Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
WHAT?!!!?! Ethel never said that word for word, but it was implied several times, and he essentially affirmed that he believed this to be correct in his last post.

I did NO SUCH THING. I told you that you made it up the first time you posted that nonsense.

You aren't one to let reality get in the way are you?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?

The same question applies to the beginning of the Universe. How can causality be apply to how it came about?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Well we seem to have drifted off the topic of evolution again. I guess there isn't much more that can be said.

As for the Biblical stuff:

1. Nineveh would be destroyed, permanently
Bible passage: Nahum 3:19
Written: perhaps 614 BC
Fulfilled: 612 BC

Written perhaps 614 BC? Maybe it was 611 BC?

2. Babylon would rule Judah for 70 years
Bible passage: Jeremiah 25:11-12
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: about 605 BC to about 538 BC

Already addressed by Urban Ranger.

3. Tyre would never again be found
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: after 332 BC

This one is actually listed in the SAB's FalseProphecies section: both Jesus and Paul visited Tyre.

4. Babylon would be reduced to swampland
Bible passage: Isaiah 14:23
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC

As previously noted by Urban Ranger, this isn't a particularly remarkable prophecy. Except that Isaiah actually got it right, which is itself pretty unusual for any Biblical prophecy.

5. The Jews would regain control of Israel
Bible passage: Amos 9:14-15

A self-fulfilling prophecy. The Zionists rejected Uganda and insisted on Palestine because they wanted to fulfil this prophecy.

6. Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re- established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948

As previously noted: no.

7. Babylon's captive Jews would be freed by Cyrus
Bible passage: Isaiah 44:28

Nobody actually knows when Isaiah was written. It could easily have been more recent than this event.

8. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Bible passage: Micah 5:2
Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
Fulfilled: 5 BC

I recently started a thread on this topic: "...at the Church of the Nativity, the Birthplace of Jesus..." The prophecy refers to the wrong guy, there's no reason to believe Jesus actually was born in Bethlehem, and John says that he wasn't.

9. God will save the Jews and destroy their enemies
Bible passage: Jeremiah 30:11
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: Throughout history

YHWH was originally a war god, his function was to destroy the enemies of the Jews. But he seems to have been spectaculary inept at it. "But, the empires of the Nazis, Romans, Babylonians and Assyrians have vanished"? So did the Jewish kingdom of Solomon and David. The Jewish people have survived, but so did the populations of Nazi Germany, Rome, Babylon and Assyria. One reason why the Abrahamic religions have such profoundly sado-masochistic overtones (obsession with "sin" and divine punishment) is that the Jews were defeated by just about everyone they encountered, and the priesthood had to keep explaining why.

10. God's servant would be crucified with criminals
Bible passage: Isaiah 53:12
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 32 AD

This "prophecy" does not specifically refer to Jesus. It appears to be another masochistic spiel, retrospectively applied to Jesus because it seemed appropriate for him.

So we have TWO genuine fulfilled prophecies here (4 and 5), neither of which is particularly remarkable.

You have then followed this with a clearly fallacious argument, summarized thus:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evolution can account for the existence of certain objective moral values.
3. Objective values exist: "we all know it".
4. Therefore God exists.

Premise 2 directly contradicts premise 1: evolution explains the existence of certain moral values independently of the existence of God.

As for the Problem of Evil: there is a clear contradiction between the supposed divine attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence. ALL attemps to resolve the problem involve some form of denial of at least one of these premises: that God is omnipotent, or that God is omnibenevolent. Yours is no different. For an omnipotent being, there is no moral justification for permitting evil: it is NOT required (becuse God, if omnipotent, can achieve his aims without it). You are implying either that God doesn't have a better way of doing things (non-omnipotence), or that we have no right to expect better (non-omnibenevolence).

The Biblical God was neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent anyhow. Christian theologians have created this problem by making over-inflated claims about their God: "MY god is better than YOUR god" carried to the ultimate extreme.

[Ethelred]

God's omnibenvolence provides the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values in the world.

There is not one sign on Earth on in the Bible that Jehovah is omibenevolent. Exodus shows him as a pretty petty and viscious killer of innocents. His morals are suspect at best.

He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution." Professor Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at the University of Guelph, agrees. He explains:

Well it may not be easy but it can be done. You sure can't do it with the Bible as Jehovah is about as a bad an exemple of behaviour as can be found.

On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong

Nor does the Bible. It doesn't even come close to what most modern people think of rape.

Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

There are no absolutes so whats the problem with that. There is no absolute right and wrong in the Bible either. Just look at the punishments for rape.

But the fact is that objective moral values do exist, and we all know it.

Nonsense. Just ask a Serb what is moral to do to a Croate.

Actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They're moral abominations.

Not in the Bible. Jehovah demands at one point for the Jews to kill everone in a city. Children as well. If that isn't child abuse what the heck is?

But if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.

Boy and you have the gall to say I use bad logid. That was excreable. There are no objective moral values especially in the Bible.

This is as bad as the time a guy was saying god exists because we the word god in our language. He had obscured what he was doing and didn't even notice what he was he was really doing.

In regards to God's Omnipotence, God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities In addition to tangible, concrete objects like people and trees and chairs, philosophers have noticed that there also appear to be abstract objects, things like numbers, propositions, sets, and properties.

I though the previous claim was about as nonsensical as a believer could get. This is worse. Abstract ideas are human inventions. Even the term is a human invention.

It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity.

Its even more plausible to think that number exist whether we notice them or not. In case you haven't noticed we weren't around for the most of the Universes existance. There were only so many planets in the Solar system before we evolved. We assign a word to how many there are. Yet the number of them was still the same before we showed up.

We should therefore think of them as... the concepts of an unlimited mind: a divine, omnipotent mind.

Actually they would exist even without a universe. Just nothing would notice.

You are getting more illogical with each post.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I already did say what I thought. I just wanted to post these links because I found one of the articles I found through them to be interesting.

You posted two links. One was broken. The other led to at least a dozen links not an article. That is one reason why you should at least give a clue as the relevance of a link. I have no idea what you thought was of interest there. I still don't.

And I am glad to see that you have been elected Debate Regulator of Apolyton; I will have to be more careful not to deviate from your prescribed guidelines in the future.

If you want to be dificult go ahead. I made a reasonable request. If you don't like than go ahead. I too can post links without giving reason for doing so.

I think you will find these links of interest

http://battle1066.com/index.html

http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.xterror.com/

http://www.civfanatics.com/

But in truth, I am not trying to convince anyone anyhow (as doing that here at Apolyton is nigh an impossibilty).

Well thats good. It is only very difficult though. Sometimes its impossible. Other times it only appears that way. The catch is deciding which is which. I personally don't care. I like argueing anyway. It just nicer to know why a link is posted and what specificaly is relevant about it.

Where I go to check what the Bible actually says including in the original Hebrew and Greek.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

[DaShi]

Originally posted by LordAzreal


Sounds more to me like a war of words, rather than an argument. I'm guessing that the creationists might be hatching a plot to try and denounce evolution as wrong. Don't forget the Trojan Horse.

Anyway, I'm nothing more than a neutral observer of this, and I can say thus far that I am impressed by the effort everyone involved has made. What I believe is a hybrid of creation/evolution theory, and that neither can either be 100% proven/disproven.

It also seems that my previous comment has remained unnoticed...



There hasn't been much (if any) SCIENTIFIC proof on the Creationists side about Evolutionism's shortfalls. All that they have thrown at Evolutionists is bible-thumping drivel. Look out there, and you're bound to find scientific evidence pointing towards creation. A place to start might be the Creation Science website at http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm

But don't dismiss Creationist scientists as less intelligent than evolutionist scientists. That is simply an arrogant generalisation. Most of them do have university degrees.

55

Oooh, a hard one.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I asked first though.

I'm not the one who believes in entities that exist outside of space-time that create more entities that exist outside of space-time. That's only the theists. However, once you've started believing in two entities that exist outside of space-time, what's wrong with believing in three, five, or an infinite number?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Theological definitions that are based on the bible do not put the Judeo-Christianity god outside of spacetime.

Theological definitions that are based on the Bible actually do put God outside of spacetime "he" would have to have been in existance "before" spacetime in order to create it. Now the issue of whether or not he set up shop in "his" creation after "he" was finished with it is another matter altogether.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm not the one who believes in entities that exist outside of space-time that create more entities that exist outside of space-time.

Nether am I. UR was the one that posted that.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by monkspider
God's omnibenvolence provides the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values in the world.

As has been pointed out, you still need to provide evidence of these objective moral values. And no, saying "We all agree that there are objective moral values" is not evidence.

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Not true. Objective moral values can be functions of, for example, human communication--a process that does not require divine intervention.

Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point.

Note many, not all. I certainly don't agree, as explained in my previous paragraph.

Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life.

He did no such thing. He understood that meaning and value could not be derived from religion if we had no religion--he pointed out the hypocrisy of those who questioned God but did not question the morals that they derived from God. But, since God is not the only source of morals, (and for that matter since there are many superior sources of morals than God), belief in God is hardly a requirement for meaning--this is typically only the case for people who are waiting to die in order to achieve meaning in the afterlife in lieu of finding meaning in their current lives.

Rather, the question is, "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?"

They certainly can. Do you mean to use the term "absolute"? Because I agree that absolute moral values cannot exist without a magical source for them.

After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings?

Well, we're smarter than amoebas, for one thing. You don't need a God to figure that out.

They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on a infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

Spoken like a good post-modernist.

On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, if you can escape the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone.

Even without objective morality, you can still have an atheistic teleological moral view in which rape is wrong regardless of whether or not you're caught. You're grossly oversimplifying ethics--it's not all cookies and spankings.

Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

Whenever you feel angry, do you assume that God made you angry? Whenever you feel sad, do you assume that God made you sad? Whenever you laugh, do you assume that God made you laugh? If not, then why are you assigning a divine source to some emotions (like indignation) and not all emotions?

But the fact is that objective moral values do exist, and we all know it.

Like I said, this is a dismal proof.

There's no more reason to deny the objective existence of moral values than to deny the objective reality of the physical world.

Oh, so morals are tangible objects now? Can I go down to the store and buy me a jar of morals?

Actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They're moral abominations.

How do you know that you don't call them moral abominations merely because you've been conditioned by society to believe that they are?

Even Ruse himself admits, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says two plus two equals five."

Where's this quote from? I'd be interested in the context.

But if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.

You've yet to show that objective values exist, all you've done so far is assert that they exist.

In regards to God's Omnipotence, God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities

First off, abstract entities are the result of human intelligence, and do not provide any evidence that God exists. Secondly and more to your point, "Provides an explanation for the existence of abstract entities" is a far cry from "Is able to hurl lightning bolts from the sky" or "Is able to declare that Black is White and make it be so." I hardly see how providing an explanation for the existence of abstract entities constitutes omnipotence.

The theist has a plausible answer to that question. They are grounded in the mind of God.

The theist has yet to show that God is plausible. Furthermore, the atheist has an even more plausible explanation: abstract entities arise from human intelligence. The plausibility of God is severely questioned, while the plausibility of human intelligence is not.

It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity.

I've never heard that particular piece of tripe before.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Nether am I.

If you don't believe in God, then UR's question probably wasn't directed at you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by loinburger
If you don't believe in God, then UR's question probably wasn't directed at you.

I do believe in God. I was just wondering where he got the assumption that; If one argues that this Universe needs a creator, the same logic will demand that this creator needs a meta-creator, the meta-creator needs a meta-meta-creator, ad infinitum. It seemed odd.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I do believe in God. I was just wondering where he got the assumption that; If one argues that this Universe needs a creator, the same logic will demand that this creator needs a meta-creator, the meta-creator needs a meta-meta-creator, ad infinitum. It seemed odd.

Well, if we need a Creator that exists outside of space-time in order to create a singularity that also exists outside of space-time, then it makes sense that we ought to have a Creator for our Creator for our Creator etc.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by loinburger
then it makes sense that we ought to have a Creator for our Creator for our Creator etc.

How so? We are talking about something that happened "before" the existance of spacetime and the Law of Causality, so why would the same rules apply?

I should note for the record that I have absolutely no interest in proving the existance of God on this board because I have seen enough of those threads to know how such an endeavor turns out. It was just the post by UR that caught my interest.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How so? We are talking about something that happened "before" the existance of spacetime and the Law of Causality, so why would the same rules apply?

If you've already done it once (if you've already made a God to create a singularity), why stop there? Why only once? I could understand "not at all," i.e. no creator outside of space-time, or I could understand "infinite," i.e. infinite creators, but using one creator strikes me as completely arbitrary.

[monkspider]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ethelred

Your misquotation is going beyond the bound of accident. I didn't say that and I am through responding to the falsified version of what I said. Do it again I won't pretend its an accident.

\
Strange, you seemed to be accepting this so-called "misquotation" as fact in a past post.

The Bible is wrong. Its that simple.

Good job Ethel

The Bible was assembled from parts after the Diaspora. Any disproven prophecies were left out.

I would love to see ten pieces of evidence validating this. I don't think it's possible..but I would love to see them

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

Says who, you?

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

See above

May have had dates massaged after the fact as well. You certainly do that yourself so I see no reason to think others that believe wouldn't do the same.

*MAY* have, i love how your "evidence" is rooted in what might have been.

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

See above

.

Your version of the Bible has been altered.

Is this the same bible that has "Noe" instead of Noah?

false. As even you say the prediction was for 430 years. Thats a failed prophecy. It matters not what excuses someone comes up with later the fact of the matter is that it didn't happen.

Re-read my post, it is not a matter of "excuses"

subject to alteration over time.

Again, no proof for these wild statements

Does not fit the challenge. There is no reason except the claim in the New Testament to believe Jesus was born is Bethalem.

Again, a case of throwing out wild allegations

Here is a failed prophecy from the chapter before that I spoted while checking number 10.

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

n the first Jehovah says Cain will be a vagabond forever.

Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment [is] greater than I can bear.

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon

Then

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

This is not a vagabond being described there. He get married, has children and founds a city. If that isn't a failed prophecy nothing is.

Vagabond vag·a·bond Pronunciation Key (vg-bnd)
n.

A person without a permanent home who moves from place to place.
A vagrant; a tramp.
A wanderer; a rover.

Just because he founds a city and has a wife doesn't mean that he isn't, in the larger sense, a wanderer. I could be wandering around and happen to found a city and meet a hot chick.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ethelred


The same question applies to the beginning of the Universe. How can causality be apply to how it came about?

That which began to exist has a cause.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ethelred


There is not one sign on Earth on in the Bible that Jehovah is omibenevolent. .

Nonsense, with God there everything would be morally indifferent. We would just be nihilistic creatures of nature.

There is no absolute right and wrong in the Bible either. Just look at the punishments for rape.

Rape is frowned upon, where are you going with this?

Nonsense. Just ask a Serb what is moral to do to a Croate.

There may be some people who are morally indifferent to what people as a whole are not. This is irrelevant. Also, I think any Serbs at this forum would take offense to have their race portrayed in such a light.

Not in the Bible. Jehovah demands at one point for the Jews to kill everone in a city.

The people listed for complete destruction in Deuteronomy were the most wicked and vile people to ever exist on the earth, at least until our own modern era. The Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites and Jebusites were the scum of the earth. (We will refer to them as Canaanite Nations.)

These nations had turned completely away from the God of Noah and had become thoroughly pagan. Their lives were filled with demonic religious beliefs and practices.

The religious Temples were filled with sexual orgies involving temple prostitutes (male and female) engaged in heterosexual, homosexual and bestial sex. The utter perversion involved child sexual abuse and sadomasochistic practices.

Moreover, these people threatened the existance of the Jews, who were assigned to be the people to carry God's word. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to go with God's judgement. Surely, you don't question why we fought people as evil as the Nazis?

There are no objective moral values especially in the Bible.

Good show Ethel. That's sig material.

You are getting more illogical with each post.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Not in the Bible. Jehovah demands at one point for the Jews to kill everone in a city.

The people listed for complete destruction in Deuteronomy were the most wicked and vile people to ever exist on the earth, at least until our own modern era. The Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites and Jebusites were the scum of the earth. (We will refer to them as Canaanite Nations.)

And the Nazis made similar comments about the Jews.

These nations had turned completely away from the God of Noah and had become thoroughly pagan. Their lives were filled with demonic religious beliefs and practices.

So even the children had to be exterminated because their parents worshipped the wrong gods?

The religious Temples were filled with sexual orgies involving temple prostitutes (male and female) engaged in heterosexual, homosexual and bestial sex. The utter perversion involved child sexual abuse and sadomasochistic practices.

And the Jews were performing human sacrifices in those days.

Moreover, these people threatened the existance of the Jews, who were assigned to be the people to carry God's word. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to go with God's judgement. Surely, you don't question why we fought people as evil as the Nazis?

Did you slaughter the entire male population of Germany and carry off their female virgins?

However, in addition to the usual propaganda, the Bible also makes it quite clear that the reason is simple "ethnic cleansing": they were exterminated because they were in the way. There was a double standard based on geographical location:

Deuteronomy 20:13-16 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
Strange, you seemed to be accepting this so-called "misquotation" as fact in a past post.

That is a lie. I never accepted and it pointed out that it was false.

Well I guess it should come as no suprise that someone that is rewriting the Bible should rewrite what I said to mean something else too.

You are a liar monkspider.

Good job Ethel

Its always good to tell the truth. You should try it some time.

I would love to see ten pieces of evidence validating this. I don't think it's possible..but I would love to see them

You would just make something up to cover up the truth again based on you present behaviour.

Its not my fault you are ignorant. The New Testament and the christians version of the Old Testament was assembeled when Constintine requested 50 copies of the scriptures. Prior to that there was no single collection of the parts that eventually became the Bible. More parts were added later to the version that was made for Constantine. Many writings were left out such as the Gnostic Gospel.

The Jews did the same around the same time for their version of the Bible.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/cea.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A307487

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A307487

I think thats enough. After all you didn't meet my challenge.

Says who, you?

I made the challenge. You did not meet it. As for the statement that any downtrodden people would say that. Well its exceedingly obvious. Only a closed mind could doubt it.

[QUOTE]
*MAY* have, i love how your "evidence" is rooted in what might have been. [QUOTE]

I love how you assert that the Flood might have been allegory despite the evidence against you. Its a FACT that parts of the Bible were left out. Its a fact that the opportunity to revise was there. There is no way to know what was done. However it is known that some things have been modified by christians. Josephus has a passage calling Jesus the Messiah. Which is ridiculous since Josephus clearly did not believe that. The version of Josephus with this highly suspect passage came from Eusebius. The same Eusebius that produced the 50 copies of scripture for Constantine.

Is this the same bible that has "Noe" instead of Noah?

No its your version with the alterations. I used the King James Version. I also looked at the Greek. Its clearly just a diffenence of spelling.

As I said the difference between your version and the KJV in this case could be justified. In fact its nearly identical. The odd thing was your interpretation of what it said rather than your source.

I can't help it if you can't read without changing the words of the Bible just as you distorted my words.

Re-read my post, it is not a matter of "excuses"

Re read my post. It was a patch job on a failed prophecy with a lot deliberate changing of dates and ingnoring vast swaths of time to force fit things. The original prophecy was false. Nothing can be done to change those false prophecies now. To bad the assemblers failed to notice this one. They could have changed it before it was made the standard.

Failed prophecy. And a bad patch job.

Again, no proof for these wild statements

Except that there is lots of proof. You just didn't know about it. Its not my fault you didn't try to meet the challenge. If you had tried this wouldn't have come up. Now you mind will be polluted with truth though I am sure you will distort just as you distort so much else.

Look at the links above. I made no wild statements.

Again, a case of throwing out wild allegations

Again a case of telling the truth. There is only gospel that claims Jesus was born in Nazareth and the gosple of John disagrees with that claim.

Are you calling John wild?

Just because he founds a city and has a wife doesn't mean that he isn't, in the larger sense, a wanderer. I could be wandering around and happen to found a city and meet a hot chick.

You would no longer be a vagabond at that point. Cain wasn't.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider

That which began to exist has a cause.

That applies to any god as well. Just saying it was outside of space and time does not make that go away since the same exact claim can be made for the Metaverse from which the Universe arose. Same for the mathematics that rules our present Universe and the hypothetical Metaverse which is just as likely as a god.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I'm not saying that I'm on the creationists side. I'm not even saying that I worship any "God". I am saying that while both theories are in some places flawed, both theories DO have areas which cannot possibly be disproven, and that includes Creationism.

Two things:

1. How is Creationism a conherent scientific theory? It is not. I have yet to see it framed that way. Heck, it is not even a hypothesis.

2. Again, the burden of proof lies with the proponents, not opponents. Creationists are very fond of telling us that.

Originally posted by LordAzreal
And creationism doesn't simply revolve around YHWH, Jehova or Allah (those three are pretty much the same anyway). The purest form, the true form of creationism means that a supreme being of some sort somehow created the world. This supreme being could be a superior race of extra-terrestrials experimenting with sentient life for all we know.

Creationism (with the capital "C") denotes a literal interpretation of Genesis. Other forms of creationism might denote something else, just like God vs god.

Originally posted by LordAzreal
No. I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. What do unicorns and dragons have to do with spirituality?

That was a response to your accusation of "narrowmindedness," not of spirtuality.

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Another example of narrow-mindedness is your "assumptions" of spirituality. Have you even read into anything to do with Spirituality?

What are my assumptions of "sprituality?"

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Have you ever heard out people like the Dalai Lama?

How does Dalai Lama got to do with it?

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Spirituality is the path to enlightenment, and development of the soul.

So what is enligtenment and soul to you?

Originally posted by LordAzreal
To some, the worship of a "god" is a means to that end. To others, it isn't. The rest, don't have it, or it lies dormant within their being, creating the illusion that it doesn't.

What's this "it?" "Spirtuality?" If it is as defined by you, as " path to enlightenment," (whatever enlightenment is), how could it not exist for some individuals?

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I'm not saying that those who believe in a supernatural creator hold a monopoly on spirituality. I am a Buddhist. Whether or not a supreme being created the universe means absolutely nothing to me at all. It has no effect on how I live my life. And I don't see the sense in people hurting each other over this.

How does the debate over the existence of a supernatural entity "hurt" those who blindly believe in such an entity?

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I say that those who insult the spiritual ones are narrow-minded because they aren't letting them believe what they want.

Again, you somehow hold that the belief in a supernatural entity to be equivalent to "spirituality." How does that work?

Originally posted by LordAzreal
You are an evolutionist. Fine. That's no problem. Stop ramming your beliefs down everyone's throats. Sure the creationists do it too, but AN EYE FOR AN EYE IS NOT JUSTICE!!!

Evolution is not a belief. Furthermore, do you hold that it is a mistake to dispel untenable philosophical positions?

Originally posted by LordAzreal
That's what my side of the argument is. You can't just whack insults around like a tennis-ball in a heated match between Sampras and Agassi.

What insults?

Originally posted by LordAzreal
You can all believe what you want to believe, but just leave it at that.

How is evolution a belief?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What insults?

He must be talking about those rational and reasonable comments and questions you made.

[Ethelred]

Nonsense, with God there everything would be morally indifferent. We would just be nihilistic creatures of nature.

Well we allready know that Jehovah has done little for your morals. We are creatures of nature. Nihilism is for losers.

Morals are human. Not divine. No human has massacered as many as the Bible has Jehovah doing. The whole human race except eight. Thats pretty bad morals.

Rape is frowned upon, where are you going with this?

Frowned up yes. Not exactly a horrible punishment being frowned on. If you don't know where I am going you haven't read the Bible.

Lot offered his two daughter to be raped by a mob. He did not ask his daughters therefor he offering rape.

Lots of things in Deuteronomy chapter 22. It tiptoes around the word rape though.

The Bible never actually uses the word rape but its fairly clear that is what is being discussed in some places.

There may be some people who are morally indifferent to what people as a whole are not. This is irrelevant. Also, I think any Serbs at this forum would take offense to have their race portrayed in such a light.

Too bad for the Serbs that don't want to accept the reality of what happened in Yugoslavia. Serbs are a nationality not a race.

It is relevant. In fact if you check prison populations you find far less Agnostics and Atheist than in the general population. Plenty of christians though. Which is contrary to your thesis that morals come from god. I have no god and I am moral. You however keep lying about things I said. I guess your morals do come from Jehovah. He thought nothing of killing innocents as can be seen in Exodus and the Flood and many other places in the Bible.

The people listed for complete destruction in Deuteronomy were the most wicked and vile people to ever exist on the earth, at least until our own modern era. The Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites and Jebusites were the scum of the earth. (We will refer to them as Canaanite Nations.)

Israel was no better. They were just not as good at conquest. You sure are certain that the Israelites would never have done a spin job on their enemies aren't you? Keep in mind that EVERYONE was killed including the children. Children are inherently innocent of the crimes of their of their parents. So by your standards then its OK to kill infants if their parents are nasty.

Moreover, these people threatened the existance of the Jews, who were assigned to be the people to carry God's word. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to go with God's judgement. Surely, you don't question why we fought people as evil as the Nazis?

I have serious doubts about the Jews descriptions of their enemies. They lied about the Philistines so why not others. We did not exterminate everyone in Germany. We did not deliberatly murder every single man, woman, and child after we beat them. We try to be moral the Jews were not even close to moral in this instance. We only have the Jews word that they are chosen people of god in any case. If the Bible is full of errors, as it is, it is likely that this claim is another error. There must be a Jehovah for there to be a chosen people of Jehovah.

Good show Ethel. That's sig material.

Just because its true I wouldn't use it for a sig. Wait till hit 500 posts and you see the image I used to use on the Maximum PC forums before they did away with such things. I would more likely quote Hawkings or Darwin.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Creationism (with the capital "C") denotes a literal interpretation of Genesis. Other forms of creationism might denote something else, just like God vs god.

My creation beliefs [i]ARE[i] derived from these 'other' forms. These other forms aren't being represented in this argument as much as the more farfetched Book of Genesis forms. And that was the point I'm making.

That was a response to your accusation of "narrowmindedness," not of spirtuality.

Sorry, I guess I misread. But using dragons and unicorns in your argument sounded narrow-minded when you were discussing 'spirituality'.

How does Dalai Lama got to do with it?

He has the right ideas on what we call spirituality. He was just an example I used in trying to explain spirituality.

So what is enligtenment and soul to you?

Hard to explain really. It would end up too deep for the sake of this creation vs. evolution argument.

What's this "it?" "Spirtuality?" If it is as defined by you, as " path to enlightenment," (whatever enlightenment is), how could it not exist for some individuals?

I didn't say it doesn't exist for some. It simply appears that way sometimes. But everyone has their own path to follow.

How does the debate over the existence of a supernatural entity "hurt" those who blindly believe in such an entity?

It may sound like arrogance on such people's part, but it hurts them to be bluntly and directly told "You are WRONG!". Its in our nature as human beings to want to be right all the time. They're entitled to believe whatever they want to believe. I lost count of how many times I've had to say that in this argument.

Again, you somehow hold that the belief in a supernatural entity to be equivalent to "spirituality." How does that work?

To some people, they feel their souls are better off in the presence of a supernatural entity, or a 'god'.

Evolution is not a belief. Furthermore, do you hold that it is a mistake to dispel untenable philosophical positions?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it is a mistake to be so blunt in saying "You are WRONG!". And how isn't Evolution a belief.

What insults?

Did I say insults? Damn. I exaggerated a little. Nevermind.

How is evolution a belief?

Again, how isn't it a belief? It is something people believe in. Isn't that what a belief is?



Anyway, I've had it. This debate is going on too long, with no progress being made either way. I'm trying to maintain a position as a third party observer making the occasional comment, such as "Evolution has its flaws", and "The Bible can't possibly count as evidence in this debate... go and look for other proof" to try and set new directions. And now I've been pulled down into this argument. Now, I'm hoisting myself out. Goodbye all, and I hope that the argument gets resolved soon (either way... it doesn't matter). I'm unsubscribing to this thread and no longer looking at it. Don't bother replying to anything I say because I'm not interested anymore.

[Urban Ranger]

Monkspider,

I was going to write some long-winded critique of your post, but I had a change of heart. Consider my formulation of the Problem of Evil:

1. The Christian god is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing [Orthodox Christian doctrines]

2. An all-good being will attempt to maximise good by eradicating evil

3. An all-powerful being has the ability to eradicate evil

4. An all-knowing being knows how to eradicate evil

5. Therefore, evil does not coexist with an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being

6. Evil exists

7. Therefore, God does not exist


-=Vagrant=-,

[Ethelred]

It may sound like arrogance on such people's part, but it hurts them to be bluntly and directly told "You are WRONG!". Its in our nature as human beings to want to be right all the time. They're entitled to believe whatever they want to believe. I lost count of how many times I've had to say that in this argument.

They are entitled to believe whatever they want. No one is denying that. Not here anyway.

It is the nature of a debate that someone will be called wrong. We all freely chose to enter the discussion. You included. No one is using force of any kind. Unless you consider the use of logic to be a force.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Monkspider,

I was going to write some long-winded critique of your post, but I had a change of heart. Consider my formulation of the Problem of Evil:

1. The Christian god is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing [Orthodox Christian doctrines]

2. An all-good being will attempt to maximise good by eradicating evil

3. An all-powerful being has the ability to eradicate evil

4. An all-knowing being knows how to eradicate evil

5. Therefore, evil does not coexist with an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being

6. Evil exists

7. Therefore, God does not exist


-=Vagrant=-,

funny

This brings me to the concept that if there is an being existing outside space and time manipulating our perception of reality, isn't really so smart, so all-powerful or so all-seeing. Maybe its (borrowing from O Brother Where Art Thou) dumber than a bag of hammers.

A retard god, possibly gone mad due to an eternity with no company. Drooling and uttering nonsensical or lunatic ravings.

Just maybe...

and people worship it.

[Tolls]

"A retard god, possibly gone mad due to an eternity with no company. Drooling and uttering nonsensical or lunatic ravings. "

Sounds like one of the Cthulhu-esque Outer Gods (or whatever their called)...

[Tolls]

"Azathoth - The Blind Idiot God

Ruler of the outer Gods, Azathoth has existed since the beginning of the universe, dwelling beyond normal space and time, where its amorphous body writhes unceasingly to the monotonous piping of a flute.
"