but I will be back later tonight posting for Gods glory. God bless you
-Matt

Anonymous said...

Spreading that good news....whoop whoop!

Emilio

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

real quick. Ben Stein interviews Richard Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins claims the Founding Fathers were secular. whooooo...(sound of hand going over head) This is ignorance at its zenith!!! read their words Mr. Dawkins not second hand accounts. There were over 250 founders and five seconds on wallbuilders.com will educate you on the matter Mr. Dawkins

Anonymous said...

http://media.alwaysbeready.com/library/campbell-charlie/studies-topical/bible/biblecompleted-a.htm

Anonymous said...

woofy

External Evidence: Jewish

The Jewish rabbinical traditions not only mention Jesus, but they are also the only sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri—Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Some of the references to Jesus in the Talmud are garbled—probably due to the vagaries of oral tradition—but one is especially accurate, since it seems based on written sources and comes from the Mishna—the earliest collection of writings in the Talmud. This is no less than the arrest notice for Jesus, which runs as follows:

He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Anonymous said...

Four items in this statement strongly support its authenticity as a notice composed before Jesus' arrest: 1) The future tense is used; 2) Stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not involved; 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion; and 4) That Jesus was performing "sorcery"— the extraordinary or miraculous with a negative spin—is quite remarkable. This not only invokes what historians call the "criterion of embarrassment," which proves what is conceded, but accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous healings: performing them with the help of Beelzebul (Luke 11:18).

woofy

Moreover, the first-century Jewish historian,
Flavius Josephus, twice mentions "Jesus who is called the Christ" in his Jewish Antiquities. In the second of these, he tells of the death of Jesus' half-brother James the Just of Jerusalem (20:200). And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

Anonymous said...

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. (18:63)

This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version which, unfortunately, had suffered early interpolation. For a more detailed evaluation of Josephus and his references to Jesus, please see my separate article on Josephus in this series.

Anonymous said...

@woofy

External Evidence: Secular

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.

Anonymous said...

Tacitus, it should be emphasized, was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived, but a pagan who despised Christians as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. Had Jesus never even existed, he would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. Were no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity. Skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Manuscript analysis and computer studies have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. He, too, regarded the Christians as a sect "professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Nero 16) and doubtless cited "Christus" as well, spelling his name "Chrestus" (Claudius 25). That the vowels "e" and "i" were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for "Christian" to this day: chretien.

Anonymous said...

Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year 110 he wrote the emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians "...who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out. (Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.

Anonymous said...

Other ancient secular sources, such as Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the "beating a dead horse" category so far as this article is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus was more than a man. That, at least, could evoke a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.

Emilio

Alexander said...

Okay, you guys have been busy.

Matt:
Just a technical thing, Noah took two of every unclean animal (e.g. pigs) and seven of every clean animal (e.g. sheep).
Umm other than that, I don't have much to say. I didn't really read your big argument with Dimondwoof so I can't really make an opinion on that.

And seriously, I get that it's fun debating, but you guys are getting a bit too into it.

Alex

Anonymous said...

@Alex

What keeps you from accepting God? Darwinism? The evil and suffering in this world? The supposed errors in the bible? I would like to tackle your questions one by one. I would like to offer you a explanation for my case in why I believe in God. No debating, just Q and A brother, if your willing.

Emilio

Alexander said...

Emilio

I am willing, but you won't make a believer out of me.
1. What is your religion? Catholicism? Judaism? I'm just going to assume one of those two. So you believe that there's only one god, right? Well what about all the religions that believe there's more than one? Are you saying that they're wrong? I think if you asked them, they'd say you were wrong. You can't both be right, but you can both be wrong.
2. Also, why would an almighty being create a universe and all its inhabitants for no reason? And if there is a reason, then it either would have made every single person peaceful to feel good or made every single person evil for amusement. Not everyone is good and not everyone is evil. Why would it do that then? Unless it doesn't need to feel. And if that's the case, why would it have made the universe in the first place?
3. And finally, I like to believe in concrete evidence. There is actual evidence of evolution and none for creationism.

If I told someone I could fly, this is how the situation would turn out:
Me: "I can fly"
Other: "No you can't"
Me: "Yes I can"
Other: "Prove it"
But if I told someone that god was real, this is how it should turn out:
Me: "God is real"
Other: "No he's not"
Me: "Yes he is"
Other: "Prove it"
And right there. That's why I don't believe in god. The only way it can be real is if you have faith. The only way you can have faith is if there is no evidence. Therefore, if it does exist, it doesn't.

Alex

P.S. I used "it" instead of "he". This is not an act of rebellion. I simply used that because not everyone believes in a male god.

Alex (again)

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

I just did a little research on this "multiverse" you talk about and I have to say that if you really believe that and completely 100% deny a creator then you are Crazy!!! The whole thing is theory, hypothesis, interpretations of quantum mechanics and science fiction magic!!!! Ok ok I will continue to research it to be fair to you because in God nothing is impossible but really? Now if I misunderstood you in thinking you believe that then I apologise. The "multiverse" appears to rely on infinity. infinity works with numbers. you can add zeros forever. But it does not work with physical things. Think really really hard. infinity... never stops ever. It is an irrational number not rational. especially with all of the evidence that our universe had a beginning and if you believe the big bang theory and can calculate the rate of expansion times the billions of years you claim the universe has been around then you should be able to calculate the diameter of the universe. Now before you call me a hypocrite I know I said God is eternal. Which means he's been around forever. But with God you're not talking about the physical universe. Maybe people studying the multiverse theory and quantum mechanics will actually learn how to explain God!!!! That would be awesome. Maybe I will try. -Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex

some of those questions you just asked emilio were already answered earlier. you should go to the beginning and read through. It might take a while but it is worth it. You can't be to into something you're passionate about.

-Matt

Anonymous said...

David Smalley

Going back to the beginning of this debate Jan. 11, 2009. Has your mind changed about anything you originaly posted. After more than two years I would assume that some things have changed. If you haven't changed in two years then you're not growing as a person. I know you're still atheist, that's fine but I would like to read a new Top Ten Reasons You Are An Atheist.

Alexander said...

Matt

Sorry, I didn't read all the previous comments, but they were meant rhetorically. Those are some of the reasons I don't believe in god.
Oh and these are my beliefs, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm passionate about them. Yes, I will stand up for them when giving the chance, but there are other things I'd rather do.

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex

You are your own person and if you want to be atheist then cool. But think for a second (I know you've heard this before) the stakes are high. If you die and you were wrong you will spend an eternity apart from God. All I mean is that you shouldn't dismiss anything. Verify things for yourself. I encourage you to look at answersingenesis.org and websites that are against it. I think it might have some of the creation evidence you are wanting to see. Also, you say you are mentally older than your peers. I think that's true but it shows immaturity to say there is no evidence and then skim over the evidence posted and then say again that there is no evidence. But, it's cool. Bring on some evidence refuting what i've posted. -Matt

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof-"All of the "books" where written years, if not decades, after his birth." should have been "after his DEATH." And none of the people who actually wrote the books of the bible actually knew him personally" whoa. Do a little independent research before you post. Not all of the New Testament books were written by people who were there with Jesus but how about Paul and Peter. Also, the authors didn't need to follow Jesus around themselves to write an accurate account. But some of the other authors were companions of the apostles. -Matt

Anonymous said...

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! -Matt

Anonymous said...

In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?

-Matt

Anonymous said...

Dr. Russ Humphreys, (a Ph.D. physicist and biblical creationist) has produced a model of planetary magnetic fields which can explain their present strengths in terms of biblical creation.10 In essence, the model estimates the initial strength of each magnetic field at the moment of its creation, then the model computes their present strengths based on 6,000 years of decay from electrical resistance. Impressively, this biblically based model is able to account for the present measured magnetic fields of all the known planets11 and even many of the moons as well.

Of course, almost any model can be “adjusted” to fit existing data, so it is perhaps even more impressive that Dr. Humphreys’ model successfully predicted the present magnetic field strengths of the planets Uranus and Neptune before they were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. Specific, successful predictions are the mark of a good scientific model. Dr. Humphreys also predicted that Mars would have remanent (permanent) magnetism, which has now been confirmed.12 Remanent magnetism occurs in rocks which cooled and solidified in the presence of an external magnetic field. Such remanent magnetism is also found on the moon. This confirms that both the moon and Mars once had strong magnetic fields as expected in the Humphreys model. Planetary magnetic fields strongly support the biblical age of the solar system.

-Matt

Anonymous said...

http://media.alwaysbeready.com/library/campbell-charlie/studies-topical/bible/biblecompleted-a.htm

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

I was getting ready for bed when a thought occured to me. you have a good argument in favor of The Great Flood. There could have been a great deal of heat, definately a lot of pressure from all of that water. So, animals drown, sink to the bottom get covered up by layers of sediment, then the combination of heat and extreme pressure cause rapid fossilization and rapid rock formation... hmm, interesting. I have a new hypothesis that I will test, and then test again and again looking for repeatability so i can prove it because I don't like excepting theory as fact. Thanks bro!
-Matt

grantkinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grantkinman said...

Alex-

I think I see what you are saying as far as faith goes - atheism does not require faith in the supernatural world, yes, but the only point I was trying to make was that atheism does require faith, which was something in an earlier post you had said it didn't, but I see the faith you are talking about is a supernatural faith.

What I would address is the idea of the moral law? Where does that come from and what place would have in a world of survival of the fittest. I understand the idea of rational thought being a further advanced stage of evolution, but how does morality come about? What good reason scientifically is there for it? Why would humans do good things? And if you contend that it is intrinsic in us, well where does that come from?

P.S. Alex. I have never been mad at you and don't plan on being. I adhere to a faith that encourages me to question everything and I believe in a God who has given me the choice and freedom to do so, and not only that but I believe the Lord encourages it. So question on..

P.S.S. I was reading back through some of your comments. You're funny - you got a good writing style, and the use of the word pedantic - fabulous. I looked it up and added it to my vocabularly.

Anonymous said...

Alex-

I think I see what you are saying as far as faith goes - atheism does not require faith in the supernatural world, yes, but the only point I was trying to make was that atheism does require faith, which was something in an earlier post you had said it didn't, but I see the faith you are talking about is a supernatural faith.

What I would address is the idea of the moral law? Where does that come from and what place would have in a world of survival of the fittest. I understand the idea of rational thought being a further advanced stage of evolution, but how does morality come about? What good reason scientifically is there for it? Why would humans do good things? And if you contend that it is intrinsic in us, well where does that come from?

P.S. Alex. I have never been mad at you and don't plan on being. I adhere to a faith that encourages me to question everything and I believe in a God who has given me the choice and freedom to do so, and not only that but I believe the Lord encourages it. So question on..

P.S.S. I was reading back through some of your comments. You're funny - you got a good writing style, and the use of the word pedantic - fabulous. I looked it up and added it to my vocabularly.

-Grant

grantkinman said...

Sorry - posted twice thinking the first didn't post

Alexander said...

Matt:
I see what your saying, but answer this. God loves everyone right? Well if god loves everyone, wouldn't it want to keep everyone safe in heaven? I mean there is no reason to send them away if he forgives everything. Now that being said, I still do not believe in him at all.

Grant:
I was hoping you'd come back. I believe that with rational thought comes morality. If you can assess a situation from someone else's point of view, there is a good chance you would feel better about one option. Morals are fickle things. They're different to everyone. But everyone has their own clear understanding of what's right and what's wrong, no matter how different they are from someone else. If we couldn't think rationally, though, we wouldn't care about how someone's family would feel. We'd do everything we needed to stay alive.

P.S. Thank you. I really like using pedantic to make someone seem like more of a pedant. If they know the word, just say, "You're being pendantic" to which they'll probably correct you by saying, "Pedantic" and then you say, "Exactly". If you want to try it out, be my guest. If you don't, that's fine too.

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex

"I see what your saying, but answer this. God loves everyone right? Well if god loves everyone, wouldn't it want to keep everyone safe in heaven? I mean there is no reason to send them away if he forgives everything. Now that being said, I still do not believe in him at all."

You are right. God does love everyone and does want us in Heaven. God is also righteous and said the price of sin is death(physical and spiritual death). God won't change his mind. BUT, being so loving he gave us his son who took our sins upon himself and died on the cross to save us. All you have to do is accept this gift and you will go to heaven. -Matt

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - I've scanned through most of your "evidence" that the bible is the perfect word of god. Everything you post "proving the existence" of historical figures really accounts for nothing. Other than being completely circumstantial, so the people that wrote the bible used existing characters. So what? I've already acknowledged that writers do that all the time. Why wouldn’t they? So did the old west novels, which we also now know are fictional stories. That doesn't lend any credence to the stories of those characters, jesus' existence, nor ESPECIALLY to his divinity.

You posted that the bible is “perfectly consistent”. That is a flat out lie. I can list hundreds of inconsistencies in the bible so you can dispute them, if you like. It’s a much longer list than the proof that jesus wasn’t the messiah.

As for your diatribe about the multiverse - hmmm, me believing in physics but not superstition is crazy, huh? "The whole thing is theory, hypothesis, interpretations of quantum mechanics and science fiction magic!!!!" But a "perfect" creator who farted out an imperfect universe because he was bored and wanted to create humans to play with is not fictional magic? As for the "theory, hypothesis, interpretations of quantum mechanics" part of that, um ya. If you knew ANYTHING about science, you would know that is how it works. Someone sees a perceived inconsistency or gap in our understanding of the natural, *real* reality, comes up with a hypothesis, figures out whys to TEST that hypothesis, and it turns into a theory. As for quantum mechanics, yes there is some interpretation there. But let's see if we can discern a difference between your religion and the concept of the multiverse:

A1. Is there any actual evidence that an intelligent creator being hacked up a universe like a cat hacks up a furball? No.
A2. Despite the complete lack of evidence, is religion steadfast in its belief that a fantastical magical fairy is the only possible explanation? Yes.

B1. Is there any evidence that there is more than 1 universe? Yes.
B2. Is science steadfast in its belief that this is the only possible explanation? NO. Why? Because no one has PROVED it yet. The people who came up with the “SCIENTIFIC hypothesis” are required to come up with actual PROOF. Have they done so to the satisfaction of the general scientific community? No. That is why the theory is incomplete and people are still working on it.

So, which approach seems more rational and logical? To you, I’m sure it’s the first. Now, let’s look at my belief in the existence of multiple universes vs. your belief in god. Do I go around telling people if they don’t believe, they are “multiverse haters”? No. Do xians? Well, I think Emilio is a perfect example of that. If someone told me that they didn’t believe in a multiverse, would I get upset and start throwing known lies at them? (by lies I mean not only flat out un-truths, but also things taken out of context in order to purposefully mislead the conversation) No. Do xians do that? Well, yes. You are a good example of that. Now for the biggie: Is the existence of multiple universes at least within the realm of logical possibilities? Sure, why not? Is a “creator being”, such as your god? Not in the least.

As for the theory itself – Well, you say it is “impossible” because of your complete lack of understanding of advanced mathematics, and based on your, what, about 15 minutes of research? How very “open-minded” of you.

Dimondwoof said...

@Grant - Atheism is the distinct LACK of "faith". Faith is defined as believing something despite the lack of evidence for, or (in xianity's case) mountains of evidence against. Atheism is simply the lack of belief, so it requires NO FAITH.

As for morality, that is a sociological construct. We get our morals from our community and our parents. The absolute PROOF that a supernatural being didn't "imbue" us with morals is evident in that almost every culture has a different set of moral standards. Because we are all in a societal setting, we have *similar* morals, but every culture's morals are at least slightly different.

Another piece of evidence against a magical fairy imbuing morals on us is that even different xian groups have a different moral code. I'm not even talking about different sects within your particular cult. I'm talking about different groups within your sect. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say different people within a particular group within a particular sect has a different moral base. In other words, no two people have the EXACT same set of moral standards in EVERY situation. That, in itself, proves beyond doubt that morals do not come from a single source, divine or otherwise.

See how simple things can be if you actually think them through? :)

Dimondwoof said...

Alex - Yes, god loves you so much he is willing to destroy your soul and send you into hell fire for all eternity. All you have to do is believe something that he has provided an abundance of evidence against. He has done everything he can to trick you into not believing, and then when you don't believe he gets to destroy you. But he loves you. And he needs money.

Dimondwoof said...

Morals and science. This is a great TED talk about how science can answer moral questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

Dimondwoof said...

"less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!" - Wow! Another perfect example of taking the only small piece of evidence that, if taken completely out of context and manipulated just right, supports a completely bogus belief.

Matt, I can't tell if this would be considered a flat out lie, or if you really have absolutely no understanding on physics, but just don't have a clue as to how much your really don't know.

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - "Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?"

No.

Anonymous said...

@woofy

Calm down... You make me laugh when your hate spikes up like that. You need faith into believing something that has not been proven. Thats your choice if you accept that statement or not. A theory is not a fact. It's basically a "scientific guess" and requires some bit of faith or a lot of it, regardless of the evidence that "might" support it. Take for instance the way scientists explained the electron back in the days. How the particles use to "cease to exist" in order for the electron to function. This was a theory and people taught it in science books and was accepted as truth, even though it wasn't. Tell me woofy what happen though? Scientific theories get overturned every other year. You accepting those theories requires you to put faith into it. Just like the evidence for our ALL LOVING WONDERFUL GOD, we have faith. Prove to me there is no God...I'll wait.

Emilio

Dimondwoof said...

@Emilio - there you go, pushing your xian hate again. LOL

Yes, scientific theories get over-turned based on EVIDENCE.

I never said I accept every single scientific theory that is out there. That's the beauty of science: you accept scientific theories based on evidence. And those scientific understandings evolve as we are able to learn more details about reality.

As opposed to your superstitions, which you hold tightly to, regardless of how much evidence is provided that your beliefs are false.

Hence, science does not require "faith" whereas religion can't exist without the belief in something that is inconsistent, contradictory, illogical, irrational, and nonsensical.

You are correct, a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is not SCIENTIFIC FACT. If you would bother to learn the terms, you would know that any 2nd grader should know that. Of course, with them being indoctrinated in a fallacious fantasy like religion, it's hard for them to think in rational, logical terms, which is most likely your problem.

What is the proof there is no your god? Simple. First, there is no evidence FOR your god. Second, since your god has mutually exclusive attributes, it is IMPOSSIBLE for your god to exist. See how easy it is to disprove something that is nonsensical?

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

A theory has to be falsifiable. It must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. A theory can be tweaked. So the secular theory of existence can be modified. Although there has to be verification of hypotheses to make a theory there are still theories that are disproven. Like the geocentric theory, the phlogiston theory of fire, newtonian physics, the classical elemental theory, spontaneous generation, newtons corpuscular theory of light to name a few and soon the theory of evolution. (which already has to the rest of the world).Evolution fails as a framework because it violates several known laws of the universe we inhabit. In order for evolution and abiogenesis to occur, several “miracles” (violations of natural law) would had to have occurred, thus undermining the very premise of naturalism.Laws that naturalism and evolution violate include the following:
The law of biogenesis (life only comes from life)
The uniformity of nature (uniformity cannot exist or be expected without a creator)
The laws of physics (the big bang requires the suspension of the laws of physics, nor could those laws exist without a creator)
The laws of probability (the fine tuning of the universe requires a creator)
The laws of logic (logic requires a logical source)
The laws of chemistry (the logical properties of the elements require intelligence). -Matt

Anonymous said...

@woofy

I will define faith for you. Take a good look at number 2 woofy.

–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

I love you, that's why I'm here. Nothing, but love my God teaches.

Emilio

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt - So, basically you are admitting that you have no idea what Evolution is. Because none of the "laws" that you mention, have anything to do with Evolution. They address (poorly) the *beginning* of life on this planet, which Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with.

And, once again with the flat out lies. A simple internet search would show you that, of all developed nations, only Turkey believe less in evolution than the US. EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION MORE THAN THE US DOES. Did you really think I was incapable of looking up that basic statistic?

Also, as I've said, oh so many times, who cares? it doesn't matter if every human on the planet beliefs a lie. That doesn't spontaneously turn it into a truth.

"The law of biogenesis" - You mean the concept that Louis Pasteur came up with 200 years ago? Hmm, I think we've come up with better scientific methods since then.

"The uniformity of nature (uniformity cannot exist or be expected without a creator)" - This is NOT a scientific law. That's philosophical crap that has nothing to do with science.

"The laws of physics (the big bang requires the suspension of the laws of physics, nor could those laws exist without a creator)" - First of all, no it doesn't. Second, yes they can (and do). Third, just because you don't understand HOW the laws of physics can exist without a creator, doesn't give any credence to your argument. Fourth, can you be any more vague than clumping "the laws of physics" together?

"The laws of probability (the fine tuning of the universe requires a creator)" - Again, no it doesn't. Just because you lack the ability to understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

"The laws of logic (logic requires a logical source)" - YES! Finally you got one right. The "logical source of science". There might be hope for you yet.

"The laws of chemistry (the logical properties of the elements require intelligence)" - Sadly, you lost it there. The properties of the elements require intelligence to UNDERSTAND them, they do not require intelligence to exist.

So, basically you are saying that, because you don't understand science, it all must be wrong. Great argument!

Dimondwoof said...

@Emilio - "2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." Very good. But do you understand what a "hypothesis" is? In this particular case, the definition is "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences" So, in your example, yes, the belief in a hypothesis could, technically "require faith". However, that belief is not the same as your "faith", since, if the premise is proved wrong, the scientist will accept that and move on to another hypothesis. And the acceptance of a THEORY does NOT require faith. Once you get to the "theory" stage, evidence has presented itself. If that evidence disproves a "hypothesis" then it never gets to the "theory" stage.

By the way, I never said that scientists (and, indeed atheists) don't have faith. You are, as you seem to always do, taking my statement out of context. I said it "doesn't not require faith to be an atheist". Atheism is a distinct lack of belief in something. And since there is nothing to believe, faith is not involved.

However, if you want to say that science requires faith, okay, so what? I believe things where I don't fully understand the science behind them. I guess you could say I have "faith" in those concepts. If no one ever accepted things without fully understanding them, we would live in the dark ages, as xianity would have us do. I can't go to school and become a professor of every scientific discipline that we currently have. The difference is that, I accept scientific concepts based on the evidence that I understand. If evidence is presented that disproves a scientific premise (by a REPUTABLE source), then I may change my mind. You xians can't seem to do that. No matter how much evidence is piled on, you refuse to see the truth of it and just ignore what contradicts your "belief system".

Also, feel free to debunk science all you want. It's funny that you use science to disprove science. Like Matt, who completely ignored all the logical evidence that disproves the Great Flood story, only to glom on to a single concept that, despite the fact that it actually destroys his hypothesis, uses it to support his hypothesis. However, what xians seem to completely fail to understand is that, no matter how much of science you disprove, that does not, by default, prove that your fairy tales are true. If you want to prove that you are right, provide proof that your are right. Proving someone else wrong doesn't prove that you are right. So far, neither you not Matt has come up with anything other than speculative statements that have no foundation in reality in support of your superstition. Everything that you've come up with as "support" has been easily debunked.

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

let's look at your logic

1. there is no creator
2. we're not sure how the universe began.
3. therefore the universe is infinitly big and there are an infinite amount of them. (false)

1. there is no evidence outside of the bible to prove anything in it is acurate.
2. you gave evidence from outside sources that it is accurate.
3. therefore, it is a fairy tale and superstition with no evidence to support it. (false)

1. Dr. Ariel A. Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California. He holds a B.A. in biology from Pacific Union College and an M.S. in biology and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Michigan. His research has been supported by U.S. government agencies. During his career he held numerous university positions, including professor of biology and chairman, Loma Linda University. During the latter appointment, Dr. Roth directed a university team for underwater research on coral, which was sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
2. Dr. Roth believes in God and Creation.
3. Therefore he is delusional and not an expert in his field because i said so.(failed logic)-Matt

Dimondwoof said...

@Emilio - "I love you, that's why I'm here." haha. That's why, because I disagree with you, your mind and heart automatically turns to the word "HATE".

Your mind jumps to "hate" because I don't buy into a superstition from the most illiterate, irrational, barbaric peoples of the world wrought with animal and human sacrifice, to the most evil and demented deity who might kill everyone on the planet on a whim, or, worse yet, condemn them all to a hell he created specifically for that purpose, because he is completely incapable of leading people into the lives he wants for them. A deity that, by every xian's definition is so "perfect" that he could touch everyone's heart, but he chooses to trick the most intelligent of people into not believing in him so he can enjoy torturing their souls for all eternity. Not just long enough to get them to accept him, but for all eternity. Not just long enough for them to learn a lesson, but for ALL ETERNITY. THAT is your "loving god"? Thanks, but I think I'll pass worshiping a deranged, psychotic, narcissist, sociopath like that.

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

Christians in the dark ages? the bible said the Earth was round way before Galileo. the bible said the sun does not revolve around the earth. the bible said the Earth does not hang on anything unlike some religions where it rested on an elephant or something. The Bible has lots of accurate science in it way before it was widely accepted. another ignorant comment. maybe you should check with me before posting false claims. -Matt

Anonymous said...

@ woofy

I guess because I believe in God I can't believe in science??? I just don't accept your theories. I consider others. I think it's so awesome we can use science to debunk your logic. Praise God!!
Still love you though.

Emilio

David Smalley said...

Ok guys, this is becoming a little ridiculous with the Christian rhetoric. I've been in hundreds of debates and you guys are just parroting the same stale arguments every Christian before you has.

Here's the deal: Your belief is based on faith. Stop trying to prove it scientifically. You will lose every time. The Bible says the earth is about 6,000 years old, includes a talking donkey, a talking snake, a talking bush, and had 3 mornings before a sun was created. Science is NOT on your side.

The Bible also speaks of all men 'rising' at the same time so that everyone could 'see Jesus' when he returns. This would only be possible on a flat earth. Science is NOT on your side.

Furthermore, a negative must be assumed until a positive can be proven. Because your belief is based on faith and not evidence, from a scientific perspective, we must assume your god is not real until there is empirical proof of it. I said empirical proof, not a really touching story. Once again, science is NOT on your side.

Just admit you have faith, and you believe in your religion because your parents told you to, regardless if it makes sense or not, and then move on to a debate you can win.

Dimondwoof said...

@Matt -
1. True, there is no creator. There is no evidence that a "creator" exists.
2. True, we don't know how the universe began.
3. I never said the universe is infinitly big and there are an infinite amount of them. But even if that is what I believe (which it's not), 1 and 2 have nothing to do with 3. At no time did I use the argument that there is no creator to justify a belief in a multiverse. At no time did I use the fact that we don't know for sure how the universe began to justify a belief in a multiverse. At no time did I say the existence of a multiverse it fact. It is a hypothesis that explains some of the physics that people have been struggling to explain. I happen to accept its viability. My acceptance of that hypothesis is NOTHING like your desperate need to cling to a superstitious delusion.

1. Once again, I never said that nothing in the bible is accurate. I said there is enough that is INACCURATE that the bible can't be taken at face value.
2. "You gave evidence from outside sources that it is accurate." Really? I don't think so. I think that everything that I have provided gives evidence of it's inaccuracy. However, again, I never said that there is NOTHING historically accurate in the bible. I said there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it is in any way divinely written or inspired.
3. "therefore, it is a fairy tale and superstition with no evidence to support it. (false)" Actually, this is true. The fact that there are inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and logical fallacies in the bible proves that it is just a bunch of superstitious fairy tales.

"Dr. Roth believes in God and Creation." Okay, I never said that delusional people MUST be unintelligent. However, once again (do I *really* need to say this over and over?) it doesn't matter who or how many people "believes" in a lie. It's still a lie. There are a lot of REALLY, REALLY smart people that are delusional. I also never said that being delusional doesn't preclude a person from being an expert in their field. Roth (if I am to take your word for it, because I know nothing about him) is one of the VERY few delusional scientists that is so afraid of him own mortality that he needs a security blanket (i.e. religion). So what?

Nice way to completely misinterpret and misrepresent everything that I've said. You should be a politician.

Anonymous said...

@woofy

All I can do is build a case with the evidence there is that supports the bible with scientific data and historical accounts backed by archeological evidence for you to consider. The rest is faith. Like you and your theories that get overturned all the time that you have faith in.

I use hate because you come off hateful. That's why this dude David came and said hey what's with all the hate talk? He was talking about you. Maybe it was disgust, either way you come off mean and I'm just trying to be a christian. If I came off like you then I'm sorry. I don't expect you to be civilized, but here's hoping.

Next topic you want to discuss? One at a time. Just like you we can go for days so lets stick to one topic and we'll move from there.

Emilio

Dimondwoof said...

@Emilio - "because I believe in God I can't believe in science???" Where did you get that from? I never said it.

"I just don't accept your theories." Dude, you don't even know what my "theories" are. The only thing you know about me is that I don't believe in delusional superstitions.

"I consider other" No, you actually only accept theories that play into your delusion, whether they are logical or not. You ignore anything that disproves your delusion. That's how delusions work.

"I think it's so awesome we can use science to debunk your logic." That WOULD be awesome, if you could. So far you haven't. But then, so far, you haven't actually used science or the scientific method for anything, so who knows? If you actually USED science, you might be able to debunk "my logic". Whatever that means.

Alexander said...

Okay, just a few little things.

Matt:
I do know a lot about Christianity. You don't really need to tell me those things because I go to church every Sunday. I do so not because I want to, but because I'm forced to. The only reason I ever did believe in god was because my dad told me to. I do have to agree with David when he said the only reason you guys believe in god was that you were told to. That's the only reason I ever did.

Emilio:
I said this before and I'll say it again. You said, "Prove to me there is no God...I'll wait.". That isn't how it works. I could tell you that there's a giant invisible unicorn that runs around and tell you to prove there isn't. You never can. That's because you don't prove negatives. You don't prove something doesn't exist. You prove it does and until you can prove it does, you believe that it doesn't. You're trying to use science to prove god, well that's how scientists do things.

Dimondwoof:
I know this may seem a bit preachy coming from a 15-year-old, but you do need to tone it down a bit. I get your passion for this subject, but you very quickly jump to the word "Hate".

Alex

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

So what is your theory for how the universe began? You have not given any counter evidence, evidence for what you believe, or anything with any substance. All you have contributed to this debate (paraphrase) is "I'm right so you are not." "You are delusional". "You are not logical". You come off as hateful. You have quoted scripture that you don't understand. You think that it is contridictory without conducting a study of it. It's like you're reading out of an atheist guide to dealing with christians. Tell us what you believe...
-Matt

Anonymous said...

hahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

Why is everyone so afraid to live in the grey area???? I am catholic and also find myself to be socially liberal. For some reason it just works for me. I think that as adults, we need to learn this is okay. I would love to hear some feedback on this - does anyone else agree or not????? Sometimes I feel like I am the only one!

Anonymous said...

@Alex

That David guy is bogus for making that statement. I was raised catholic. I left the church fast and didn't look behind. After several years of being agnostic/atheist and doing much reading and studying. I came to a conclusion. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. So I started studying different faiths. The one that made the most sense was Christianity. So not because I was told or forced. Studying and understanding what I can about are ALL POWERFUL LOVING GOD! Did I get to where I am. I don't understand where all this bad vibe comes from on this site? I don't hate atheists I just feel sad for them and pray. Mr. Dawkins and people like David Smaley or Bill Mauer they have like a sick obsession with Christians to promote ill will towards us. It says though that this will happen for being believers in Jesus people will persecute us. It only makes me stronger since it confirms my faith. I just try to defend the word and plant seeds man.

I would like to talk about Darwinism if anyone is game!

Emilio

Anonymous said...

@the catholic guy

What do you mean gray area?? Explain.

Emilio

Dimondwoof said...

@Alex - I didn't jump to the word "hate". That would be Emilio. It's a xian thing. If you don't agree with them, they accuse you of "hating" them, their god, their religion, jesus, or anything else they can think of. I was simply responding to him.

@Matt - I don't have a "theory" of how the universe began. That's not the point. The point is, you say you know for sure that a "creator" did it. But you can't provide any evidence. I also never once said "I'm right so you are not." What I said was that religion, especially xianity is inconsistent, delusion fairy tales. You said "You come off as hateful." (Alex, here we go again) It appears that you think I come off as hateful because I dispute evidence that you provide through basic logic. If it's "hateful" to call religion a delusional superstition, then it's "hateful" to call the sky blue. Is it unreasonable for me to get frustrated with people who use bad, inconsistent science to "disprove" valid good science? Is it unreasonable to tell people they are being moronic for ignoring 9 out of 10 scientific points, only to distort the 10th so they can use it to support their fairy tales?

Matt, one of the really sad things about your arguments, although it is consistent with every other xian I debate, is that when someone says "here are 10 reasons why your point is invalid", you argue against 1 or 2 and, because you think you made a valid point, you just move on. It doesn't matter that the other 8 are completely solid points. Even worse is that you don't even understand or acknowledge that.

You say I don't research the scripture. Really? How do you know that? Have I presented anything that is disputable? Yes, there are some things that I copy and pasted from other sites, but if someone else created the list, why not use it? But I have researched all those and found them to be true. But even if a couple of the points are invalid, so what? For example, the 50 points that prove that jesus was not the messiah: you didn't even address any of them. You threw a few points (that I disputed) that were circumstantial at best and then just assumed you won the argument, because you refuse to even acknowledge anything that I presented.

Basically, you and Emilio refuse to debate. You preach. You present invalid, faulty statements and then just declare a win. I have answered every point and statement that you two have presented (to my knowledge, I apologize if I missed any). But you refuse to acknowledge most of my questions or talking points. You will probably interpret this as a "win" on your side, but basically I'm done trying to get you two to engage in a rational conversation.

You said "reading out of an atheist guide to dealing with christians." Ya, like you don't come up with tired old invalid xian points that haven't been debunked for decades. It sounds like rote because it is rote. You guys always come up with the same crappy, irrational arguments, over and over again. It’s frustrating because it’s like trying to explain calculus to 3rd graders.

Alexander said...

Emilio:
Our.
Also, pray all you want, nothing will hear it.
The only reason we have religions at all is because we were told about them at a young age. They would have died out by now otherwise. The only reason religion came about is because early man wasn't educated enough to figure out why he was there. If you're saying religion is true, you're saying we haven't gotten any smarter in the past few tens of thousands of years.

Alex

Anonymous said...

@Alex

Really? I think Matt explained how you can be very "smart" and believe in God.

I will pray.

So like I said lets talk about one topic and stick to it instead of bouncing around. I think more will come out of it. I think woofy is going to pop his head off.

Emilio

p.s. Glory be to God Matt!

Anonymous said...

Amen

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

What evidence do you have that there is a God?”

The very existence of the universe itself is evidence that there is a God. Let’s think about this for a moment. There are only three options for the existence of the universe. One, that it has always been. Two, that it came into being by itself. Three, that it was created. The first option, that the universe is eternal, has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. The motion of the galaxies, the background radiation echo, and other evidences all overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point in time, something scientists call the Big Bang. Option two, that the universe created itself, is philosophically impossible. Of course, before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating. Obviously, a non-existent universe could not have done anything! It did not exist. We all know that nothing can not do anything. Nothing is nothing. It (if we could even call nothing an it!) cannot see, smell, act, think, or create. So option one and two can be thrown out on scientific and philosophical grounds. Option three, that something or someone outside of the universe created the universe, is the only reasonable option. Let’s imagine I am holding up a painting. When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Nothing else besides the painting itself. The painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. It would not be there if the painter did not exist, and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe itself proves absolutely that there is a creator.
Here is evidence. the universe is evidence. now, let's hear something with some substance from you. -Matt

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

Jerichos' walls have been found. they were uncovered and they even fell inward like the Bible says which is wierd because according to science they should have fallen out.-Matt

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

John Remsburg was president of the American Secular Union. They hate God and religion in general and would do anything to destroy it. He wrote the book in 1901. Since then there have been numerous archeological discoveries that support the Bible. He is not a credible source to quote because of his bias and affiliations.-Matt

Alexander said...

Emilio:
What one topic do you suggest we stick to?

Matt:
You are doing exactly what David said you are doing. You keep jumping back to the "there must be a god because the universe is here" argument. In a way, that's like saying "that's your opinion" and walking away. It's like saying you don't have anymore arguments so you're going to jump back to one that will only work for a certain amount of time. We will most likely find out how the universe came into being and it won't be because a magically sky fairy wished it into being. The idea of god has been holding us back for quite some time. We would be so far ahead of where we are today if we never had any religions. And if you think about it that way, if god loves us, he would want us to succeed. If god's the only thing stopping us from succeeding, wouldn't it want to leave? Destroy itself and whatnot?

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex

Do you deny the possibility of a God 100% without question? -Matt

Alexander said...

Matt

In a word, yes.

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex

So you know there is no god.
-Matt

Alexander said...

Matt

In a second word, yes.

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex

You, diamondwoof, and I have a lot in common. We don't believe in magical sky fairies. We don't believe God hacked up the universe like a cat hacks up furballs. We don't believe God puked, farted, or sneezed existence into being. We don't believe in fairy tales, or magic.

diamondwoof

I suppose I have used the words "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably and would like to correct myself. You were right about that. I have no proof There is a God. I have lots of evidence. I have no proof that every book and every story in scripture is 100% true. I do have tons of strong evidence. you said "science is following the evidence to conclusion". That is what creationists do. You have lots of evidence for evolution but still no proof. You also have evidence that there is no God but no proof. To prove that there is a God or there is no God requires omniscience. Trust me, I like science. The differences we have are worldviews, presuppositions and interpretations. -Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex

how can you know that? -Matt

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

John 14:12 Mark 16:17-18 the disciples did go out and perform such things. also read Mark 16:19-20 -Matt

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

"Every other "holy book" in the world has just as many "truths" as the bible. Does that mean they are all the "perfect word of their gods" as well? If so, that means the bible is nothing special. If not, what makes the bible any better than any other? Why is YOUR version of creation any more reliable than any other religions"

This is not an accurate statement. Fulfilled prophecy is something that sets the Bible apart from every other religious book. There are 26 other religious books that people of faith believe are divinely inspired (the Vedas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Mahabharata, the Upanishads, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Tripitaka, etc.). Of these twenty-six books, none of them, not a single one, contains any specific, fulfilled prophecies!

The Bible, however, is filled with hundreds of specific, detailed prophecies that were written hundreds of years before their fulfillment! In fact, an amazing 27% of the Bible (more than 1 out of every 4 verses) contains what was predictive prophecy at the time that it was written. And the authors of the Bible did not just predict some vague things like Nostradamus or Jeanne Dixon (who by the way, have proven to be wrong over and over again), they were very specific.-Matt

Alexander said...

Matt

I can know that there is no god because of life. If there is a god, why it would constantly let people it supposedly loves starve to death? Why would let all the terrible things in our world happen? Why would it let children fight and die for it against other people fighting and dying for it? If god loves us, why would it be okay with all the innocent blood on it's hands?

Alex

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

"The word Emmanuel translates to "God is with us." Matthew recalls the messianic prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 and states that its ultimate fulfillment is found in Mary’s Son: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (Matt. 1:23).

"Name," in this sense, does not refer to the actual name Joseph and Mary were to give to their Son (cf. Matt. 1:21, Luke 1:31); in this case, the word is used in the sense of "to call" (i.e., "they shall call his name Emmanuel," cf. Is. 7:14). Analogously, one could say of baseball legend, Babe Ruth, "They called him the Sultan of Swat," without intending to mean that "the Sultan of Swat" was George Herman Ruth Jr.’s given name. Just as Babe Ruth’s nickname was meant to indicate that Ruth was a great hitter, so Emmanuel indicates that the expected Messiah would be "God with us.""...-Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex

I understand you concern. Your question was answered already.

"I can know there is no God because of life" is not logical. There is no proof in that statement.

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

Romans 1:3 Acts 2:30 they don't say the messiah must be the "physical" decendent. It says "according to the flesh" and the son of God "according to the Spirit" Jesus was inserted into the line. This is logical. -Matt

Alexander said...

Matt

If you read the entire comment, you would have understood that sentence. It was a paragraph, not a bunch of random individual sentences put together.

Alex

Aaron said...

@ David,
Keep fighting the good fight, sorry it feeds the trolls but there is no way around that is there? You are doing a good thing here, if even one person reads this and is released from the constant fear that all of their (unsaved) friends and family are going to burn in agony forever unless they can be converted to that persons sect, then I say your life has meaning and your work was not for naught.
-Aaron

Anonymous said...

Alex

"I can know that there is no god because of life. If there is a god, why it would constantly let people it supposedly loves starve to death? Why would let all the terrible things in our world happen? Why would it let children fight and die for it against other people fighting and dying for it? If god loves us, why would it be okay with all the innocent blood on it's hands?"

Moral atheism does not provide evidence or proof there is no God. -Matt

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

Isaiah 7 while it does refer to Jesus the prophecy is fulfilled in the Old Testament! about two years after it was given. This is an example of a near fulfillment and a far fulfillment.-Matt

Anonymous said...

diamondwoof

Zechariah 9:9 was fulfilled by Jesus in Matthew 21. Zechariah is refering to himself in 9:10-13...

Alexander said...

Matt

So you're telling me that something that atheism doesn't need any proof but it does? (Yes, I'm being sarcastic. You're wrong also)

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex

Atheism is a belief (or lack of) that there is no God. There is evidence that there is no God but no proof. You cannot provide any proof that there is no God. Diamondwoof is right that something is not true just because people believe it. You cannot say there is no God because you haven't seen all of the evidence in the universe. You would need omniscience to know all of the evidence to prove there is no God and man is not omniscient so therefore atheism is not logical. -Matt

Anonymous said...

David, I am very happy you are such a good example for atheists. I find so many common abuses among atheists that it repulses me. I hope you continue in making this world the best you can.

Dimondwoof said...

@mat (hey, if you can't make an effort to get my name right, why should I make an effort to get your's right?)- Okay, I will continue to address your lies.

Isaiah 7 - What passage shows this? You can't just say "yes, it was" without giving the location in the bible where it was.

Matthew 21 - So, you're saying that, because jesus was a thief, and the donkey was a widely used animal, that gives "good" evidence that the bible is divinely inspired? Well, I do agree that jesus, if he existed, was a master thief and conman...

"Romans 1:3 Acts 2:30 Jesus was inserted into the line." Oh ya, that's reasonable. If you feel the need to manipulate the scripture to make it sound true.

""Name," in this sense, does not refer to the actual name Joseph and Mary were to give to their Son" So, in other words, ANYONE could have been considered Immanuel. So everyone single person in the world could have fulfilled this particular "prophecy".

"Fulfilled prophecy is something that sets the Bible apart from every other religious book." Bullshit! There are other "holy books" that claim just as much "prophecy" as the bible. As far as prophecies is concerned, mat, if you have to create an elaborate explanation for them, they obviously aren't "prophecies". When you have to say "well, it says that, but it *really* means this", that's your first clue that you are just making up crap to explain away a fairy tale.

"John Remsburg... wrote the book in 1901." Funny, you quote Louis Pastur from 200 years ago, and yet you use the fact that this book was written 100 years ago as evidence that it's invalid. You xians are HI-larious.

You have neither proof NOR evidence that your delusional deity exists. You have "supposition". Basically, because you think you are smarter than every other person on the planet, and because you can't imagine anything other than a creator being, then you assume that you MUST be right. It's amazing to me the arrogance of the religious. You think, based solely on the fact that you *really*, *really* want your delusion to be true, that must be enough "evidence". You site the universe as "evidence". As I said, your deity has contradictory attributes. THAT is solid evidence that it doesn't exist. You claim your god is "loving" and yet there is ample evidence in the bible that it is a tyrannical, jealous, megalomaniacal, narcissistic, evil, two-faced, blood thirst bastard of a god who enjoys animal and human sacrifice. It enjoys not only dispensing pain and misery, but likes it even more when its "children" dispense pain and misery on each other. You claim that, for some reason, people NEED to have "faith" and that it is required to get to heaven. But the bible is fulled with god directly interacting with people, so this is obviously a lie. If god interacted with them then, why not interact with us now? Because it's fairy tales. That is why there are no talking snakes now. That is why prayer doesn't work. That is why the Great Flood has absolutely no supporting evidence and is completely logistically impossible. Even you know that. That's why, when there was no logical argument for it, you invoked "magic". In almost every one of your arguments you must invoke "magic". But even that is inconsistent and nonsensical.

Dimondwoof said...

@mat - You obviously don't understand basic physics or chemistry or any other scientific discipline or scientific processes. Here's a great example. What was your argument against the salting of the earth by the great flood? "Rain is fresh water" Hm, what is wrong with this statement? Um, how about the fact that rain water mixes with the OCEANS making salt-water? Oh, but wait! If that is a problem, let's invoke MAGIC! God didn't allow the water to mix! What about the destructive force of that much weight on the continents? Why, it must be MAGIC! How did Noah get all those animals from all over the world that would take modern man *years* to accomplish and would actually be impossible for him because he didn't have the means (all the animals were from different continents, remember)? Simple, it was MAGIC!

How about the statement that Evolution is just a “theory” and can’t be true? Well, the proof is OVERWELMING. But do you admit defeat? Oh NO! Let’s make up the term “micro-evolution” and just admit part of it. The rest is MAGIC!

How about how the universe started? Well, we don’t know, and you can’t manage to get your brain wrapped around the concept of a natural process, so it must be MAGIC!

You say I have “evidence but no proof” that your god doesn’t exist. Extraordinary claims require the claimant to provide proof. I don’t need even the slightest bit of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that your god doesn’t exist. I have absolute proof, but don’t need it. In order to proclaim that you are correct in your beliefs, you must, by default, provide proof that your god does exist. The only thing you’ve come up with is supposition and poorly manipulated excerpts from known invalid documents. You don’t have the beginnings of evidence, but here you are, claiming that you do.

You want me to give you my “theory” of how the universe began? If I did, it would be just as valid as the theory that you have for how the universe began. In other words, it would be “an abstract thought or speculation.” Why do I say that? Because there is no solid good evidence as to how the universe got started, what was before the Big Bang, why the Big Bang happened in the first place. The difference is, I admit that. I admit that I don’t have a fully fleshed-out concept of how everything began. I am waiting for more evidence to make a logical conclusion. You, on the other hand, simply say “it must have been magic” and will not ever change your stance no matter how much evidence is presented to you. You are closed-minded, ridged and refuse to understand things that you have no clue about. You say you understand science. You don’t. You use science like a john uses a hooker. Or, more appropriately, like a priest uses an 8-year old boy. It’s sad, but you don’t, nor will you ever, have a clue about reality. You live in a fantasy land and will until the day you die.

Dimondwoof said...

@Alex - Hey Alex, here's another tact to baffle the fundies that you've been slaughtering in debate: ask them where the other religions came from. They will no doubt say that it's people who got "off-track" from god. But consider this: Adam and Steve, whoops, I mean Eve where literally created by god. Then came a couple of generations of kids that spread out, each of them had, apparently, daily conversations with dog directly. Now within a few hundred years, apparently god decided to completely ignore every human on the planet except a very specific line. If everyone at that point personally knew the one true god, why did they feel like they had to make up all the other 2000 and some odd deities that we know about?

Of course, this is a logic problem, so they won't be able to come up with any logical answer. They will say complete BS like "the devil made them up" or "it was people rebelling against god."

And why wouldn't they rebel? After all, the one true loving and caring god pretty much shit on everyone except the Israelites, completely ignoring them and treating them like red-headed step children. And, as a matter of fact, could have politely asked the Canaanites to move so that his "preferred" children could have the land, but instead just instructed the favored child to slaughter not only them, but all the innocent people between them and all the innocent animals as well. Well, not everyone. He told them to take the young girls so they would have someone to rape and have as slaves. But slaughter the camels and dogs and chickens because, well, why wouldn't you? I mean, if I murdered someone so I could steal their house, it would only be appropriate to slaughter their dogs and cats and goldfish, wouldn't it? According to the bible it is!

Alexander said...

Matt

"There is evidence that there is no God but no proof.". Evidence and proof are the exact same thing. Also, I can say that there is no god because there is no evidence. If there was any evidence, I wouldn't be able to. It's kind of a strange situation. Unless you find any shred of evidence that there is a god, there definitely isn't one. And even if you do find a shred of evidence, there still isn't a god. There can only be a god if there's no evidence, but without evidence, it's not there.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

@Alex - Actually, mat is correct. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Proof is evidence, but evidence may not be proof. Evidence can be empirical, circumstantial, logical deduction, or speculative. There are different degrees of evidence.

For example, there is overwhelming proof that Evolution is a fact of nature. Everyone agrees on this, even mat an Emilio. Of course, in order to fit it into their delusional superstition, they had to invent a thing called "micro-evolution." This is not a scientific term, but something made up by xians who refuse to give up on their "creationism" fantasy.

Alexander said...

Dimondwoof

No proof is still evidence.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

@Alex - Another thing that is important to keep in mind is that some of the "evidence" that mat and Emilio have provided in support of creationism is what we would call "speculative", since it is "evidence out of ignorance". In other words, mat and Emilio can't get their brains wrapped around the science of astrophysics (or, more likely, don't want to) and "deduced" that, since we don't know how the universe began, they "speculate" that it must be "magic". As opposed to the evidence that we have against the possibility of god's existence. That evidence includes:

1. Their concept of god has mutually exclusive attributes, so it is an impossibility.

2. Their holy book is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, logical fallacies, and flat out lies, which invalidates it's accuracy. These include evidence that the writers of the bible believed the world was flat, and that it was the center of the solar system, the galaxy, and, indeed, the universe. This also includes stories that are so logically implausible as to make them impossible, such as the "Great Flood" story. As you could see, mat had to do some spectacular dancing in order to justify that story. He had to change it to be almost completely unrecognizable from the actual story in the book.

3. Prayer has never been found to actually bring about any favorable outcome.

4. The fact that there is no valid evidence supporting their god is actually circumstantial, which is still more acceptable then their speculative evidence.

The only other evidence that mat and Emilio have provided is completely invalid. Usually this includes scientific premises that are taken out of context and heavily manipulated.

So, yes, mat is correct. There is "evidence" in support of creationism, but it's extremely thin and speculative, whereas there is evidence against creationism, and in fact xianity as a whole, which is mostly circumstantial, backed up by logical deduction and empirical truths.

Dimondwoof said...

@Alex - "No proof is still evidence.". Right, but I'm just saying evidence and proof are different.

"Proof" is defined as "any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something."

"Evidence" is defined as "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment." Evidence doesn't have to be factual, but can be logical deduction and circumstantial.

So, the "proof" that xianity is an invalid is that there is no valid evidence in support of it, yet a huge amount of evidence against it.

As we talked about before, it's semantics, but when debating people who like to twist statements, I think it's important to stay strict on terms. Take my advice as you wish. :-)

Dimondwoof said...

Hey David. Here's another Top 10 reasons list for you:

Top 10 benefits of being an Atheist:

1. Atheists earn higher incomes. (10-15% higher, according to 1989 study)

2. Atheists stay married longer. (21% of Atheists have been divorced vs 29% Christians) -Barna Research Group 1999

3. Atheists are less likely to end up in jail. (Atheists comprise 15% of US population, however only 1% of US Prison population are non-believers.)

4. Atheists are more likely to climb to the top of academia. (97% of the National Academy of Science Members are atheists. The 3,200 members includes more than 200 Noble Laureate recipients)

5. Atheists are less likely to succumb to the lure of authoritarian regimes, that promise miraculous and divine sent decrees. You think Hitler could have convinced a nation of Secularists/Atheists that slaughtering Jews was a sound idea? But far easier to do so when working with devotees of the anti-Semite Martin Luther.

6. Atheists live longer and happier, according to a 2009 poll conducted by Erasmus University Rotterdam

7. Atheists are not required to hate anyone. There is no doctrine that promotes in/out thinking.

8. Atheists have higher morality developmental growth. Famous American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg writes that at moral development’s highest levels – moral judgments must be justified on rational moral grounds rather than by appeal to the order of nature or to religious authority or revelation. While Freud suggested that religion served to undermine moral responsibility while promoting fanaticism, he contended that people who behave morally only out of fear of a supernatural penalty, would be unlikely to respect and care for others from an altruistic perspective.

9. Atheists achieve deeper levels of critical thinking and free thought.

10. Atheists are way better in the bedroom. (My own anecdotal experience :)

kristen said...

I just want to say thanks for your blog :) its a shame that so many readers put their fingers in their ears and hum at its message. Of course its nothing short of what they've been trained to do. I am so thankful that I have reached the same conclusion as you have, reality is of course not the way we want for things to be but instead necessarily the way things are. Religion is a placebo comfort to the masses. Gotta love the coments from people about your daughter.. if you wrote your four year old's philosophy looks as though she might aquire some followers kinda only further proves your point.. people will believe annnyyything. As einstein said, two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and he wasn't sure of the first.

Anonymous said...

dimondwoof

the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop. -Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist; professor of biology Princeton University -Matt

Anonymous said...

dimondwoof

This guy might know about physics

"I am convinced... that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe. -Dr. Wolfgang Smith, reentry physicist; former professor of mathematics, MIT and UCLA -Matt

Dimondwoof said...

Okay, I'll give you those. Mind you, I don't believe them, because it is very common for you to take sentences out of context and manipulate it to your own ends, but I'll give them to you.

My question is, SO WHAT? You can "disprove" evolution all you want, but it doesn't lend any credence to creationism. It isn't an "either/or" game. YOU STILL MUST PROVIDE PROOF THAT YOUR SUPERSTITION IS CORRECT. What part of that concept do you not understand? YOU DON'T WIN BY DEFAULT. You are saying that the sky MUST be yellow because some people don't believe it's blue. It doesn't change the fact that tons of evidence had been provided that creationism is bullshit; there is not only no supporting evidence, but a mountain of evidence against it. What part of that do you not understand?

Alexander said...

Matt

Those opinions are biased though since they are both creationists. Find some unbiased quotes and they might have some pull here.

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

Alex - I know at least the Conklin quote is BS because right in his title, he is identified as an "Evolutionist". So, he might have said something to eh effect, but it's obviously completely out of context. It's also incorrect. Since we don't know (and sure didn't know 100 years ago) exactly how hard it was for life to be created, he couldn't have possibly known the odds.

As far as Wolfgang, you're right. He is a devout catholic, and since he can't reconcile his delusional superstition with reality, his delusion wins out.

Dimondwoof said...

@matt - I've got another question for you - Who is in charge of the "global conspiracy"? Since 99% of the scientific world "claims to believe" in evolution, who is the person or group who is perpetuating all the "false" evidence to support evolution? Who is so against religion that they would put so much effort and energy into suppressing real evidence in support of creationism and falsely produce all the evidence we have in support of evolution?

I mean, I, personally, don't have anything against religion, outside of the fact that I know it's false, delusional superstition. But I just can't figure out why, if creationism is true, why does all the evidence point against creationism? Why isn't the evidence so overwhelming that no one can argue against it? I mean, you have your dogma forcing you to refuse clear evidence, but we, as atheists don't have that driving dogma. We deal specifically with evidence and follow where it leads. Why isn't it substantially easier for fundies like yourself to just present clear evidence that supports your claims?

Anonymous said...

dimondwoof

Let's tackle one thing at a time. Let's talk evolution. more specificly the idea that all living things are modified descendents of a common ancestor that came about naturalisticly without the help of a creator. Please don't say the proof is overwhelming. For you, what is the biggest evidence in support of this theory? Let's have a real adult conversation. You are 49 right? I'm tired of sifting through insults to find your argument. Also, you misquoted me. I never said I believe in magic, which you have put in quotations several times. I do not believe in magic. -Matt

Dimondwoof said...

@matt - "magic: any art that invokes supernatural powers." Yes, you do believe in magic. You call it "divine power", but it's still magic.

As for the proof of evolution being overwhelming, why wouldn't I say that? Didn't you, yourself, say that you believe in evolution? I believe you called in "micro-evolution", however, since there is no such thing, all it means is that you accept evolution, but refuse to admit it.

But I'll play along; the single most influential evidence to me is the fossil records that show how different species have developed. However, the "biggest" evidence is that every scientific discipline there is independently agrees with evolution and the age of the earth being 4.56 billion years old.

The only people who disagree have an ulterior motive, which is to, for some weird reason, try to "prove" science wrong so that they can win by default, such as you do. Those people don't care about truth, they only care about being "right". If they were smart, they would accept things as we know then to be true, and incorporate that into their stupidstition, but for some reason, the religiots can't figure that out. If they did, they wouldn't alienate so many people, so they would be able to sucker more people into their delusion.

Alexander said...

Matt

If you touched a fence and got a shock, you don't need a creator to figure out you shouldn't touch it again. That is a sort of evolution. One thing happened (a fence shocked you), which lead to a lifestyle change for an animal (i.e. you). If you don't need a creator for that, why do you need one to figure out how a species could change a lot over a very long time span?

Alex

Anonymous said...

dimondwoof

did you make up that definition? Try Merriam-Webster. I'm also not talking about an "art that "invokes" supernatural powers" but anyways nice dodge. No, I didn't say I believe in evolution. I used the words natural selection. I don't believe that me and a dog share a common ancestor anywhere in time. Micro-evolution not true? Are you saying we can't observe changes happening? Scientists have observed bacteria becoming resistant to drugs. Micro and Macro not the same.
fossil record. ok. name some transitional fossils. -Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex

Sorry bro but that is a bad example. tell me how life started naturalisticly in "primordial soup". -Matt

Alexander said...

Matt

Hey, I'm in high school. Cut me a break. No, but to be honest, I don't know. I wasn't around then and neither was anyone else here. I can completely rule out creationism, but I'm pretty sure you don't believe in that. And I pretty much skipped over a lot of the stuff that wasn't directed at me so if you could just write what you believe again that would be helpful and a lot easier for me. Thanks.

Alex

Alexander said...

Matt

Wait. I just read anout microevolution because I was curious.I`m assuming that's what you believe in. The example that I gave, which was bad (I'm over tired), was of microevolution. You yourself said that it was bad. Curious, isn't it?

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex

I'm not going to rewrite it when you can scroll up. You said you were more mature than your age indicated. I will cut you a break but if you don't have an idea then how can you rule out intelligent design 100%. If you weren't around then to see how it started you can't say God didn't do it. I think it's time you downgraded from atheist to agnostic. -Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex

I said "natural selection". Microevolution is that. Changes within a species ex. boston terrier, german shepard. both dogs, both can mate with each other but look way different. Mircoevolution is not darwinian evolution.-Matt

Dimondwoof said...

@matt - Yes, I made that definition up. And they posted it on the Princeton website. It's the very first definition that come up on a Google search. As for the second result (that you pointed to), which is the Merriam-Webster site, the very first definition is "the use of means believed to have supernatural power over natural forces". So, I'm not the one dodging. You're the one that wants to make up definitions because you aren't comfortable with the really real world. What is it that you think "magic" is?

So, on to the rest of your argument:

"No, I didn't say I believe in evolution. I used the words natural selection." Um, you DO understand that "evolution" is the result of "natural selection", right? So, in using the term "natural selection", you are actually referring to "evolution". Oh, and by the way, in the next sentence that I mention, you DO use the term "evolution". You just refer to it as "micro-evolution", so as a matter of fact, you DO INDEED believe in evolution. You just want to redefine it so it doesn't make you look like an idiot.

"Micro-evolution not true? Are you saying we can't observe changes happening? Scientists have observed bacteria becoming resistant to drugs." Man, how many times do I have to explain this? (As I said, kinda like trying to explain calculus to a 3rd grader.) Let me try it again. What I'm saying is that "micro-evolution" is a term you xians made up because you can't admit that "evolution" is true, because of some weird, distorted need to be "right". So you compartmentalize evolution so you can use just a little bit of it. You know, kinda like you do with your bible. You take what supports your delusion and ignore everything else that would destroy your delusion.

"Micro and Macro not the same." Well, to you they aren't. But to the real scientific world, there is no distinction. Just because you don’t *want* them to be the same, doesn’t mean that they aren’t.

"ok. name some transitional fossils" Humans, snakes, birds, T-Rex, raptors, stromatolites, Ordovician conodonts. Every fossil is a "transitional fossil".

However, in 2004, scientists digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed fossils of a half-fish, half-amphibian that all but confirmed paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including humans), evolved from fish. It is a classic example of a "transitional form", one that bridges a so-called evolutionary gap between different types of animal.

Here are a few others:
Euthenopteron Foordi to the Tiktaalik Rosae to the Ichthuostega, the Dimetrodon to the Thrinaxodon to the Morganucodon, The Velociraptor to the Archaeopteryx to the Yanornis, the Pakicetus to the Ambulocetus Natans to the Basilosaurus, and Dryopithecus to Australopithecus Afratensis to Homo Erectus.

By the way, speaking of "dodging", nice way to take focus off of the other thing I said, which is that every single independent *real* scientific discipline that can confirm each other in evolution, does. This, of course, excludes the religiots trying to undermine good science with creationism "junk science".

Alexander said...

Matt

I was kidding about cutting me a break, don't worry.
You're not talking about microevolution at all, you're talking about genetics. And you don't want to say you don't believe in genetics (and I'm sure you do believe in it).

Alex

Dimondwoof said...

@matt - By the way, it's statements like "Micro-evolution not true? Are you saying we can't observe changes happening? Scientists have observed bacteria becoming resistant to drugs." that show just how manipulative you are. It is obvious to both of us (and everyone following along) that, since I accept evolution, I would accept what you call "micro-evolution" and since I blatantly stated that micro-evolution is indistinguishable from actual scientific evolution, obviously I accept it. This is why you garner no respect in the forum of debate. You manipulate terms and twist statements and try to use those against your opponent instead of just standing on the merits of your own argument. Of course, you must, since your argument has no merit. So, the question is, did you use the above argument to try to trick me into saying something that you could then twist to use against me, or do you just really not understand (and I mean, seriously have absolutely no clue) what evolution is all about. I'm guessing the former, since you have done that same thing in the past. But then, I'm betting there is just a smidgen of the latter, since it's obvious that you lack the most basic of scientific understanding of what evolution is all about. But then, why learn when you can just say "it happened by MAGIC"? LOL

Dimondwoof said...

@matt - Do you believe that prayer works?

Anonymous said...

dimondwoof

Ha! you are lame! The first think to pop up with a google search is The Multiverse:Magic:The Gathering. HAHAHA! So that's where you're getting your stuff! HA!

supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

Magic a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces.

Magic appears to be supernatual but it's not...sorry. I don't believe in magic.

Evolution is a big word. I don't believe in common descent darwinian evolution theory. Neither does any rational, logical, person.

Euthenopteron Foordi to the Tiktaalik Rosae to the Ichthuostega, the Dimetrodon to the Thrinaxodon to the Morganucodon, The Velociraptor to the Archaeopteryx to the Yanornis, the Pakicetus to the Ambulocetus Natans to the Basilosaurus, and Dryopithecus to Australopithecus Afratensis to Homo Erectus.

So that is proof huh? A raptor next to Archaeopteryx next to a bird. Looks to me like three different things. With billions of years of small changes and billions of animals dying the fossil record should read like a Shakespeare, instead you take three words and fill in the rest on your own. Then you take skull fragments and teeth and draw pictures of apes hunting and fishing and say that's where we come from. I'm delusional? Too bad there have been so many fake transitional fossils presented. Those darn chinese people just keep faking "the scientific community" out. there are way to many holes in the fossil record to make any evolution denier think that is true. There are enough holes however to make Ph.D's believe a common ancestor theory isn't even a good hypothesis. All of the fossil "evidence" for human evolution, between five and ten million years ago,(several thousand generations of living cretures) can fit into a small box. Should we continue or talk about cosmology? -Matt

Anonymous said...

Alex

Fossil hunters have recently discovered giant monkey fossils, miniature monkey fossils, average monkey fossils and deformed monkey fossils that are all linked to humans! They are called basketball players, "little people" and kids, average people and people with other birth defects. thumbs up for genetics. still don't believe in common descent tree of life orgins. -Matt

Dimondwoof said...

@matt - Yes, the "The Multiverse:Magic:The Gathering" game site is EXACTLY the same as the Princeton University site. You got me there, you mastermind of wit!!

So, you post "Magic a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces.", specifying definition of magic as "supernatural power" and then the very next sentence say "Magic appears to be supernatual but it's not...sorry". Well, it's hard to argue with that. After all, "supernatual" is missing the R so it must be completely different. Unbelievable.

You asked for an example of a "transitional fossil" and I provided several. And you think you can just dismiss what the entire scientific community accepts as absolute proof without a second thought. Just because you looked at some pictures and "decided" that they must not be related, that's your justification for blowing off all the evidence? What exactly are your credentials for determining that they are completely unrelated?

Because 99.9% of living organisms don't leave fossils, that "proves" that fossils can't be used as evidence? You don't give a shred of evidence or even speculation as to WHY they can't be used, you just "declare" them as invalid? Well, I guess that's one way to end the argument. Just tell the other side that they aren't allowed to provide evidence and then say "see, you don't have evidence." You are a master debater, aren't you?

"Then you take skull fragments and teeth and draw pictures of apes hunting and fishing and say that's where we come from. I'm delusional?" Well, the answer to the question is "YES", but I didn't take skull fragments and teeth and do anything. This is decades of work of renowned paleontologists from around the world. It's called "science". I know you don't recognize it, but it's what intelligent adults use to find the truth of reality.

You are right, any "evolution denier" apparently can't be convinced by even the most powerful proof that evolution is true. And, yes, that is also delusional.

And you actually think that the Chinese have gone around for the last couple of hundred years and buried fake fossils? Holy crap! That's one of the most bigoted AND stupid statements I've read in a long time.

Are you by chance talking about "Ph.Ds" like Kent Hogan? That moron doesn't know the slightest thing about biology, chemistry, physics, or anything else. But, I'm willing to admit I might be hasty. Exactly which "Ph.Ds" are you talking about? Let's take a look at who you are siting as "experts" that think the "common ancestor theory isn't even a good hypothesis."

As for the amount of human fossils, you obviously don't have a clue as to how much there is. However, regardless of the amount, it is extremely clear how humans evolved from a common ancestor with other primates.

I'm more than happy to continue this, but if you are willing to capitulate on this subject, I'd be happy to move on to cosmology, if you'd prefer.

Anonymous said...

dimondwoof

Oh no! i forgot the "r". thanks. supernatural. both definitions from merriam-webster. also, magic: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source. keywords believed and seemingly.

"Because 99.9% of living organisms don't leave fossils, that "proves" that fossils can't be used as evidence?"

So .1% percent of living organisms that do leave fossils "proves" common ancestory? that's a weak defense.

You did not provide several transitional fossils. You provided several distinct species.

What are your credentials for saying statements like "the entire scientific community"? Do you keep a log of everyone in it and their professioal opinions? Unbelievable!

Ever heard of Archaeoraptor? Tail of a dinosaur, forelimbs of a bird? National Geographic published an article in 1999 that said there's now evidence that feathered dinosaurs were ancestors of the first bird? National Geographic Society announced it was "the missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly". Guess what... it was fake! yes it was. A chinese paleontologist proved somebody glued a dinosaur tail to a primitive bird! and the best part is that it wasn't even dug up... it was bought at an Arizona mineral show! oh how scientific! and fossil dealers are getting rich off of scientific scientists all of the time selling fake fossils! Ornithologist Alan Feduccia said "Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceburg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged featherd dinosaurs were found." I could go on but in the "scientific community" you talk about I have already given enough evidence to prove my point.

No. not kent hogan. I did give a lengthy list earlier though. Even if skull caps, jaw fragments, teeth, a femur did show human evolution it still doesn't show a common ancestor link. There are still to many holes to say it's possible. Darwins theory is also thoroughly destroyed by the cambrian explosion.
-Matt

Dimondwoof said...

“So .1% percent of living organisms that do leave fossils "proves" common ancestory? that's a weak defense.” It’s not the fact that there is only 1% or that fossils exist. It’s what they represent.

“You did not provide several transitional fossils. You provided several distinct species.” Okay, so you’re just going to ignore facts that doesn’t feed into your delusion. I guess that’s your choice, if you want to bury your head and not understand truth, as you’ve proven that you like to do.

“What are your credentials for saying statements like "the entire scientific community"?” – My bad choice of words. I meant an “overwhelming majority”

“National Geographic Society announced it was "the missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly". Guess what... it was fake! yes it was.” Okay, it happens. You will never find me saying that every single scrap of evidence isn’t disputable. However, that doesn’t change anything.

“A chinese paleontologist proved somebody glued a dinosaur tail to a primitive bird!” So, first you accuse the Chinese of faking evidence, and then you point out that they expose fakes. Nice and consistent.

“Blah, blah, blah” Yes, they found a fake. But thanks for pointing out that no science is above skepticism, as opposed to your delusion that is supposed to be above any skepticism.

“I have already given enough evidence to prove my point.” Yes, your point being that you refuse to acknowledge anything scientific if it doesn’t feed into your delusion. You will look for any excuse to dismiss evidence, valid or not.

“There are still to many holes to say it's possible.” And yet with NO evidence whatsoever, your stupidstition MUST be correct, versus science that might have a few holes, in your uneducated opinion.

“Darwins theory is also thoroughly destroyed by the cambrian explosion.” Of course it would be, to you. That, of course, doesn’t mean it’s true. It was questions decades ago, but since then, we have learned that life started at least 3.4 billion years ago. So, just because not many fossils from the Lipalian era were created, managed to survive, or just haven’t been found, doesn’t mean that there was an “explosion” of life in the Cambian, but even if there was, so what? Something natural happened to cause a massive surge in life. That, in no way, “destroys Darwin’s theory”. These are arguments from decades ago. All creationism arguments about this have been debunked for many, many years.

It’s only “debated” today by creationisms desperate for something to point out that was extraordinary in nature. You believe that a magic sky fairy just shit out life on the planet, you stanchly defend complete logical fallacies like the “great flood”, but when anything out of the ordinary happens in nature, you jump all over that as proof that something completely unbelievable is “obviously” more likely.

Anonymous said...

You what's good!? Just checking up on you guys. WOOFY!!! Man bro chill out! Your hate I feel it in my room. Haha. Keep killing them Matt. Well it might make you happy or mad woofy, but I believe in evolution. That word is tricky though...scientists use it different. I don't believe in Darwinism though. I do believe in the small changes like a salt water fish being able to survive in fresh water. Gradual changes.
These are 5 things to consider woofy. Check them out and them respond with you almost offing yourself the way you usually do.
1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations
4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.

Emilio

Anonymous said...

@woofy

You dude that was weak bro! BOO! I can tell Matt got you on that one. Your last rebuttal was lame.

Emilio

Anonymous said...

dimondwoof

r. that is your "r" to put in cambrian so we are talking about the same thing. I don't know what the cambian explosion is! Darwins theory is a long history of gradual divergence. Prior to the Cambrian period the fossil record shows some jellyfish, worms, and sponges. Then at the beginning of the camb"r"ian BOOM! we see representatives of arthopods, insects, crabs, echinoderms, which include modern starfish, and sea urchins etc. This is contrary to darwinism because these things appear fully developed in a very sudden amount of time.

"There are still to many holes to say it's possible.” And yet with NO evidence whatsoever, your stupidstition MUST be correct, versus science that might have a few holes, in your uneducated opinion"...stupidstition... how clever of you. did you come up with that all by yourself? I'll check Princeton U website for that one too. It's not in the dictionary.

I'm not even talking about the biblical account of creation right now, which I do believe. I'm just debunking Darwin's theory for you so you can remember that science should ALWAYS be trying to advance, test all hypotheses, replace old worn out theories, and look for the truth.

Creationism and ID are NOT the same thing. Most proponents of ID believe in an old earth. Creationists believe in a young earth. There IS evidence of ID. study Dr. Stephen Meyer. Watch his debates on youtube. He is an old earth guy who believes in ID. Just because I believe in the Bible doesn't mean I ignore science. But that's not what we're talking about.

Would you like to talk about Haeckel's embryos maybe? But, if you blink, bow, budge, capitulate, concede, give in, knuckle under, quit, relent, submit, succumb, or surrender (I love the thesaurus) we can talk cosmology.
-Matt

Anonymous said...

OOOHWEE!!! Spitting that hot fire son!!!
Get him Matt!

Emilio

Anonymous said...

emilio

what's up? God bless you. Those are some good points. Some people just can't let go of Darwin. Showing a reptile with a sail next to a reptile with no sail, next to a mouse looking thing is supposed to make me believe in common descent? get real. That's like showing three frames from all six star wars movies and somehow knowing the whole plot! -Matt

Dimondwoof said...

"Darwins theory is a long history of gradual divergence." Well, believe it or not, science has EVOLVED in the last 150 years. So has the Theory of Evolution. We know that evolution is not a linear process. Using a 150 theory to "disprove" a modern theory is something I would expect from you, though.

"I'm just debunking Darwin's theory for you" You aren't "debunking" anything. You are making up excuses that don't have any relevance to the conversation. You are expressing an uneducated opinion that you don't except the evidence presented. I see you're giving Emilio a hardon, but that's because he is just as superstition and intent on ignoring the truth as you are.

"so you can remember that science should ALWAYS be trying to advance, test all hypotheses, replace old worn out theories, and look for the truth." Funny that you completely dismiss science and then advocate it. You are full of hypocrisy, aren't you?

"Creationism and ID are NOT the same thing", Seriously? You are going to claim that? Wow! You ARE delusional.

"There IS evidence of ID" Yet again, you apparently have no idea what the term "evidence" is. Just because you can't imagine how something came about naturally, doesn't mean that there *must* be a "designer" (read: god, hence: creationism) behind it.

"Just because I believe in the Bible doesn't mean I ignore science." Oh, dude, that is EXACTLY what that means. When you ignore good science because it interferes with your delusion and accept bad science because it supports your delusion, that is the classical sign of a religiot.

"Would you like to talk about Haeckel's embryos maybe?" Well, since you've lost the debate on every other front, I guess we could move to something else.

"Showing a reptile with a sail next to a reptile with no sail, next to a mouse looking thing is supposed to make me believe in common descent" No, pictures shouldn't make you "believe in common descent". However, the SCIENCE behind the lineage should, if you had half a brain and were actually open to truth. Since you only "believe" things that support your delusion, no, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

And, by the way, did I say that there were no fossils between those sets of 3? No, I did not. Because you didn't ask for that. You asked for "transitory fossils", which I provided. Did you ask if there were, or how they are proven to be related? Oh, HELL no! I might have provided even more evidence to bust your delusional superstition. The less evidence you have to confront, the easier it is for people like you and Emilio to keep on believing your childish fairy tales.

Dimondwoof said...

@Emi - I'm sorry, but that is such a stupid list, I can't even go there. Most of the questions don't even address evolution. Since you have even less of an idea than mat what that actually entails, you can't be part of this debate.

Dimondwoof said...

But, since you will take that as "proof" that I couldn't provide any argument against any of those, let me just address them, so I'm clear:

"1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution" - Darwin didn't "create" evolution, so there is no "Darwinian mechanism for evolution"

"2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model" - Origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

"3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations" - Origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

"4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis" - Origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Plus, it's a really stupid argument that has been debunked about 10,000 times. Look it up.

"5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change." - You copy and pasted this. I know this because you have no idea that it's a completely nonsensical statement. There is no such "rule".

Anonymous said...

@woofy

Quit making me laugh so hard at you, 49 year old man, all you did was dismiss what Matt said with insults. Don't get angry when you have no defense. Funny how "I'm not allowed" in the debate. I guess you can't read English since the list I gave addresses exactly evolution theory. Tired of defending your weak case? Are you like right now "STUPID CHRISTIANS They know what I'm talking about!! I bet you wish we would just yell "have faith!!! have faith!!" Well since your scared to address my list I will explain it to you. the single greatest problem for evolutionary biologists is the unsolved problem of morphological and biochemical novelty. so in woofy words, some aspects of evolutionary theory describe accurately how existing organisms are well adapted to their environments, but do a very stupid job of explaining just how the necessary adaptive structures came about in the first place. Darwinian explanations of complex structures such as the eye and the incredible tongue of the woodpecker fall far short of realistically attempting to explain how these structures arose by mutation and natural selection. The origin of the eye in particular, caused Darwin no small problem. His only suggestion was to look at the variety of eyes in nature, some more complex and versatile than others, and imagine a gradual sequence leading from simple eyes to more complex eyes. However, even the great Harvard evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, admits that the different eyes in nature are not really related to each other in some simple-to-complex sequence. He suggests that eyes probably had to evolve over forty different times in nature. Darwin's nightmare has never been solved. It has only been made 40 times more frightening for the evolutionist. What!? How crazy! The ability to explain major morphological novelties is not the only failing of evolutionary theory. Molecular structures are even more difficult to explain! The molecular architecture of the cell has recently described by molecular biologist Michael Behe as being irreducibly complex systems which must have all the components present in order to be functional. The molecular workings of cilia, electron transport, protein synthesis, and cellular targeting readily come to mind. If the systems are irreducibly complex, HOW DO THEY BUILD SLOWLY OVERS LONG PERIODS OF TIME out of systems that are originally doing something else?

While publishing hundreds of articles pertaining to molecular homology and phylogeny of various proteins and nucleic acids over the last ten years, the Journal of Molecular Evolution did not publish one article attempting to explain the origin of a single bio-molecular system. Those who make molecular evolution their life's work are too busy studying the relationship of the cytochrome c molecule in man to the cytochrome c molecule in bacteria, rather than the more fundamental question of where cytochrome c came from in the first place!

Clearly then, whether we are talking about major morphological novelties such as the wings of bats and birds, the swimming adaptations of fish and whales, the human eye or the molecular sub- microscopic workings of mitochondria, ribosomes, or cilia, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY has failed to explain how these structures could arise by natural processes alone.

Emilio

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 785   Newer› Newest»