Evolution vs Religion

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Freethinker, personal attacks are not necessary.

 

<blockquote>Quote

<hr>Instead you LIE. You LIE first by saying you admit you COULD be wrong, as proven by the 2nd lie. You lied by saying you never said such. <hr></blockquote>

What is this??? What is my first lie? "saying you admit you COULD be wrong" ??? Huh? How exactly is admitting that I could be wrong about something a lie? And your word games have lost me on the second lie as well. Where did I say that i never said such? truly, you like to twist things! It's almost laughable, if it weren't so very sad.

 

OK, try to follow.

 

In an earlier post you posted

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I'll always believe in God, and Jesus, and everything that I believe now.

 

OK, this can be accepted as an honest assertion of your personal POV. You are saying that changing your mind on this is NOT an OPTION. You have closed your mind to even the possibility that you could be wrong. That you will "always believe in God, and Jesus, and everything that I believe now." I see no room for interpretation, It is very clear and straight forward.

 

But then you next post:

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I have admitted not knowing everything, and not always being right in my reasoning or beliefs

 

these two obviously contradict each other. They can't both be TRUE, So one HAS to be a lie. Since you stated perfect knowledge of beliefs first, the 2nd one is assumed to be the lie.

 

Or is the first one the lie?

 

Regardless one of the two has to be.

 

Thus all I was doing was making an accurate assesment.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

instead of strengthening your case when asked to provide proof of evolution, you instead resort to your safe zone of crying "not fair, you can't ask me questions, I don't have to answer, I only have to sit here and make fun of you for believing in God".

 

That's quite a statement from the person that claimed to not know of ANY examples of speciation and has yet to disprove a single one of the long list I PROVIDED WHEN ASKED! While YOU are the person that has refused to provide any answers to MANY questions. The best you ever do is "no I can't prove god". WOW!

 

Where's tha math formula that you claimed was so overwhelming?

 

JNo, I have not provided a single positive proof of God. Neither have you explained the origin of human life.

 

EVOLUTION.

 

There now your turn

 

Prove god.

 

Yet you were very quick to attack someone that questioned you, resorting to taunts and word games (hence the beginning of the speciation/abiogenesis line).

 

Word games? Such as for getting people to use the RIGHT WORDS for the RIGHT SCIENCE. Sorry if I was trying to get people to use the ACTUAL NAMES of the fields of study under discussion. I did not know that establishing a base of reality was going to be a problem for you.

 

OK, yes I did.

 

According to you, you read every single post by me, correct?

 

Every post for that date on that thread is what I stated.

 

So tell me, which lie will YOU claim - either you didn't read every post as you claimed, or I did provide at LEAST a single quote.

You pick?

 

I pick door three. OK, I won;t bother going back and checking which messages were on which threads, I will assume I missed your post. If I did, I lied about it. Sorry.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<i> You must get used to being wrong eventually. The REALITY is that I HAVE had impact on other's views...In fact, in doing a search to find his site, I found his post at Amazon for a book I provided for someone (had the author, a friend of mine, get him a signed copy) after he and I were in a similar discussion years ago. He had been raised and was a fundy. He started to question and I kept providing more details and as here, problems with Christianity and the bible, ... </i>

 

It took me a little bit to make sense of this thought pattern, but I think I understand what you are saying. You are asserting that you will prove me wrong,

 

Ah, next time, if it takes you that long and you still aren't able to come to a correct understanding, perhaps you should ask someone else to help? I am not asserting that I "will" prove you wrong. I asserted that I DID prove you wrong. You asserted that such discussion posts will never change anyone's views. That is WRONG and I supplied info RE someone that my posts were personally responsible for pushing them into changing their mind. Interestingly, I used many of the same passages and posts as used here. However, unlike you self admitted close minded people that flatly state you will never change your mind, when he started to examine what I posted, he reviewed the info with an OPEN mind and DID change his mind.

 

and your reality is that you have converted a 'fundy' to atheism, and you use a book review from amazon.com as your illustration. Is that the gist of this? So then, is that balanced by my reality of the people in my church that have been invited by me, and later made a profession of faith? I mean, if I list their websites so you can read their testimonies, does this mean that my earlier statement "I know there isn't a single person that reads this that will change their mind about their beliefs" is incorrect?

 

If someone that you suckered into your church did so because of something they read in a similar posting, then YES. That is EXACTLY what is under discussion. Why do you find this confusing?

 

Come on!! Beyond the realm of this forum, you have the opportunity to influence many lives against God, just as I have the opportunity to influence many lives for God. My intention in making that statement was that this forum will not sway people towards or away from God. I generalized, as obviously someone can read these words, then change their beliefs 10 years from now. My point was that noone will read the dialogue between "Freethinker" and "IrishEyes" and decide on the spot, "by Jove (lol!), how wrong I've always been, I must convert to that way of thinking right this second".

 

Your appraoch to this mirrors your approach to biblical passages you get trapped by. You want to add all kinds of additional conditions when your claim is shown to be false. Again we see the difference between a Freethinkers mindset and a Christians. When it was shown that my statement about grass being red was incorrect, I did not argue about it. I did not try to come up with all sorts of convolutions to try and pretend I was still correct no matter how wrong I was. I just flat admitted I was wrong and went on with life.

 

While you are incapable of acknowledging error no matter how complete wrong you are shown to be. You will twist and squirm until you finally just start ignoring the discussion rather than EVER admit you were not correct.

 

This is one of the big reason that religion is a harmful mindset. The world is full of massive problems because someone could not admit they were wrong and correct the error rather than CYA!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<i> Ah yes, the PAGAN celebration of the goddess Ostara, or Ester. Where (snake) eggs celebrate fertility. Which Christians HIJACKED to celebrate the myth of Crusifiction and Resurrection along with almost a dozen other god myths that came BEFORE Christianity that also have some torture/ crucifiction/ death/ resurrection fairytale. </i>

I TOTALLY agree with you here, except to say that most of these PAGAN celebrations were incorporated into Christianity by Roman Catholicism, not the early Christian church.

 

1) pagan rituals and traditions are the BASIS for Christianity. Virgin birth from a god, birth among animals, visits by "wise men", working miracles, death by torture, crucifiction, resurrection, ... these are ALL from earlier pagan god and goddess worship. There are any number of god myths that predateed the Jesus myth that are built on these.

 

2) RC WAS the early church. Iraneous, Polycarp, Eusibus, ... were all part of the early church which evolved into what is today the RC.

 

Catholocism brought many pagan rituals and celebrations into "Christianity"

 

WRONG, they were there from the start. Yes more was added alter. But the entire Christian dogma is based on earlier Pagan concepts. There is nothing new or unique to the Christian mythology that does not appear in much older Pagan tradition.

 

Christians like to delude themselves into thinking they have something special, unique. But it is nothing but the same yada yada mind numbing ramblings that have been going on for thousands of years before. Abraham Lincoln said he included the religious mumbo jumbo because "it pleases the fools". (Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M. Nelson) Einstien said a similar thing "I cannot imagine a God ... although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

 

We both reject all of those other thousand plus god(desses) and for the same reasons. I merely add one more myth to the same list for the same reasons.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<

 

<i> GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.

JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.

LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).

1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).

RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.</i>

Here you use both OT and NT examples as a way to confuse people.

 

I see, *I* confuse people by using the BIBLE! I see!

 

Once again we see that the attempt is based on intentionally rejecting ACTUAL BIBLICAL PASSAGES for one reason or other. Yes I can see how you can remove contradictions by tearing out the passages you don't like!

 

I will go through them all if you wish, ... If you have more, ... I will have fun searching through my Bible and identifying the error in your logic regarding supposed contradictions as often as you want to post them.

 

Let's make it easy. I could paste pages upon pages of errors and contradictions. But you would just keep throwing away passages you didn't like and claim they didn't matter, or didn't say what they ACTUALLY SAID. I get tired of wasting time trying to get Christians to stick with what is ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE when discussing the bible.

 

So let's bring it down to one passage that is self contradictory. That way it isn't OT against NT, or some claimed translation error or other convoluted ramblings. It is based on a math error in the bible. So to make sure we are all on the same page, a short math lesson.

 

Geometry is a branch of mathematics that deals with the measurement, properties, and relationships of points, lines, angles, surfaces, and solids WWWebster.

 

One of it's formulas allows one to find a 3rd number when two others are known. Sometimes one of those numbers is a mathematical constant. A number that does not change. One of those numbers is pi. Pi is a number that represents the ratio between a circular objects radius/ diameter (distance ACROSS the circle) and it's circumference (distance AROUND the circle). Pi is a transcendental number. IT is a non-repeating number that goes on "forever". It is most often shown as pi=3.14. Even grade school kids are taught this.

 

The formula is C(ircumference)= D(iameter)*pi

 

Thus, if we KNOW the Diameter of a circle, we can KNOW the Circumference.

 

Let's say a circle is 10 inches in Diameter, then C=D*pi becomes

 

C=10*3.14

 

or

 

C=31.4

 

Now that isn't too hard is it?

 

Thus when the bible wrongly states:

 

1 Kings 7:23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

 

we see that the bible REQUIRES pi to be equal to 3.0, because it STATES D=10 and C=30

 

Thus C=D*pi or

 

30=10*pi

 

or

 

pi=3.0

 

Now the question becomes

 

1) will you PROVE that in fact pi DOES equal 3.0?

 

2) Which of the many convoluted attempts will you try to pass off?

 

I can't wait to see which one you pick!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

God claims lack ANY substance. Even here, the only "proof" that is ever offered is "well I can't provide ANY proof, but I KNOW it's true!".

 

do you love your mother?

if so prove it?

 

"Love" is an emotion, a PHYSICAL state of mind. A such, it would be simple to hook up any number of scientific equipment that measures FACTUAL interactions in the brain, heart, pulse, ...

 

Further, I can supply an extensive list of people that can factually verify my love. Including those in the hospice that were there with me while my mother was dying.

 

So YES, LOVE can be PROVEN objectively and Scientifically.

 

Now show us one for god!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

But don't pull that ole Shift the Burden of Proof crap AGAIN! There is no "i don't know for 100% that there isn't a god.. If there is nothing to even suggest the concept is valid, then any RATIONAL person rejects it.

 

i'm sure you believe in the human mind,but there is no proof of that

 

Hahaha, this is getting rediculous...

 

Although we may have problems if we use you as the subject! lol

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

WRONG THINKING is WRONG THINKING. It is NEVER OK to intentionally promote, or USE WRONG THINKING

 

 

is it "wrong thinking" to think about and kill someone?

 

Do you really need to ask?

 

That is truly scary!

 

It also shows that you ARE a Christian!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

by the way there has being murder well before there was any religion

 

PROVE IT!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

"And the mindset that allows one to accept murder as an acceptable process would also go away."

 

if there is no god than why is murder a bad thing?

 

Well it is obvious that if the Christian god myth is true, then murder is OK. But is there reason to not kill if the fear factor/ threat of eternal punishment (for doing what your god tells you to do) is not there? It is very easy to understand why it is to each and every person's benefit for themselves to not be killed. Thus if you as a person do not want to be killed, it would make sense that you hope others would follow the same thought process. Thus it is to your personal benefit to hold the POV that killing others is wrong, lest you be the one others might pick to be killed.

 

So YES, there are very good and logical reasons for killing being considered incorrect when god myths are removed. It is putting the god myths IN that makes killing a valid process.

 

if we are animals than murder is fine. animals kill everyday.

 

And I suppose you do not eat meat or wear animal skin products?

 

if i want something i'll take it.

 

You ARE a Christian, aren't you!

 

if we are animals than the only right or wrong in the world will be, if you do for yourself no matter what thats right, it seems that the world would be a very selfish place.

 

As I have PROVEN, non-belief is a much greater motivator to not kill than a god belief is. You ahve argued against it, but you have not supplied even the first proof to support your claim. So what else is new? WHile I have provided lots of verifyable statistics PROVING that almost all murders in the US are Christian.

 

Further, Christianity is the MOST SELFISH personal philosophy one can hold. The core goal of Christianity is Personal Salvation. This is based on the concept that one must do what ever needed to achieve salvation for THEMSELVES.

 

How much more selfish than that can you get?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

" Now I am too knowledgable to be believable! "

it's not that,its just that you bitter about something and alone

 

You mean besides my 4 kids and Significant other of 6 years? And extensive list of freinds.

 

And yes I am bitter. If you had to see your children picked on and even physically attacked by Loving Christian Children because my kids are non-believers. Or had to fight with their school because they were suspended for wearing a shirt with 666 on it. Or were fired because you were an Atheist in a Christian company. Or.... Yes you would be bitter while you are being FORCED to support religious ideology and see humans suffer because of Christian bigotry and ignorance.

 

But I am far from lonely.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Freethinker, Very nice try, but not quite!

 

<i> So you do not accept the 10C's? You do not support the efforts of other Christians to have the 10C in Schools, in Public Spaces and do not claim that the US is based on these laws?

Great, glad to hear it! Though I find it highly unusual. </i>

Trying the old 'twist the words around' game again, huh? Read what I wrote again, that's not at all what I said, or even implied.

 

Here we go again. YOU make a very specific statement. Then when you are corned because of the ultimate reality created by that statement, you want to CHANGE IT! When I asked about why you would support "laws" which were specifically addressed only to the Isrealites, you very directly stated that the 10C and the entire Mosaic Law (contents of the OT) do not apply to Christians.

 

What you SAID was:

 

I agree 100% here. The 10 were given to the people of God, later called Israelites. Christians are not under Mosaic Law, we are saved by grace through Christ's blood. Only the Jews that do not accept Christ as Messiah remain under Mosaic law.

 

You further explain your case by trying to claim my condemnation of the bible is wrong because I was holding you to the OT:

 

Here you use both OT and NT examples as a way to confuse people. Your examples of Noah, Job, Zechariah and Elizabeth are all examples of people that came BEFORE Christ.

 

I did not TWIST anything. I merely presented the REALITY of the extension of your spceific claims. But we can all see that you do not wish to be fenced in by things you claim. You prefer to be able to change your claims willy nilly as it pleases you! Again we get insites to the internal workings of the Christian Mindset.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<i> Talk about intentionally distorting the context! There is not a SINGLE SUGGESTION of Satan being in this PARABLE. And the FACT that it says, "bring them here and kill them in front of me" shows it does not relate to Satan. As those addressed in the PARABLE are not CAPABLE of killing Satan. Or would GOD not KNOW this? lol </i> This verse is referenced in many other places, including Revelation, where Christ returns and slays Lucifer's workers, with a sword coming from His mouth.

 

And had this quote said "bring them here and I will kill them in front of you", we might be able to sucker for your convolution. But IT DOESN'T!

 

I love the way you keep trying to ignore WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS. Instead, trying to INVENT words for it to replace WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN IT.

 

Face it, you CAN NOT resolve the specific stated tenet of killing non-believers unless you IGNORE WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE PASSAGE.

 

I never said that parables weren't contained in the Bible. They are used often, by Christ, as a teaching tool.

 

Yes and in this parable it's final teaching is "bring them here and kill them in front of me"

 

<i>You are struggling so hard to CHANGE what it says! Failing miserably at the attempt, but trying none the less... You SHOWED it by trying to CHANGE what it ACTUALLY says into something more acceptable to SECULAR morals and ethics.</i>

HAHAHA!! I think this is a pathetic attempt at shifting the focus of your failed attempts to prove 'contradictions'. Just as you can cut and paste till the cows come home from sites about evolution proof,

 

Yes, we have ALL noticed that you have failed compeletly to disprove even the first SCIENTIFIC PROOF of speciation. That no matter how much PROOF I supply, you provide NONE. Nor have you been able to refute a single assertion I have made.

 

Ya I know, I shouldn't use the bible to disprove the bible (OT against NT) or require you to stick to the ACTUAL TEXT of the bible or repost ACTUAL QUOTES FROM YOU to show what you REALLY said. All these things cause too much trouble for you....

 

<i> So you do use outside sourcces to check validity of the bible? </i>

Again, nice try. Did I say that i was checking the validity of the Bible? "Twist and Shout" should be your theme song! LOL!!

 

So once more I have to spend MY time to show YOU what YOU actually posted. I guess that is why you don;t see the obvious contradictions in the bible. Your short term memory is shot. You can't remember what the 1st example is long enough to compare it.

 

But to once more expose your continual inconsistancy and false statements, your Christian approach, yes you DID say:

 

that i was checking the validity of the Bible?

 

You very specifically stated:

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

WHERE did I EVER say that I didn't like what is actually in the Bible? I don't have to pretend it says or doesn't say anything! If I have a queston about a supposed contradiction, I study my Bible, and sometimes other texts,

 

In case you already forgot:

 

and sometimes other texts

 

So YES you DO say that when "checking the validity of the Bible" you "sometimes (use) other texts".

 

This is one of the reasons it is impossible to carry on an intellectually honest discussion with Christians. I have to spend way too much time forcing them to acknowledge what they actually SAY. Instead they want to make things up new every time.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<i>So suddenly YOU are GOD?

Or perhaps amoung other things, you don't understand what an ANALOGY is? This is another failed attempt I find Christians using. They invent incorrect analogies.

In order for an analogy it be VALID, the two things being compared HAVE to share a COMMON element DIRECTLY related to the item being compared.

So until YOU have created something and have COMPLETE control over it, any analogy attempting to make that connection is INVALID

Meanwhile, you have NOT shown where god being PLEASED with his creation does not contradict god NOT being pleased with his creation. It is STILL a biblical contradiction. </i>

Ok, I can't believe I have to exlain this to you, but here goes... The God of the Bible has many names, one of which in English translates loosely to "Father". My example of seeing my children and being pleased, then being displeased when they do something 'wrong' WAS an analogy.

 

And once more, you fail completely to undersrtand what makes an analogy VALID,. The 2n dsubject being compared need to SHARE THE SAME ABILITIES. While yes you can both be presented as parents, the analogy is based on PERFECT OMNISCIENCE. SO unless you can validate that YOU have perfect omniscience, it is NOT a VALID analogy.

[Freethinker]

Looks like I caught up!

[ScienceGuy]

I must ask why you answer everything with riddles? Do you really think of yourself as a freethinker or is that just a dream of yours? Please state for me your stance on evolution vs. religion. If it is pure evolution and a big bang with no higher power in charge, then I would like to see your explanation. Go through your idea of how we all got here and how you came to that conclusion so we can all pick apart your thoughts. Do you believe in God (or any god)? I will allow you to change your stance at any time. This is a learning process that we go through. I will change my stance if you can prove my theory is wrong. That is why I am here right now. Tell me why it is wrong, don't tell me my logic or reason can't be proven. If evolution can be proven wrong, would you agree that a God or some higher power might have created everything? It wouldn't take much to do it. I have already given you some hints on how to do it. The quote at the end of these posts comes from Darwin, but your smart you already knew that. The point is, he obviously believed it was possible that he was wrong. I also believe it is possible that I am wrong. I am a freethinker based on fact. Evolution has never been proven. It is full of holes or gaps, and hence theory. I must ask, what do you fill your gaps with?

[rileyj]

by the way there has being murder well before there was any religion

 

PROVE IT!

 

if you believe in evolution, than humans at some point had to commit murder to survive. before there was an intelligent human to concieve of a god. there were humans that had to kill for food territory and women .