On the very same day that I started this blog June 22, 2008, someone named Bruce bought the domain debunkingatheism.com. I look forward to seeing some great things coming from the website. For now they have a static page that states a case. Here it is in its entirety:
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p488)
Unintelligent Evolution Debunked in <400 Words
There is no proven scientific principle, or testable evidence, or even common sense, that supports dumb, blind, un-intelligence making anything intelligent. This is also useless for making testable predictions.
Darwin said: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" (Origin of Species, p. 188)
1. The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent.
"...all physical theories...break down at the beginning of the universe."
-- Stephen Hawking.
2. Mathematical infinity, singularities, and the "Big Bang" defy the laws of nature, showing scientifically that super-natural qualities, like God's infinite nature, can exist.
3. A creator/designer/lawmaker is not intrinsically detectable when observing their design. Thus, one can't use an undetected Creator to disprove a Creator.
4. All laws, man-made or otherwise, have common properties: They cause physical regularity. Thus, since man is made of "dust" and thus is part of the natural process, man's creative/lawmaking abilities can be tested in determining the origin of the universe.
New hypotheses/proposed laws: a) Something intelligent is caused by something intelligent, b) Laws are made by an intelligent lawmaker, c) Laws are enforced/maintained by a law enforcer, d) Processes and machines have a designer, e) Designers/lawmakers/enforcers are not intrinsically detectable.
These principles have never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.
Thus, since intelligence, laws, machines, and processes are found in the universe, and we don't detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time to cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied limitations/laws.
Conclusion: There is no testable evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc. Therefore, unintelligent evolution and faith in atheism are blind assumptions with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence demonstrates that God is logical and a super-natural Creator is necessary for the creation and laws of the universe. The Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account. We should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to serve Him daily.
Fred Hoyle said: "there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible." (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)
Excellent.
ReplyDeleteThere will be gnashing of teeth. ;)
ReplyDeleteLike when your prophecy about the destruction of San Fran in 2009 fails to happen?
ReplyDeleteTo the topic...Cosmology in the bible, yes. Accurate cosmology in the bible, no.
The "windows of heaven" to allow rain?
placing the stars in the "firmament"?
calling the moon itself a "light"?
The bible says nothing about the arrangement of galaxies, extrasolar planets and moons, and it's implied age of the universe being only a few thousand years flies against pretty much every scientific observation there is.
Forgot to add: Even if one says that those statements are only poetry, it still means that the bible lacks accurate descriptions of the universe.
ReplyDeleteOf course the premise of the Post is absurd.
ReplyDeleteHe concludes with:
"There is no testable evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc."
There is no need, and it is impossible to prove a negative.
There is no testable evidence that there is not a purple suirrel in my underwear. Get it?
What you fundies always fail to understand the the ethic of unknowns. There are things we do not know. If you want to waste your deluded lives trying to convince people that God did it, then carry on.
What pathetic people you are.
And Dan, the is not an ad hom, it is a statement of fact.
You are posessed by your obsession of wanting an afterlife.
There is absolutely no empirical evidence for the existence of an after life or a God of any description.
If you find some evidence you will become the most famous person to ever have lived.
Froggie, the converse is also true. Perhaps even moreso:
ReplyDeleteThere is no testable evidence that a Creator was needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc.
There is no testable evidence that there is not a purple suirrel in my underwear. Get it?
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I heard on the innerwebs. :)
If you find some evidence you will become the most famous person to ever have lived.
Well I guess that I'm a gonna be pretty famous soon.
But not the most famous ever.
Wow, that is bad. Really, really bad. The worst part is that the author thinks that the "unintelligence" of evolution is an assumption of evolutionary theory. He (or she) also has no clue as to what a "law of nature" really is, the author thinks it's something that needs to be "enforced," like legislation. And that's just two problems, there are many more. I've seen bad anti-evolution arguments before, but that page reaches a new low.
ReplyDeleteSo you want me to believe that time, light and matter came out of nowhere and nothing for no reason, and then assembled itself by pure good luck x time into thousands of reproducing creatu....er beings more complex than harrier jets, all interdependent in a finely balanced universe for no reason, cause, and without meaning.
ReplyDeleteThat there's your bad science. Yup.
It's all far too complex, far too full of meaning, far too balanced and ordered, in obedience to the LAWS of physics, too well designed and far too mysterious for me to buy that tale.
Besides, I've witnessed the hand of God, heard His voice, so the matter is closed in my mind.
And it will be settled in yours too, soon enough. I pray it is not on the day you die.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDani'el wrote So you want me to believe that time, light and matter came out of nowhere and nothing for no reason, and then assembled itself by pure good luck x time into thousands of reproducing creatu....er beings more complex than harrier jets, all interdependent in a finely balanced universe for no reason, cause, and without meaning.
ReplyDeleteThat there's your bad science. Yup.
No Dani'el, that's not what we want you to believe. We want you to understand that
A) we don't really know how or why the universe came into being
B) the information we have (and we're getting more of it each passing day) seems to lead us towards the Big Bang
C) even if our current idea of the Big Bang is wrong, we'll be happy to label it so when we find information that calls it into question. This is unlike religious dogma, which seeks only to legitimize itself (rather than seeking truth).
In short, we hope to find out what happened. Eventually. We're guaranteed to screw up along the way, but the end goal is actual knowledge of what really happened.
You, on the other hand, hope we fail.
EDIT: grammar
You, on the other hand, hope we fail.
ReplyDeleteNo. I know you'll fail, (If you had the time to try).
I'm interested in one thing in this argument.
The Truth.
and the Truth will set you free.
But I must be patient. Not long to wait before this long tedious argument is over.
Dani' El wrote:
ReplyDelete"So you want me to believe that time, light and matter came out of nowhere and nothing for no reason..."
Nope. Only unscientific chowderheads would want you to believe any such foolishness.
"...and then assembled itself by pure good luck..."
Nope. Only someone who had no inkling of evolutionary theory would say anything like that idiocy.
"...x time into thousands of reproducing creatu....er beings more complex than harrier jets, all interdependent in a finely balanced universe for no reason, cause, and without meaning."
Nope. You been hanging out with nihilists lately?
"That there's your bad science. Yup."
That's exactly why nobody is asking you to believe those things. It is bad science. It's all pathetically wrong statements that you probably gleaned from some creationist, instead of from actual scientists.
"It's all far too complex, far too full of meaning, far too balanced and ordered..."
Says you. How is it that you are measuring complexity, meaning, balance and order so that you can conclude that the God hypothesis is a good fit?
"...in obedience to the LAWS of physics..."
And you say that right after my post complaining that people who say such things are clueless as to what the term "law of physics" means. Nothing "obeys" the laws of physics. (Not only that, but some "laws" have been wrong.)
"...too well designed and far too mysterious for me to buy that tale."
How are you measuring design and mystery? And to what are you comparing what we've got?
"Besides, I've witnessed the hand of God, heard His voice, so the matter is closed in my mind."
Okay, I'll file that away just in case you decide to call someone else "close-minded." The irony will be delicious.
"And it will be settled in yours too, soon enough. I pray it is not on the day you die."
Why? As soon as God is proven to me (by you being correct), I'll have no need for faith, and I will be doomed to Hell just as much as I am doomed right now.
Your dreams of being proven right are nothing more than dreams of the moment that all of the billions of unsaved people are certain to be permanently damned. Despite calling yourself a saint, that actually makes you one mean, vindictive so-and-so.
Hey! just like God!
I don't have to bust open my computer and measure all the chips and wires to know it is a complex machine, that someone designed for a purpose.
ReplyDeleteTo conclude that someone started out to make a tv and by an error in the blueprint machine, a computer came out is silly.
Strike that, a tv factory that was intended to be a tricycle factory but by accident came out as a tv factory all the way back to a stone wheel caveman inventor who accidentally carved out a boat that.....sigh.
And who made the caveman?
All the way back to who made it all. You don't know. I do.
And so will you soon enough.
If you are still alive, God is going to be revealing Himself in a powerful way.
The book of Ezekiel is full of eschatology. It is called the holy of holy of prophecy for it's prophecies of the restoration of Israel back to Him.
In it God declares several times that the world will know Him by these things and the argument about His existence will be over.
Eze 38:21 I will call for a sword against Gog throughout all My mountains," says the Lord GOD. "Every man's sword will be against his brother.
Eze 38:22 And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who are with him, flooding rain, great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.
Eze 38:23 Thus I will magnify Myself and sanctify Myself, and I will be known in the eyes of many nations. Then they shall know that I am the LORD." '
So then the question will be "who do you serve?"
The living God and His Holy One?
Or Satan and his antichrist?
There is no spiritual Switzerland and all must take sides.
So choose wisely.
Dani' El wrote:
ReplyDelete"I don't have to bust open my computer and measure all the chips and wires to know it is a complex machine, that someone designed for a purpose."
But more complex than what?
Of course, it's ridiculous to think that you've got to figure out a computer's purpose when the manufacturer will tell you, in no uncertain terms (and without a 2,000-year silence) what its purpose is. Your comparison here is ludicrous.
"To conclude that someone started out to make a tv and by an error in the blueprint machine, a computer came out is silly.
Strike that, a tv factory that was intended to be a tricycle factory but by accident came out as a tv factory all the way back to a stone wheel caveman inventor who accidentally carved out a boat that.....sigh."
Indeed, you're making a blatant strawman attack because none of the objects you mention reproduces on its own, and we already know where the designs came from and why. It must be tiring to spew such obvious and known falsehoods, no wonder you're sighing.
"And who made the caveman?"
His parents. Didn't anyone ever teach you about the birds and the bees?
"All the way back to who made it all. You don't know. I do."
So you say. That's the crux of the argument, isn't it? Whether one should trust some human authority here on Earth to tell us the true source of everything. True with a capital T. I don't trust people that much, because I know they're prone to error and bias, and I understand the limits to our understanding.
You do have that much trust. Good for you, but don't try to tell me that I'm wrong because of your faith.
"And so will you soon enough."
Hmmm... Too late on that last bit of advice, wasn't I?
Thanks for re-affirming my doom. It's a real pity that Ezekiel didn't know of Jesus, the requirement for faith and the New Covenant, and that God didn't see fit to tell him about those things, isn't it? I see nothing about his prophecies that declares that anyone will be saved after God makes Himself known in such a fashion.
In fact, according to Zeke there, it looks like only the Israelites will have mercy shown to them. Everyone else is hosed.
Dani' El wrote:
ReplyDelete"I don't have to bust open my computer and measure all the chips and wires to know it is a complex machine, that someone designed for a purpose."
But more complex than what?
More complex than dust. Is something complex only in comparison to something that is not complex. Not complex compared to what. This is fun. No, no it's kind of boring.
Of course, it's ridiculous to think that you've got to figure out a computer's purpose when the manufacturer will tell you, in no uncertain terms (and without a 2,000-year silence) what its purpose is. Your comparison here is ludicrous.
So you only figured out your computers purpose by reading the manual? or did some one preach/teach you? (more anti-fun)
"To conclude that someone started out to make a tv and by an error in the blueprint machine, a computer came out is silly.
Strike that, a tv factory that was intended to be a tricycle factory but by accident came out as a tv factory all the way back to a stone wheel caveman inventor who accidentally carved out a boat that.....sigh."
Indeed, you're making a blatant strawman attack because none of the objects you mention reproduces on its own, and we already know where the designs came from and why. It must be tiring to spew such obvious and known falsehoods, no wonder you're sighing.
-sarcasm-And the fact that God's creatures reproduce only add the the complexity. Imagine seeing a lear jet that got together with another lear jet to give birth to little lear jets. Then concluding it was all a bit of good luck. -/sarcasm-
"And who made the caveman?"
His parents. Didn't anyone ever teach you about the birds and the bees?
Which came first, the bird or the bee? Nyuk nyuk!
"All the way back to who made it all. You don't know. I do."
So you say. That's the crux of the argument, isn't it? Whether one should trust some human authority here on Earth to tell us the true source of everything. True with a capital T. I don't trust people that much, because I know they're prone to error and bias, and I understand the limits to our understanding.
Then stop trusting Darwin, or Pope Dawkins.
You do have that much trust. Good for you, but don't try to tell me that I'm wrong because of your faith.
No you're wrong because you are wrong. Joh 8:32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
"And so will you soon enough."
Hmmm... Too late on that last bit of advice, wasn't I?
Thanks for re-affirming my doom.
It's not too late for you is it? You're still alive aren't ya?
It's a real pity that Ezekiel didn't know of Jesus, the requirement for faith and the New Covenant, and that God didn't see fit to tell him about those things, isn't it? I see nothing about his prophecies that declares that anyone will be saved after God makes Himself known in such a fashion.
In fact, according to Zeke there, it looks like only the Israelites will have mercy shown to them. Everyone else is hosed.
No, not everybody. But the conversion of Israel is in there, so yes Ezekiel knew of the Messiah and the new Covenant.
There is a lot about the judgment of Israel's enemies, but as we are witnessing today, thousands of muslims are converting to christianity, after hundreds of years of fierce resistance to the Gospel. Yet another sign of the end times..
I'm praying that the destruction of SF and LA puts the fear of God in you Dave.
That could be the beginning for you.
Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Shalom!
Dani' El Kabong
Dani' El wrote:
ReplyDelete"No, no it's kind of boring."
Alrighty, then. Not only is your mind made up, but you're also unwilling to entertain ideas contrary to your own for the sake of discussion which might (if you actually brought your "A" game) change some minds.
You're certainly not doing Dan any favors, that much is clear.
Neither I nor my brother Dan are interesting in doing ourselves any favors.
ReplyDeleteYou have heard the gospel and hardened you heart against it, so now I pray that God will crack it open with a bit of fear.
Jud 1:22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction;
Jud 1:23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
No one is reasoned into faith.
The scribes and pharisees witnessed the miracles of Christ and it had no effect. Jesus' own brothers and sisters didn't believe in Him until God revealed the truth to them. So salvation does not come from any argument about science.
If you are interested in the truth, it will be shown to you soon.
I pray the God grants you repentance when you see it.
Besides, most of that last post was because I had some silly sauce on my froot loops this morning.
Forgive me.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIf the goal of your blog is to debunk atheism, why do you attack evolution? Shouldn't you be proving God's existence, instead? Your argument from ignorance does absolutely nothing to do this. It only shows your own hubris.
You think you KNOW how everything came to be, even though you've put forth no real effort to research these things on your own. You KNOW God did it and so you won't waste your time looking any further or entertain the idea that you might be wrong.
Meanwhile, you seem to believe that the men and women who have devoted their entire lives studying the universe and everything in it are, at best, misguided fools and, at worst, conspiratorial liars.
If you're going to debunk atheism, you should probably just go ahead and do it. You've been at this for five months, now. Stop wasting your time with red herrings and and concentrate on proving your case.
Dani CA,
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in one thing in this argument.
The Truth
Except that 'the Truth' is not the truth, is it? You have already predefined 'truth' such that it warrants a capital 'T' and takes on its own meaning, that is God's word, howsoever you interpret it. No opposing opinion could ever possibly, conceivably be right, no matter the evidence, because you've already decided what is 'Truth'. You will brook no argument to the contrary.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Dan of Golgotha,
ReplyDeleteThe quote mining is a tad disingenuous and automatically makes readers suspicious. Hawking, for example, was talking about relativity when he said that all physical theories break down at the beginning of the universe. Clearly it's a flaw in the theory which has yet to be addressed. But evolution can be isolated and functions aside from the singularity of the Big Bang. I expect the retort will be that "if the Big Bang makes no sense, then how can evolution possibly work?"
It's a good question. But I have two points I would like to make very clear:
1) Because science can't adequately explain something now, doesn't mean that it will not be able to in future. Who knows, but woe betide the fool who proclaims absolutes either way.
2) Evolution being false would not necessarily result in God existing.
Also, your point (2) is egregiously flawed. You rail against, inter alia, evolution and relativity as being nothing more than theories and based on flimsy claims and evidence. Then you call it a law such that when you claim it doesn't work, only the supernatural could be responsible.
ReplyDeleteThat is called double standards.
Dani'el wrote I'm interested in one thing in this argument.
ReplyDeleteThe Truth.
If that were true, you'd actually be studying the theory of evolution to find out where it's accurate, and where it's faulty.
You're *not* interested in the Truth, Dani'el - sorry I have to put it so bluntly. You're only interested in confirming your beliefs, regardless of where the truth lies.
Dani'el wrote I don't have to bust open my computer and measure all the chips and wires to know it is a complex machine, that someone designed for a purpose.
ReplyDelete{.. snip ..}
All the way back to who made it all. You don't know. I do.
There is a vast expanse of ignorance between the first statement and the last. It's perfectly logical to suggest the former, but completely illogical to suggest the latter.
If you think logic suggests that the universe was created by some intelligent being, you probably wont get *too* much disagreement; although controversial, the idea makes sense.
On the other hand, you dismiss logic when you assert that the Bible provides inerrant detail about this being. That's perfectly fine with me - you have every right to believe what you want.
I'm contesting your segue from the logical idea to the irrational faith-based one. The second does not (in any way) follow from the first.
Dani' El wrote:
ReplyDelete"So salvation does not come from any argument about science."
Then why spend so much effort arguing against it?
Oh, we've also got the Bible's precedent that God has hardened hearts, so I wonder if I hardened my own or if God did it for me. How would I ever be able to tell the difference?
Incidentally, Dan, thanks for stopping by my blog several weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been writing much lately, as all my time is either spent on work or responding to stuff here at your pad (or at the Raytractors). I hope to start being a bit more productive in the near future.
Thanks again for stopping by
Dave W
ReplyDeleteOh, we've also got the Bible's precedent that God has hardened hearts, so I wonder if I hardened my own or if God did it for me. How would I ever be able to tell the difference?
So Dave...you're trying to figure out who made you hard?
So Dave...you're trying to figure out who made you hard?
ReplyDeleteHe's talking about his heart, not his coccyx...
--
Stan
A few quick notes...
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I maintain that irrespective of whatever half-assed arguments against science the Dans can come up with, they seem perfectly happy relying on that very science for everything that doesn't directly oppose their worldview. That's duplicitous.
Secondly, if you're going to ignore the actual truth of what scientists say, how they formulate their hypotheses and theories, and what constitutes a scientific law -- including the fact that these "laws" are purely composed of vast amounts of observational data -- then you're being willfully ignorant and/or dishonest.
Lastly, I maintain that any being which has the power to torture, and wields it, is unworthy of worship of any kind. I'm pretty sure you will both agree that your god is precisely this sort of unworthy monster. Nevermind the fact that any being requiring its subjects to worship it is already unworthy of worship, or even any being desiring worship from its subjects...
Oh, and lest I forget, the one thing that really separates science from religion is the fact that in science nothing is beyond scrutiny. I was reading an excerpt from a Daniel Dennett article in which he said something about how this is true of science, and it struck me that this is what truly fails in religion -- that those who hold their religious views as above any scrutiny are guilty of dogmatic ignorance.
Is your god so tiny and insecure that he must be boxed so? Must he be constantly reminded that he is so large and magnificent, even while you cage him so effectively? If he were half as good and mighty as you claim, he'd fix the many problems in his creation right now -- not after several thousand years of tyrannous theocracy, and a couple thousand more of unenlightened slavish ambiguity.
The greatest evidence, in my mind, against the theist's god -- at least one purported to be supremely "good" -- is the fact that I exist, and others appear to exist as well. The fact of an imperfect creation is incompatible with the existence of a perfect creator, and if I may be so bold as to offer you an easy statement to attack (though, please, also address the other statements), it is this:
I'll be damned if I'm going to worship a being who would torture any of its creation, for far lesser time periods than eternity.
--
Stan
Stan pointed out the obvious by writing I maintain that irrespective of whatever half-assed arguments against science the Dans can come up with, they seem perfectly happy relying on that very science for everything that doesn't directly oppose their worldview. That's duplicitous.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more, Stan. It's patently and flagrantly dishonest.
Dani'El,
ReplyDeleteThe " tv factory" makes the funny quotes. too funny.
Dave said: "You're certainly not doing Dan any favors, that much is clear."
I disagree
"The scribes and pharisees witnessed the miracles of Christ and it had no effect. Jesus' own brothers and sisters didn't believe in Him until God revealed the truth to them. So salvation does not come from any argument about science."
Brilliant truth.
Uct,
Meanwhile, you seem to believe that the men and women who have devoted their entire lives studying the Bible and everything in it are, at best, misguided fools and, at worst, conspiratorial liars.
"Stop wasting your time "
Blogging is wasting time? Come on now we both know that blogging is the cornerstone of any society.
I will say I have enjoyed myself more in this past 5 months then you will ever understand, maybe this blog is for selfish reasons.
Frodo,
No opposing opinion could ever possibly, conceivably be right, no matter the evidence, because you've already decided what is 'Truth'.
That was a fair claim for me personally but would it be fair for you also? No, right? You can be shown otherwise?
Atheist cannot say they have 100% certainty based on a non experience, it is based on a belief still. They have a belief based on lack of said experience, but they remain uncertain (lack of assurance). If I experienced that hot iron then I know the truth.
I agree with your point one but disagree with "2) Evolution being false would not necessarily result in God existing." There currently is two models and one does indeed falsify the other. They are on opposite poles of each other, agree?
Wem,
Dani'el wrote I'm interested in one thing in this argument.
The Truth.
"If that were true, you'd actually be studying the theory of evolution to find out where it's accurate, and where it's faulty."
Watch it that almost made the funny quote list. You crack me up!
If that were true you would be studding the flying spaghetti monster to find out where it's accurate, and where it's faulty. Have you?
Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.
"If you think logic suggests that the universe was created by some intelligent being, you probably wont get *too* much disagreement; although controversial, the idea makes sense."
You are making me gitty inside.
"On the other hand, you dismiss logic when you assert that the Bible provides inerrant detail about this being."
Be careful your presuppositions are showing, you might want to cover that up.
Can we say to you then(?):
You're *not* interested in the Truth, Whateverman - sorry I have to put it so bluntly. You're only interested in confirming your beliefs, regardless of where the truth lies.
Reynold what you asked Dave W was rudely hilarious. Stan took it to a "hole natha level"
Stan,
Can you at least admit that the scientists have a subjective viewpoint where science itself is objective?
"Lastly, I maintain that any being which has the power to torture, and wields it, is unworthy of worship of any kind."
Would you be more accepting of God if there were no such thing as "hell for eternity" for unsaved? I am currently looking at writings of believers who think that people just die instead of being tortured for eternity. Flimsy of a argument as it is, I would love that to be the truth because God is Mercy and that would mean my Mom would be just gone instead of tortured. The wages for sin is "death," the penalty for sin is "death." As in actually die and lose life, not eternity. The saved get eternity as the gift. I will look into it more but there are some mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion. The feel man made up the whole eternity in hell bit. So, if that were true and God loves you so much he wants to give you the gift of life for eternity but if you choose not to then that just means you die. Is that a more acceptable God to worship for you? Just curious? If I find anything substantial I will probably do a post about it. A survey might be in order.
Whateverman wrote "If that were true, you'd actually be studying the theory of evolution to find out where it's accurate, and where it's faulty."
ReplyDeleteDan asked If that were true you would be studding the flying spaghetti monster to find out where it's accurate, and where it's faulty. Have you?
Yes, I have. It is a particularly sharp parody of the way religious fundamentalists portray their own beliefs. Nothing more.
---
Whateverman also wrote "If you think logic suggests that the universe was created by some intelligent being, you probably wont get *too* much disagreement; although controversial, the idea makes sense.
On the other hand, you dismiss logic when you assert that the Bible provides inerrant detail about this being."
Dan wrote Be careful your presuppositions are showing, you might want to cover that up.
Can we say to you then(?):
You're *not* interested in the Truth, Whateverman - sorry I have to put it so bluntly. You're only interested in confirming your beliefs, regardless of where the truth lies.
First, please demonstrate what my presuppositions are, or what you believe them to be.
Second, I'm only in search of truth, Dan. I have no strongly - held opinions as to whether God exists or not, and you know this.
I suspect you were simply responding without thinking much about it. Perhaps that was easier that actually addressing the point of what I wrote...
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"There currently is two models and one does indeed falsify the other. They are on opposite poles of each other, agree?"
Not at all. Evolutionary theories falsify only one possible God concept out of an infinite number of them. It happens to be the one concept that you hold dear. But there are plenty of "theistic evolutionists" who have reconciled the two "models," for example. The two are only mutually contradictory when you claim that they are. It's not a facet of the science itself.
Dan also wrote:
"I am currently looking at writings of believers who think that people just die instead of being tortured for eternity. Flimsy of a argument as it is..."
You're calling the Bible "flimsy," Dan. The Divinely inspired author of Ecclesiastes believed, in no uncertain terms, that after death there was "nothing." You really, really need to read that book.
(Of course, that author also believed that there's no Heaven, either. His "nothing" was the end result for all people, saints and sinners alike. But still, it's in the Bible, so it has to be correct, yes?)
Dave,
ReplyDelete"Evolutionary theories falsify only one possible God concept out of an infinite number of them."
Are you being coy now?
There is a Creator of all and that is what is called God. By including the flying spaghetti monster, or anything else, isn't logical. The only most credible and documented god there is, is the God of the Bible i.e. Jesus.
"You're calling the Bible "flimsy," Dan."
Flimsy? No. Difficult? Yes.
We are sinners so we are incapable of interpreting God’s word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and makes it impossible as to 100% interpretive accuracy. That doesn't mean that accurate understanding of God’s Word is unreachable. But it does mean that we need to approach His word with care, humility, prayer, and reason and most of all the Holy Spirit. (carm)
On the other hand, you dismiss logic when you assert that the Bible provides inerrant detail about this being. That's perfectly fine with me - you have every right to believe what you want.
ReplyDeleteIt is inerrant, and in all the detail that God intended it to be.
But as you know, I have far more evidence beyond the Bible in my own experience.
I'm contesting your segue from the logical idea to the irrational faith-based one. The second does not (in any way) follow from the first.
I suppose I was referring to a biblical axiom, not unlike a naturalist axiom that most hold here.
You are to be commended for being far more open to the possiblity of a Creator God than most. I'm sure you know that you are in the minority.
But as you know, that is not the stance of many who argue for Evolution as a settled scientific fact.
Put yourself in my position.
How would you argue about this if you had witnessed the things I have seen? I know that I am a kind of unique position here, but you may see why I know that getting too deep into study of what I know to be false would be a waste of time.
I'm interested in the Truth, capitol T Truth, and I know it not from any kind of logical argument or scientific study, but from the revelation of it by God.
I've been critical of Ray Comfort (I wrote him in private, I think he would be ok if I shared) as sometimes I got the impression that he was contending WITH athiests and not contending FOR the faith at times.
He's pretty good at getting back on track tho'.
I only argue about what I know to be bad science to get back on track to spiritual things.
Sorry if I am clumsy in doing it.
Word verification.
"wingslym" ??????!!!
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"There is a Creator of all and that is what is called God. By including the flying spaghetti monster, or anything else, isn't logical. The only most credible and documented god there is, is the God of the Bible i.e. Jesus."
You're kidding, right? By the same logic, Spiderman is the one true superhero.
"Most credible and documented god" means "only possible god" in your dreams, Dan.
Besides, I was talking about the same God you worship, from the same book. Other people don't believe the same things that you do about your God. They have a different god-concept than you, one that allows God and evolution to peacefully co-exist. It is only your god-concept which is hostile to science.
Talk about being coy. Good grief.
"Flimsy? No. Difficult? Yes."
Nope, you called the theology in which death is the end "flimsy," even though that exact theology is plain to see in the very Bible you read.
"We are sinners so we are incapable of interpreting God’s word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and makes it impossible as to 100% interpretive accuracy. That doesn't mean that accurate understanding of God’s Word is unreachable. But it does mean that we need to approach His word with care, humility, prayer, and reason and most of all the Holy Spirit. (carm)"
More poor apologetics. When the Bible concurs with your viewpoint, its meaning is crystal clear and anyone who doesn't agree is in denial. But when the Bible disagrees with your ideas, it is a document which is difficult to interpret by us poor fallible humans.
Ecclesiastes is obviously your Achilles' Heel, Dan. You won't even acknowledge that that book exists, right there between Poverbs and Song of Songs. Qohelet's message is pretty bleak compared to the New Testament's promises, but they're both inerrant and Divinely inspired, are they not?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI was actually addressing Daniel when I said that "No opposing opinion could ever possibly, conceivably be right, no matter the evidence, because you've already decided what is 'Truth'." I was trying to address the fact that a zealot has redefined 'truth' such that it becomes 'Truth' and need not intersect with the actual truth.
Notice I said "need not", not "does not". Without miring ourselves in semantics, I agree that I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist. I have no belief because on the balance of probabilities, I do not find the case for God or any god to be convincing. Since you've admitted you are impervious to any case contradicting your beliefs, it's clear we are at an impasse.
As to my point (2), no, they are not on opposite poles. Any theory needs evidence before it should gain acceptance. If evolution was falsified, creationism/ID would still need a heap of evidence before it could be accepted. It's not a tug of war. Perhaps there are other possibilities, such as life spontaneously coming into existence. Obviously that is ridiculously unlikely, but it illustrates the point that science is not black and white. In a game of soccer, one team does not win merely by the other failing to score.
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"Blogging is wasting time? Come on now we both know that blogging is the cornerstone of any society.
I will say I have enjoyed myself more in this past 5 months then you will ever understand, maybe this blog is for selfish reasons."
Actually, Dan, I was referring to your never getting around to actually debunking atheism.
FrodoSaves wrote:
ReplyDelete"In a game of soccer, one team does not win merely by the other failing to score."
That's a really nice analogy. Thanks for using it. Good stuff.
Don't you hate all those ties in Soccer?
ReplyDeleteAnd those ridiculous shoot outs?
Actually, Dan, I was referring to your never getting around to actually debunking atheism.
Nobody has bunked it either. What?
Dave,
ReplyDeleteSpiderman is the one true superhero. I dare anyone to say otherwise.
"It is only your god-concept which is hostile to science."
That is absolutely not true. Science will someday reveal an intelligence. Someday the "God particle" may point to our Creator. Also, Creation/ID does not have to prove it is a science-it already is.
"Ecclesiastes is obviously your Achilles' Heel, Dan."
Quite the contrary. Ecclesiastes, in fact, points to the Messiah. (Ecclesiastes 1:1,12:9-14)
A meaningless life followed by oblivion is consistent with the purport of much of the rest of the Tanakh as to the state of the dead (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Genesis 3:19; Psalms 6:5; 115:17). I am still searching and researching though.
Frodo,
"In a game of soccer, one team does not win merely by the other failing to score."
It does when y'all are down by at least Three. (God,Jesus and The Bible)
Uct,
"Actually, Dan, I was referring to your never getting around to actually debunking atheism. "
Well, if that was my goal then my blog would be "debunking atheism." That being said, in light of this very comment hopefully I just showed you that I just debunked you (what you believe to be true), hence the name, "Debunking Atheists."
Slam debunked!
Dan!
ReplyDeleteYou give Unethical his bunk back this instant!
And go wash your hands.
;)
Would you be more accepting of God if there were no such thing as "hell for eternity" for unsaved?
ReplyDeleteI would be no more accepting of the concept of a deity than I am currently. No more, and no less. As I have stated multiple times, I am not dogmatically opposed to the concept of a deity, but what "evidence" I have seen is pitiful, at best, and at worst it is suggestive of an evil being. In any case, its mere existence, and even its potential benevolence, is insufficient to beg my worship. I have no cause whatsoever to worship any being, real or imaginary.
But I'm interested in where this is going...
I am currently looking at writings of believers who think that people just die instead of being tortured for eternity.
Why would you look at writings such as these, Dan? Are you troubled by the suggestion that your mighty god is perfectly capable of letting bygones be bygones, and simply allowing death to equate with oblivion?
If this troubles you, are you not also troubled that your supremely merciful god, in his infinite wisdom and power, has withheld the ability to end suffering completely?
Does it not trouble you further still that the best answer to be found for all of this is the silly notion that this god of yours chose to manifest himself in human form, and suffer great humiliation and suffering, for every human being? Why the freak show?
If sin is so horrible, but your god is able to suffer the penalty he has decreed on our behalf, then why attach strings -- especially when those very strings necessarily condemn the vast majority of the very humans to ostensibly be saved to [eternal torment / annihilation]? Isn't that a little inefficient for an infinitely powerful, infinitely wise being? Doesn't that necessarily mean that the vicarious sacrifice was a failure?
Do you not see why it is impossible for a person of principle to even consider worshiping the being you describe? Do you not see why it is inconceivable for an intelligent being to require another intelligent being to be so condescendingly servile?
Ponder all that, if you will, and let me know.
Incidentally, while you're researching the writings of Christians who suggest the unsaved are merely annihilated at death, consider the fact that Jesus is recorded as saying the following regarding hell and death:
Luke 9:42-48: 42"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.[c] 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.[d] 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where
" 'their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.'
(Note in verse 48 he is quoting Isaiah, which hurts the chances of describing death as mere annihilation. Ironically, despite the evil and petty nature of the god of the OT, its concept regarding death is, as Dave W. has repeatedly noted, much more palatable than the one Jesus describes...)
More? How about Luke 16:19-31, in which Jesus describe hell as a "place of torment," where the rich man was "in agony in this fire"?
How about all of 2 Peter 2? Peter doesn't exactly paint a rosy picture of what will befall sinners, and unless there's an afterlife, there's no opportunity for the many punishments he describes to come to fruition...
[As an aside, 2 Peter 2:20 pretty well destroys your notion of True Christians™.]
So you go ahead and wrestle with the notion that your big, tough god is the type I would refuse to worship even if I felt otherwise compelled to do so. Not only does this god exercise the power to torture -- on infinite timescales -- but he also withholds the power to eliminate suffering.
I have made analogies with you before concerning the fact that a parent who left a loaded gun on his kitchen table, and told his children to leave it be, would be found criminally negligent. I have made this to remind you that your god is every bit as guilty as we may be, assuming the story in Genesis is more than a fairy tale. In the same way as this analogy, if an adult fails to render reasonable assistance (in certain states and/or provinces), that adult may likewise be found criminally negligent.
Funny that your god is batting 1.000 here.
So I apologize, this could probably have been two or even three separate posts, but the three main points are as follows:
1. This-life suffering or after-life suffering, any being as powerful as your god is alleged to be has a duty to prevent, rather than proscribe.
2. Your curiosity regarding annihilation versus eternal suffering is telling, but your bible does indeed describe hell as eternal torment.
3. The notion that any being wants/needs/enjoys being worshiped is ludicrously human, and even then only by the most pompous narcissists among us.
Your turn.
--
Stan
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"Science will someday reveal an intelligence."
"Scientism" is the attitude that given enough time and resources, science will be able to answer any question we might have. It is a ridiculous attitude, and creationists correctly (!) criticize scientism when they see it. Unfortunately, by your above statement, you've got scientism out the wazoo.
"Also, Creation/ID does not have to prove it is a science-it already is."
ID has never been, and will never be a science so long as ID proponents refuse to do any research which doesn't wind up accidentally supporting evolution, insist that ID is nothing more a criticism of evolution, and deny that the implementation of the design is a valid and logically required question for investigation.
Biblically literal creationism is more honest that ID, and such creationists have actually tried to do research, but the research has been invariably flawed and the conclusions reached have invariably required extra-Biblical apologetics.
"Quite the contrary. Ecclesiastes, in fact, points to the Messiah. (Ecclesiastes 1:1,12:9-14)"
Sure, the first and last verses are Messianic, but so what? The rest of it - the majority of 12 chapters in between the verses you cite - contradicts the New Testament's promises. Nobody denies that the Jews are waiting for their Messiah to come along, so one would expect an old Jewish tale (predating Christ by 250 years or so) to include talk of a Messiah.
"A meaningless life followed by oblivion is consistent with the purport of much of the rest of the Tanakh as to the state of the dead (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Genesis 3:19; Psalms 6:5; 115:17)."
Indeed, but it still contradicts what Jesus said about the death of the body. If you're a Catholic, then Ecclesiastes doesn't contradict the "official" definition of Hell, but if you're a Christian of any sort, then Ecclesiastes contradicts the idea of everlasting life after death. (No fair making up apologetics that rely upon non-Biblical speculation about how they might be compatible.)
"I am still searching and researching though."
Good luck with that. Just remember that all of Ecclesiastes and all of the New Testament must both be error-free in their details. Right?
frodo wrote-
ReplyDeleteI was actually addressing Daniel when I said that "No opposing opinion could ever possibly, conceivably be right, no matter the evidence, because you've already decided what is 'Truth'." I was trying to address the fact that a zealot has redefined 'truth' such that it becomes 'Truth' and need not intersect with the actual truth.
Or what I know can indeed be the Truth?
Is that not possible?
There was no "decision" on my part in the matter. The Truth was revealed to me. Period.
For the sake of argument. IF I am not a fantastic liar, or delusional, and have in fact told the "T"ruth on my blog, all of it.
Then could I not claim to know the "T"ruth about God.
No, not all of it, or in perfection, but enough to dismiss any atheist argument as being error?
This is why I don't spend a lot of time debating about evolution, or islam, or anything else.
I've got my proof.
And the whole point of my being here is to tell you that you will have it too. Very soon.
The whole centuries long argument will come crashing down, so everyone, please forgive me if I have little patience for it.
I know in your eyes this must seem narrow minded and ignorant, but that will change soon.
I wondered after hanging out on Atheist Central for a few weeks if this type of discussion was scriptural or fruitful.
And I came to the conclusion that it probably is not, once a certain point has been reached.
So I will continue to drop by and if something comes up that is in my line of work, than I'll comment.
Or at least crack a joke or two.
Shalom,
Dani' El
By Frodo, this is good fun, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIF I am not a fantastic liar, or delusional, and have in fact told the "T"ruth on my blog, all of it.
Then could I not claim to know the "T"ruth about God.
No, not all of it, or in perfection, but enough to dismiss any atheist argument as being error?
You could claim it, but you wouldn't be able to convince anyone, because "personal" truths aren't falsifiable and aren't scientific. That's why I said before I don't doubt the sincerity of your convictions, but from our respective positions we are totally incapable of persuading each other. Your own personal revelation is not going to sway me, and my appeals to reason and evidence move you not.
I know in your eyes this must seem narrow minded and ignorant, but that will change soon.
Well you're half-right.
Nobody has bunked it either. What?
Are you offering to bunk with me? What?
Or at least crack a joke or two.
Ah, finally something I can relate to. We give each other a hard time, but I'm convinced it's a sign of respect, and I will brook no evidence to the contrary.
:P
Oh for frodo's sake!
ReplyDeleteIt will be proven, all of it in the judgment of SF and LA.
That's the undeniable, scientific verifiable proof to come I'm talking about.
I'll agree to bunking but no spooning, and that includes Whateverman.
And I confess to being VERY narrow minded, as it is written-
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
So I guess that leaves ignorant.
And I do appreciate a good, and even sarcastic, sparring partner.
Pro 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"Well, if that was my goal then my blog would be "debunking atheism." That being said, in light of this very comment hopefully I just showed you that I just debunked you (what you believe to be true), hence the name, "Debunking Atheists."
"Slam debunked!"
Wow... You got me there. I thought you were more genuine than that. I guess I assumed that when you claimed to be debunking atheists, you'd at least attempt to address that which makes them atheists...their lack of belief in a god.
So if our lack of belief is not your target, what is? If I tell you I have a dollar in my pocket, will you attempt to debunk that? If I tell you I have a glass eye, will you go after that statement, as well?
And if you don't care to address our atheism, why are you EXCLUSIVELY "debunking" atheists?
Dani'el wrote I'll agree to bunking but no spooning, and that includes Whateverman.
ReplyDelete>.<
"I thought you were more genuine than that. I guess I assumed that when you claimed to be debunking atheists, you'd at least attempt to address that which makes them atheists...their lack of belief in a god."
ReplyDeleteI feel that I am very genuine and practical. I know full well that I cannot prove there is a God to any of you. I know full well that I cannot convince you based on a personal testimony. Even Frodo is smart enough to understand this and he just taped into it a bit: "You could claim it, but you wouldn't be able to convince anyone, because "personal" truths aren't falsifiable and aren't scientific. That's why I said before I don't doubt the sincerity of your convictions, but from our respective positions we are totally incapable of persuading each other. Your own personal revelation is not going to sway me, and my appeals to reason and evidence move you not."
You see I am not here to convince you through the intellect that God exists. I am here to show you that you are fallible and that your reasoning is way off. To show you that your worldview got screwed up along the way. I cannot with honesty sit here and believe that I can debunk an entire failed belief system of that there is no God, but what I could do if I connect with many of you on a personal level and try to reason through common sense and logic that maybe, just maybe a God indeed exists. That is the purpose of a blog right? TO converse on a personal level.
In my attempt to plant seeds I was hoping the hostility of many atheists would go away. To, in fact, personalize it. If y'all are talking to a real person with real feelings and some resemblance of a real life then possibly you would turn away from being so angry at the 'concept' of Christianity and focus on the "person" as to why you feel the way you do. To me 'debunking atheism' is open mike night or open air preaching. "You wanna know what wrong with atheism..." but I wanted it to be much more personal then that. To have a conversation with a real person about real issues. To dig ones mind as to how and why they reached the position they came too. To be specific instead of general. To talk to one instead of a thousand. To water one seed at a time.
"Well then I get all excited, I'm like JoJo, the Indian circus boy with a pretty new pet. The pet is my possible sale. Oh, my pretty little pet, I love you. So, I stroke it, and I pet it, and I massage it. Hehe, I love it, I love my little naughty pet, you're naughty! And then I take my naughty pet and I go (tears dinner roll apart) chhhhhhhh, chhhhhhhhh, OOOOHHHHHHH. I KILLED IT! I KILLED MY SALE! That's when I blow it."
I am here to show you that you are fallible and that your reasoning is way off
ReplyDeleteI've been waiting for this bit for a while now...
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"You see I am not here to convince you through the intellect that God exists. I am here to show you that you are fallible and that your reasoning is way off."
I don't think those two sentences could be more self-contradictory when applied towards people who are mostly evidentialists. To show "God's power" you're going to have to appeal to our intellects.
"If y'all are talking to a real person with real feelings and some resemblance of a real life then possibly you would turn away from being so angry at the 'concept' of Christianity and focus on the "person" as to why you feel the way you do."
See, you've got it all backwards. There's very little that's inherently wrong with Christianity, it is instead the actual Christians who anger me.
There's no point in getting angry at a concept, anyway, since ideas won't go away just because I argue against them. It is instead the people who hold onto irrational ideas who present a clear and present danger to society, not the ideas themselves.
Dave W said There's very little that's inherently wrong with Christianity, it is instead the actual Christians who anger me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure all Raytractors would agree with this, but I sure do. Bingo, bam, hit the nail on the head, etc.
I don't have much of a problem with the religion itself. It's how the individual Christians behave that causes me to react negatively.
What, Dave,
ReplyDeleteBefore I had any discernment, the hypocrites had that effect on me as well.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
If you think that Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker etc are christians then you are wrong as I once was. Satan sets up these clowns so that he can point his finger at them and say, "See! This is christianity!"
But then after my eyes were opened, and I learned about the great apostasy of the last days, the false teachers? I learned from God's own word that they were hypocrites, frauds.
I saw through it all.
If you want to see what real christians are doing today go to VoiceoftheMartyrs.com
I firmly beleive that there are more genuine saints in China than America today.
Isa 5:1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
Isa 5:2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
Isa 5:3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
Isa 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
Isa 5:5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
Isa 5:6 And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
Whateverman wrote:
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure all Raytractors would agree with this, but I sure do. Bingo, bam, hit the nail on the head, etc."
Thanks!
There's some wiggle room in my phrase "very little." It's pretty subjective. It seems at least a couple commenters here would say that the doctrine of Hell is a huge problem with the religion itself (for example). But the Catholic version is pretty mild in comparison to the fire-and-brimstone preachers, so once again, it's more the people that are the problem than the religion.
Dani' El wrote:
ReplyDelete"If you think that Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker etc are christians..."
I'm curious: what made you think I was not talking about you and the other Dan as Christians who torque me off?
Dave,
ReplyDeleteIf I wasn't torquing you off, then I wouldn't be telling the whole "T"ruth.
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
I could go with christianity lite (seeker friendly) or apostate (like the catholic doctrines you prefer) but that would be hateful to lie to you.
But anyway. I pray that Osteen, Robertson, Schuller etc torque you off too, but for different reasons.
A question. Do you question my intentions?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYour comment here:
"I am here to show you that you are fallible and that your reasoning is way off."
Doesn't have as much resonance as it could, because it comes from the same guy who said that 'not stamp-collecting' was a religion (among other things).
Besides, do you think it is news to us that we are fallible? One of the defining differences between us is that we recognize that we could be wrong and are actively engaged in a dialogue about something we do not have a concrete position on. You are the one who claims to speaking from an infallible position.
The fact that you cram so much wrong into a comment telling us that our reasoning is way off would seem to 'slam debunk' your own assertion.
Of course, I still enjoy the craic 'round here; keep it up!
Dani' El wrote:
ReplyDelete"I pray that Osteen, Robertson, Schuller etc torque you off too, but for different reasons."
Nope. Mostly the same reasons. Dunno what makes you think you're different.
Dave,
ReplyDelete"There's very little that's inherently wrong with Christianity, it is instead the actual Christians who anger me."
And Whateverman agreed: "I'm not sure all Raytractors would agree with this, but I sure do. Bingo, bam, hit the nail on the head, etc."
So then now we can all relate with each other and come to common grounds. Now, maybe, people will understand why I named it Debunking Atheists instead of "Atheism"
I know what you mean, Dan, but the phrase itself is awkward grammatically. You can't debunk a person - you can only debunk ideas.
ReplyDeleteStill, I've seen you explain it plenty of times, so I'm willing to go on a little faith here...
/rimshot
Nope. Mostly the same reasons. Dunno what makes you think you're different.
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot discern the difference than that indeed is the problem itself.
Though I tend to believe that was intended to be a cheap shot or insult. What ever man. (sorry Wem)
Dani' El wrote:
ReplyDelete"If you cannot discern the difference than that indeed is the problem itself."
Well, you're making an assumption about what it is in particular that annoys me about Christians, and then you're concluding that Robertson (et al) have that quality and you do not.
You've got a lot in common with Robertson. You're both mammals, male, you both live in the USA, etc. One of the things you have in common is extremely annoying to me.
Perhaps you'd like to play 20 questions?
Dave,
ReplyDeleteWell, we both have the prettiest sparkling blue eyes you ever saw, so that must be it.
I tell you what, to make friends I'm going to send you a christma...er seasons greetings present. It's a copy of the God Delusion in a custom ShamWow cover.
Enjoy!
Baruch Hashem!
Dani'El
Super bad reasoning is excreted onto the world wide web one more time!! Praise Jebus!!
ReplyDelete1. The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent.
I think fundamentalist christians being capable of procreation is all the refutation that this assertion really requires but seeing as how none of the apparent evidence of why intelligence is required is presented there is actually nothing to refute. Just a pointless assertion.
2. Mathematical infinity, singularities, and the "Big Bang" defy the laws of nature, showing scientifically that super-natural qualities, like God's infinite nature, can exist.
lol, that's funny. Natural phenomenon defy the laws of nature therefore the tooth-fairy CAN exist!!
3. A creator/designer/lawmaker is not intrinsically detectable when observing their design. Thus, one can't use an undetected Creator to disprove a Creator
ouch, the dumb in this one hurts a little. This is hilariously hypocrital. How many fundies present "creation" and claim that a designer is detectable by virtue of its existence.
Let me paraphase the above gibberish. You can't detect God through what he has made so pointing out the fact that there is no evidence for God can't be used as evidence that there is no God. Of course the same can be said of santa claus or any other mythalogical invention you like. Pointless cobblers.
4. All laws, man-made or otherwise, have common properties: They cause physical regularity. Thus, since man is made of "dust" and thus is part of the natural process, man's creative/lawmaking abilities can be tested in determining the origin of the universe.
Ok, you lost me. firstly, laws don't cause anything. After that, this assertion goes down hill. I can't even follow the reasoning for there on. Just when you think stupid people can't possibly get any dumber they surprise you.
The Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account.
Wow!
This should serve as an extreme embarrasment for any creationist. Granted, if you are a creationist you are probably not all that bright to begin with but honestly even you guys should have some standards!!!!