The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1gEXYhfIM

... Evolution is a weasel word ... it means different things depending on who is using the word ...
... and now I guess, we can also add Atheism itself to the lexicon of weasel words ...

... some Atheists are apparently 'positive' ... while others are 'negative'!!!

... some Atheists don't believe in God ... while other Atheists don't seem to know what they don't believe in!!!

... one thing is for certain ... God doesn't believe in Atheists!!!!:D

I'm not sure which group of Atheists are tbe more irrational ... the Atheists who believe that rocks are 'Atheists' ... or the Atheists who believe that they are evolved from rocks ... with nothing added but time!!!:eek::D

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

The idea that you cannot present atheism as a position, and that I cannot challenge atheism as a position is ridiculous because many people have done it before.

The word atheism should not exits; atheists shouldn't exist either.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

The word atheism should not exits; atheists shouldn't exist either.

Indeed, they should believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and stop this pettiness!

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not making it out to be an alternative religion in the slightest. Rather it is another position amongst many. That's only the truth, if one doesn't want to accept it, that's ones decision.

Banting on about how Christianity is wrong isn't going to bring people exclusively to atheism.

I've asked you three honest questions, and your answers have been deficient cop-outs to say the least. If we can't have a proper open dialogue, there's no point in even talking. The idea that you cannot present atheism as a position, and that I cannot challenge atheism as a position is ridiculous because many people have done it before.

Jakkass ffs just listen to what I'm saying to you. To try to give you an idea of what you're doing here, it would be like me telling you over and over again that the only true christians are creationists and that you need to advocate creationism or you're not discussing properly, that if you say you accept evolution that's a deficient cop out. That would be a fundamental misunderstanding of your position and what you are showing here is a fundamental misunderstanding of a common atheist position, at least of my position. You can say other atheists have argued certain positions all you want but I am not them. Atheism is not a dogma. I could point out that many many christians have advocated creationism but that does not mean that you also have to advocate it now does it?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, they should believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and stop this pettiness!

No they shouldn't! They should just stop calling themselves atheist, it's giving you guys' position respect, that frankly, it doesn't deserve.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, I've shown you clear examples of how atheists have made positive arguments for their position, and you continue to reject the possibility of this even happening. That's my issue. I can even name atheists who have done this in philosophy. It appears the expectations differ between a structured philosophical debate and online.

We are in a thread right now where christians argue for creationism and yet you still don't have to argue it yourself. What I am telling you is my position and the position of most atheists I know. Other people might have tried to argue about possible beings that may or may not exist outside our universe but that doesn't mean I have to. Once people start to do that they're on shakey ground, it comes down much more to a matter of opinion, just as theists like it. The good thing about my position is that it doesn't really require me to talk about possible beings that may or may not exist outside our universe but unfortunately my position has resulted in you telling me over and over that I'm not engaging in proper discussion and I'm giving deficient cop out answers because I refuse to discuss something that is unknowable to human beings and is completely irrelevant to the argument that I'm making

philologos

This thread is also meant to be about the Bible and Prophesy. Leaving that aside as it is known as the "Creationist" thread really.

Mind you, you misuse the term Creationism. Myself and J C are both creationists. The only difference is J C argues for a young earth and rejects macroevolution. I consider an older earth and evolution as likely possibilities in God's plan of Creation. We both believe in a Creation.

I just don't get how arguing against Christianity for you can be regarded as an argument for atheism when it clearly isn't.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

rejects macroevolution.

Trust me Jakkass, the macroevolution JC rejects isn't actually the "macroevolution" that scientists refer to.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Trust me Jakkass, the macroevolution JC rejects isn't actually the "macroevolution" that scientists refer to.

....oh ... yes it is!!!!:):D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....oh ... yes it is!!!!:):D

What is it then, and how is it impossible?

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

So basically you believe that every human being alive should be defined by their relationship to your particular set of beliefs ?

Your argument is that the default state of mind is not belief in 'nothing' but belief in something ?

Do people not refer to themselves as atheists?

Lack of God. A theos or Lack of theism A theism.

If people claim that God's existence is unlikely, or not the case at all. I am entitled to ask why.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

Do people not refer to themselves as atheists?

Lack of God. A theos.

If people claim that God's existence is unlikely, or not the case at all. I am entitled to ask why.

...you may well ask why ... but it has been my experience that a coherent answer is NEVER forthcoming!!!:eek::pac::):D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

What is it then, and how is it impossible?

...everything about Spontaneous Evolution is impossible ... and irrational!!!:rolleyes:;):p

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...everything about Spontaneous Evolution is impossible ... and irrational!!!:rolleyes:;):p

I asked you what "marcoevolution" was?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I asked you what "marcoevolution" was?

... 'macroevolution' is Spontaneous Evolution ... and it is the biological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine ... or a tooth fairy!!!!!!:D:)

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... 'macroevolution' is Spontaneous Evolution ... and it is the biological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine ... or a tooth fairy!!!!!!:D:)

That's not a definition. You're just swapping one made-up, meaningless term for another.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

... 'macroevolution' is Spontaneous Evolution ... and it is the biological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine ... or a tooth fairy!!!!!!:D:)

Jakkass, I think I proved my point.:)

@JC What's "microevolution"?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That's not a definition. You're just swapping one made-up, meaningless term for another.

... Macroevolution/Spontaneous Evolution certainly is a meaningless concept ... and it is indeed the biological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine ... or a tooth fairy!!!!!!:D

...all the rest is 'microevolution' using the inherent genetic diversity of the originally Created Kind!!!!:D:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

... Macroevolution/Spontaneous Evolution certainly is a meaningless concept ... and it is indeed the biological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine ... or a tooth fairy!!!!!!:D

...all the rest is 'microevolution' using the inherent genetic diversity of the originally Created Kind!!!!:D:)

So how does microevolution alone create such a diversity of life in 10,000 years?

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... Macroevolution/Spontaneous Evolution certainly is a meaningless concept ... and it is indeed the biological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine ... or a tooth fairy!!!!!!:D

You forgot to mention it was invented by creationists.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass, I think I proved my point.:)

... it all depends on what point you were trying to prove!!!:D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

So how does microevolution alone create such a diversity of life in 10,000 years?

...the way dog breeding has produced 1,000 very different breeds in 200 years ... by isolation and selection!!!!:D

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You forgot to mention it was invented by creationists.

...."Evolution was invented by Creationists" ... I thought I had heard it all ... but this takes the biscuit! ... in the annals of denial!!:D

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This thread is also meant to be about the Bible and Prophesy. Leaving that aside as it is known as the "Creationist" thread really.

Mind you, you misuse the term Creationism. Myself and J C are both creationists. The only difference is J C argues for a young earth and rejects macroevolution. I consider an older earth and evolution as likely possibilities in God's plan of Creation. We both believe in a Creation.

Creationism is the name of their movement. I'm not misusing it. Yes you both technically believe in forms of creation but it's perfectly valid to use it in the way I did

Jakkass wrote: »

I just don't get how arguing against Christianity for you can be regarded as an argument for atheism when it clearly isn't.

:facepalm:

And I just don't get how arguing for a generic god can be regarded as an argument for christianity when it clearly isn't

Or if I wished to straw man you as you are doing to me: I just don't get how arguing for god guiding evolution can be regarded as an argument for christianity when clearly you can't be a christian and accept evolution :rolleyes:
(I know you didn't actually make that argument here)


Would I be right in assuming that you're just going to keep repeating that over and over regardless of what I say? Bear in mind the problem here isn't you disagreeing with me, it's that you're not actually engaging in discussion. You just keep repeating the same mantra over and over and ignoring me every time I explain to you exactly how arguing against christianity supports my position.

You can tell me a million times that arguing against christianity isn't an argument for atheism but even the millionth time you say it you will still have a straw man understanding of atheism that has led you to this faulty conclusion. I have tried to correct you on this straw man but instead of listening to an atheist tell you what led him to atheism you have dismissed my attempts as cop outs. You insist that you have a better understanding of what atheism is than the atheist. It can't be this rational and logical position he's putting forward because you can't argue against that, it must be this other irrational belief that there is no god because it's easier to argue against that so you'll belittle his views and "call nonsense" on them and tell him he's not engaging in proper discussion and most importantly that his argument doesn't support your straw man of atheism, all in the hopes that he will eventually stop making the argument that you can't argue against, the one that shows the irrationality of your position and starts to fit into your straw man of the irrational atheist who believes there is no god so you can use all your philosophical arguments that argue for a divine cheese sandwich just as much as they do for the christian god

And I'm the one who's accused of not engaging in proper discussion :rolleyes:

You know Jakkass, these attempts at attacking my position (as distinct from arguing against it) are just showing that I'm right. You can't give a rational answer to why you find the word of 12 guys from 2000 years ago more compelling than the testimony of a million living eye witnesses and the evidence of your own eyes, it doesn't make any sense to an objective observer, so your whole line of argument here boils down to: "it doesn't matter that I can't answer that question because even though you've shown my position to be irrational that doesn't mean I have to become an atheist because I still believe there is a god". Well Jakkass, that's just fine with me. As I've said all along, whether you believe in god or not is irrelevant to this discussion, I am trying to show that accepting the word of a 2000 year old book over modern day miracle workers that you can see with your own eyes is irrational and it seems I have been successful since you have yet to explain why it's rational after 2 days. You don't have to become an atheist (by your definition) but you cannot give a rational justification for being a christian, leaving you with a god that may or may not exist but which cannot be defined. And as I keep saying, a god that cannot be defined is irrelevant to our existence. Even if it does exist, it might as well not. And if you reach that position, you will find that I am already there

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

divine cheese sandwich

You have absolutely no idea the kind of image that conjured in my head.:o

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...philosophical arguments that argue for a divine cheese sandwich

Before I became vegan, I used to enjoy grilled cheese sandwiches without the ketchup a lot of people seem to want to include. I could almost say the cheese sandwiches were "divine" if I was really hungry, in the right mood, and cheese of the right quality was nicely melted between two perfectly grilled slices of tasty(even before grilled) bread.

There are no divine soy cheese sandwiches, though, so I've learned to move on.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I am saying that criticism of Christianity, doesn't necessarily lead people to reject the existence of a God or gods, or religion. This is entirely true.

But this is the straw man again. Very few of the "criticism of Christianity" that atheists bring up are specific criticisms and can only be apply to Christianity and nothing else.

Most of them are actually criticism of theistic belief in the supernatural. They can specifically target a Christian belief but that doesn't mean the over all argument applies only to Christianity. The details are some what irrelevant. From the point of view of an atheist there isn't a whole lot of difference between pointing out the flaw in believing that the resurrection happened and pointing out the flaws in believing that Muhammad was visited by an angel in a cave in Arabia. It is one and the same really, a acceptance of supernatural stories based on a set of flaws and assumptions.

One can't help but think that you really aren't listening to what the criticisms of theism actually are.

philologos

I'm merely saying is it more effective to:
1) Criticise every religion one by one
2) Put your own case out for atheism

Even if you make a generic argument against theism, there is no guarantee that it will suit all belief in God.

It's not so much a strawman, but rather people being obtuse at the other end. My point's clear. Why should I be an atheist over anything else when you are criticising Christianity?

I can't believe the amount of excuse making that is going on for what are 3 straight forward questions.

You can tell me a million times that arguing against christianity isn't an argument for atheism but even the millionth time you say it you will still have a straw man understanding of atheism that has led you to this faulty conclusion.

How is it when atheists have made their argument before? This is ridiculous Sam, absolutely ridiculous.

This guy, is an atheist, yet he has made arguments that God if He exists and is omnipotent clearly isn't making himself evident (noseeum).

It's not strawmanning in the slightest if I can back my position up and show that atheists have done this in the past. That's why I am calling nonsense on this one.

Simple point here - I'm not interested in discussing with you if it is just going to be you questioning continually, and me answering. That's a one side argument, and a waste of my time.

philologos

And I just don't get how arguing for a generic god can be regarded as an argument for christianity when it clearly isn't

Or if I wished to straw man you as you are doing to me: I just don't get how arguing for god guiding evolution can be regarded as an argument for christianity when clearly you can't be a christian and accept evolution
(I know you didn't actually make that argument here)

The reason why I argue for the existence of a Creator first, is because it is one of the prerequisites for the rest of the argument. I made this clear. It's clear that not only do you not listen to me when I am suggesting why your approach is wrong, you also don't listen when I suggest why I argue certain things.

I even explained to liamw that I used a top down approach in dealing with this. If we cannot agree on the basics, there is zero point in arguing about much more complicated. I know what it is like when we attempt to deal with what is more complicated.

Call it a form of theistic reductionism in an argument. Go from what is small to construct what is big.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...."Evolution was invented by Creationists" ... I thought I had heard it all ... but this takes the biscuit! ... in the annals of denial!!:D

Unsurprisingly, you're misrepresenting what I said. The nonsense terms "macroevolution" and "spontaneous evolution" were invented by creationists.