Life in general
Friday, June 18, 2010
Atheism by it own admission has said there is a God. Why would so much energy be put into something that doesn't exist. It is not up the Christians to prove God as atheism has already confirmed that. It is now in the lap of atheist to defend their weak statement that there is not a God when of course they claim there is and they are going to prove there is not a God. I am really confused. Before there were atheists God created the heavens and the earth. They can't duplicate that feat. They have to do that to disprove God not vice versa. this is why there is nothing new being shown, nothing put slight of hand, confusion and misuse of information. The bottom line is that atheism can't prove there is not a God without admitting there is a God. They try to change history, identify what they are looking for(God), but are so inept to duplicate or come close to what God has done. Atheist say "show me" I challenge you. The specimen is there, look around. analyse, dissect and then try to replicate earth. I am looking forward to see this. Can you make it orbit the sun like God made the earth to do. The ball is in your court, don't tell me, show me. To me it is like a man who claims to invent a time machine. He has the diagram, the energy sourse, and precise instruction on how to assemble. Scientifically it should work because it worked in theory and is based on pure scientific fact. We all know he has all the facts about time, it's makeup and has carbon dated other objects to know exactly where in time he is going. It still doesn't work. Time travel doesn't work, it's impossible. We don't have the mental ability to time travel, but we have the ability to disect God? Athiest, baby steps first.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
"Atheism by it own admission has said there is a God."
Considering that you started out your post with a flat out lie... why should we care what else you have to say? (and a lie because I've specifically clarified what atheism is, and what atheists believe in relation to the idea of God multiple times in this discussion and yet you willfully state the opposite in a deliberate lie in an attempt to discredit atheists... that's a blatant lie utterly void of any semblance of honesty or integrity.)
Not believing in God no more says there is a God than not believing in the Easter Bunny says that there is a real Easter Bunny independent of the mere concept.
Thank you for illustrating your utter ignorance and failure to comprehend even the most basic aspects of atheism and reasoning etc (because it's not a false dichotomy here to say that you either have absolutely no ability to understand anything you read or have explained to you and utterly lack critical thinking skills and sound reason etc... or you're intentionally lying in the fact of knowing the truth and having had it explained to you multiple times. It's that simple.)
Our energy is not put into something that doesn't exist... it's put into combating the BELIEF in things that don't exist. And that BELIEF actually does exist, as evidenced by this very discussion.
(And that's only for the atheists that actually bother... most atheists simply don't believe and ignore you idiots who believe in primitive myths as fact. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any particular theology, God, gods, etc. All people are born atheists (as Jacks's article from yesterday correctly stated) and many people remain that way. Atheism no more needs God to be real to not believe in than we need the Easter Bunny to be real to not believe in.. or unicorns to be real not to believe in.)
Again, thank you for illustrating your lack of reasoning skills and understanding (or blatant willful lying).
"It is not up the Christians to prove God as atheism has already confirmed that."
Another flat out LIE, as just demonstrated.
Man... I'm not even going to bother with this message. This is probably the most flat out WRONG and dishonest post you've made yet.
Please go read my other comment about your absolute lack of honesty and integrity Don. You serve as a good example of what people should strive NOT to be like.
And that's actually quite sad.
Maybe I'll come back and continue illustrating point by point how breathtakingly dishonest and wrong this post of yours is... but frankly you're kind of ruining my morning with your lies. I really really really hate liars.
Thank you Justin for proving my point, but I will not call you an idiot or anything else. In your happy world the hollacost(sp) never happened, Martin Luther was the basis for the Nazi belief and history is wrong if not approved by you. Everyone is wrong but you. I thought televangalist were a bit strange, but your rational no way matches up to you intellect. You seem to have a great mind, please don't wste it on name calling.
It's not baseless name calling Don. They are accurate, point by point matches to your demonstrated behavior as I have explained numerous times and backed up with the links to explain how and why logic and reason and biases etc actually work.
And seeing as you refuse to acknowledge any of your mistakes, no matter how many times I ask you to... in spite of you being proven soundly wrong (on the days issue for instance), you aren't man enough to admit it.
And now trying to say that I deny the holocaust to try to make me look bad... yet another lie.
I've never denied the holocaust, and in fact trying to both say that I believe the Nazis caused the holocaust while simultaneously denying it... that's what YOU do Don, not me.
I have written on the holocaust specifically a great many times, right here on Facebook, specifying how many people actually died... MILLIONS of them... and not just Jews either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll
I guarantee you I know a hell of a lot more about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust than you do Don.
I've actually studied it at length not only because of the ignorant and provably false claims people like you like to make about it to try to fallaciously insult people... but because of its effects on history. Lessons we can learn about how leaders can direct the course of a country, social engineering, the rise of fascism, the actual facts about Hitler banning any books promoting Darwinism or any related science and also banning any books critical of Christianity and specifically promoting Christianity as an absolute necessity for a healthy people... and doing things like putting "God is with us" on their belt buckles, regularly attending Church and creating a strategic alliance with the Vatican etc.
People who actually care about the facts learn about history so that they don't repeat the same mistakes blindly.
Martin Luthers promotion of anti-Semitic ideas, specifically prompted by his belief in biblical scripture blaming them for the death of his God and Savior Jesus Christ, DID in fact contribute to the holocaust, which was very real.
(I've also specifically studied hate groups in the US such as the New Black Panthers, KKK, different factions of neo-Nazis and other white power groups... all the latter of which are humorously strongly pro-Christian as a core part of their ideology and militantly antisemitic as well as racist. I even specifically studied them first hand and have talked with hard-line neo-Nazis in person to try to learn more about how they think and perceive the world etc. We're talking large men with shaved heads, leather, the trademark black boots with white laces, covered in Nazi and rune tattoos, and pins with "14", "88", etc adorning their leather jackets... if you get the picture. I've done these things because I wanted to understand things, not because I agree with or condone them, and in fact I think racists are dangerous idiots just to be clear (which with you might not matter, as you don't pay attention to what I say anyway... *sigh* ))
Now with that said, ADMIT YOU'VE BEEN MISTAKEN Don. Stop lying about me, and stop contradicting yourself etc.
Do I need to just start responding to every one of your rambling fallacy ridden red herrings now with a mantra of "Admit you were wrong about the days. Be a man." over and over and over until you work up enough integrity and maturity to admit your mistake?
Because trust me, I will if that's what it takes.
And you'll look like the worse person for blatantly trying to avoid it.
Think about that.
"Admit you were wrong about the days. Be a man."
Thanks.
Once again you twist thing around. I'm really tired of this. I said that the author of the article, read his bio, is a believer that the holocost never happened. I didn't know your views on the subject. Keep on track my friend. He is also blaming Martin Luther for Nazi atrocities.
First and foremost, you DID accuse me (by proxy of my atheism it seems) of denying the holocaust.
"In your happy world the hollacost(sp) never happened, Martin Luther was the basis for the Nazi belief and history is wrong if not approved by you."
The first statement is, as usual from you, a lie. In fact few people outside of neo-Nazis and other antisemites actually deny the Holocaust. Atheists in fact spend a lot of energy debating those false delusions in the same way we debate YOUR false delusions... because that is what we do. We're not like you.
Second, as I'll REstate in a moment, it is a historical fact, based both on Luther's own writing, and on the comments of many Nazis themselves (which continue to this day) that Luther was a primary influence in the creation of the antisemitic Nazi ideology.
Second, where are you possibly seeing that Jim Walker, the author of the article on Martin Luther's promotion of antisemitism that arguably CONTRIBUTED to the formation of the principles behind and and which helped promote it... as the article very clearly states.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
He even links to a copy of the original book on-line so you can read for yourself the blatant antisemitism that many Nazis referred to, as he in part quotes in his article.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
He did NOT say that Martin Luther CAUSED the Holocaust, but that it may not have happened without Luther having written "On the Jews and Their Lies" in 1543.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Anti-Judaism_and_antisemitism
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
As I linked in the other thread on Jack's profile.
What Jim Walker actually said in his article is:
"Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.") Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the believers of the Germans has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Jewish holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies.""
With more of your completely wrong and dishonest excuse making, denying the actual facts...
"Admit you were wrong about the days. Be a man."
STOP ACTING LIKE I HAVEN'T BEEN REPEATING THAT STATEMENT AND ADMIT IT.
Thanks.
And a further note to address the entire rest of your idiotic comment that, again, denies everything I've already spelled out to you countless times now... clearly, and with references to support those facts.
The negative proof fallacy in stating that we can't explain something yet (and more absurdly that we can't create a planet ourselves yet), that that proves YOUR God specifically exists and did it. In spite of not being able to prove yourself that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Krisha, or a Giant Purple Unicorn didn't do it rather than your God... but in spite of this having been previously explained to you in great detail, you're still too stupid to wrap your head around it (or alternatively to heinously dishonest... or simply insane).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"), or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."
In laymen's terms, just because we don't yet know something doesn't make YOUR utterly unprovable fantastic claim true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
"The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking."
And of course... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim. This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.
This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts. See below."
Honestly Don, how many times have those things been spelled out to you?
Hrm?
When are you going to stop lying to yourself and the rest of us by continuing to pretend these things haven't been soundly explained to you numerous times now?
And of course, as usual for all my comments from now on... we'll remind you of your lack of integrity, your dishonesty, and your cowardice.
"Admit you were wrong about the days. Be a man."
I'm waiting. Thanks.
Well the one thing you can't deny is the Hebrew word "Day". In indeterminant amount of time." Once again your wrong. You take verses out of context, make your own interpretation, Lump all relegions togather to try to make a point. STOP THE CARNY ACT. When you decide to discuss this without writing your own bible I can't get it through to you. Non so blind as those who will not see. Keep making it up as you go, and just looks worse and worse for you. If you want to quote smoky the bear and bobo, go ahead, as they might be more objective then the author you have shown. This is why your argument is rediculous.Maybe we can blame the oil spill on Martin Luther. That is how not worth my time to debate. Try quoting a comic book and you might get closer to the truth. May God bless your heart and mind.
First off you were wrong in asserting that days used to be longer when you tried arguing specifically that scientifically days were not the exact same length as today. The fact that you attempted that specific argument shows that you didn't understand the argument you were making, nor the subject matter... having mistakenly thought that the days had been longer, when in fact they had been shorter.
You then tried a second time to quote an obscure personal website discussing the Roman calendar when you thought THAT proved your point about days and years being different length. In spite of the very page you quoted even proving you wrong, but you simply lacking the understanding of what it really was saying.
In response to both of those claims I had provided you the information on how and why days were in fact shorter in the past, how and why they were in fact explicitly intended as the roughly 24 hour days we know today etc.
But I'll repeat it again and elaborate a bit. And just for good measure I even ran this by my good friend who is an Israeli Jew, speaks Hebrew natively, along with Arabic, Latin, French, English, Russian, Japanese, German, Spanish, and I think a bit of Chinese (Cantonese if I remember correctly because he found it fun to know a lesser used dialect), but I'm sure he could correct me on that list if a got a few wrong... but I digress. He has his degree in Linguistics and has coincidentally been studying Genesis in Hebrew directly recently (along with the Torah in general) and had some insights to share about the nature of the language used in relation to the context and to the culture etc.
The point being you're ignoring the fact that Genesis very explicitly defines these days as the very days we know them as. That these days were meant to be miraculous... and were meant specifically to establish the same 7 day week with the Sabbath day of rest being on Saturday, or more specifically from sun-down Friday to sundown Saturday... (something I'm directly familiar with if you remember our prior discussion)
While the Hebrew Yom ( יום ) can be used in a specific context to mean "an indeterminate amount of time", it is specifically spelled out in Genesis 1 to be a day as we know it.
It's like the difference between saying "I'll be there in a minute" in reference to an indeterminate amount of time, and saying "I'll be there in exactly 60 seconds."
What you are doing Don is called eisegesis. This means that you are, perhaps even unintentionally, projecting your modern day (science based) understanding of the actual age of the universe and Earth onto an ancient biblical text written by people who had no concept of the actual age of the Earth, and for whom dealing with millisecond changes in the length of a day over the course of a century, or worrying about trying to make the length of a day not actually be a day were entirely beyond the scope of their knowledge or consideration.
(continued next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
They were one of the least advanced cultures scientifically in the region at the time.
They wrote the creation having explicitly taken place in 6 days with a 7th day of rest because that's how they literally believed it happened, and they patterned their own 7 day week with it's Shabbat thereupon as a direct extension of it.
Did you actually read the Westminster Theology Journal articles I linked you to? Or even acknowledge the points I made about them and their relation to the literal biblical claims of a flat Earth and solid dome overhead etc?
"Maybe we can blame the oil spill on Martin Luther." Yet another desperate argument that has nothing to do with anything I said. In fact it illustrates one of your greatest shortcomings in these discussions Don. A complete lack of deductive reasoning skills.
Put simply, because we stated correctly that Martin Luther was, by his own words, an outspoken anti-semite, and that, by their own words, the Nazis hailed him as the founder of the righteous fight against the evil Jews etc... it reasonably follows that the Holocaust may not have happened without his books being one of the primary sources of antisemitic sentiment beginning in the 16th century and coming to fruition with Hitler's "Final Solution".
Now what DOESN'T reasonably follow from those facts is that Martin Luther had anything to do with the BP Oil Spill in any way whatsoever and I don't see how you could even begin to reasonably try to link the two. Thus your statement is an intentionally disingenuous attempt to derail a valid discussion by making invalid red herring responses.
Admit you were wrong Don. Admit that you tried several times to recover from being wrong, and were subsequently wrong each time in turn and that you're only digging yourself a deeper hole by not being man enough to just admit it.
"Admit you were wrong about the days. Be a man."
I'm still waiting. Thanks.
I feel like also addressing a few other invalid claims you made in your last comment as well.
"You take verses out of context, make your own interpretation, Lump all relegions togather to try to make a point." ... "When you decide to discuss this without writing your own bible I can't get it through to you. Non so blind as those who will not see. Keep making it up as you go, and just looks worse and worse for you. If you want to quote smoky the bear and bobo, go ahead, as they might be more objective then the author you have shown. This is why your argument is rediculous."
I am not in fact taking verses out of any context which alters their meaning and I challenge you to show how I have. Because I personally don't like when people do it and am careful to check context for accuracy myself and include it if need be.
For instance the verse in Luke 19:27 (NIV) where people claim Jesus says "27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.""
I hate when they do that because it's dishonest. Jesus wasn't saying that directly, he was telling a story about another king who said that. Now you could argue that he was referring to himself indirectly by analogy of the story... but he most certainly wasn't directly stating that about himself.
I've done the same thing with supposed quotes by Thomas Jefferson that would have "served my agenda" as you'd put it... but I correct them when I find them because I care about accuracy and honesty.
(An example of me doing this from 5 months ago on another site and linking the originals so that people could verify for themselves. This one happened to be valid, but it is an example of me having checked just in case rather than simply having assumed it to be true because it said what I wanted to hear.)
Next, I don't lump all religions together. In fact I have specifically stated how they are mutually exclusive in many regards, and how they must be considered in relation to other for their mutually exclusive, contradictory and/or contrary claims etc... all considered in that wider context critically contrasted with each other and in the proper factually based historical and cultural contexts etc.
Stating the exact opposite in spite of all that, again, makes you a liar Don.
You then go on to lie and state that I'm writing my own bible, in spite of me being the one who has clearly done his theological homework, while YOU in fact have quite literally stated that you've grown beyond your bible and no longer need to reference it or care about what it actually says because you've developed your own faith etc.
Can you get more contrary to the truth Don?
(continued next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
"Non so blind as those who will not see." Not to use a tu coque argument, but look in the mirror buddy. I pay close attention to everything you say and point by point debunk every lie and fallacious excuse you make.
It really bugs me when idiots try to dishonestly make me the scapegoat for their own shortcomings because they lack the honesty and integrity, the maturity and personal character to own up to their own mistakes. One of my major pet peeves. (There is nothing I despise more than dishonesty, as I've previously stated.)
"Keep making it up as you go, and just looks worse and worse for you."
I'm not making anything up you hypocritical IDIOT. I've been peppering almost every one of my comments with actual references to back up my claims, source materials, theological journals, numerous wikipedia articles, news articles from CNET, etc...
You not only have tried to deny the validity of every reference I've given, but then go on to lie like just now and act like I haven't provided ANY in the first place... which is ABSURD on your part... and laughably in contrast to you having only given ONE single link in this entire week long debate... a link to a completely obscure personal website of random tidbits from some unknown guy.. as though it's ok for YOU to use such references when you think they help your position (which it didn't and laughably just further illustrated how much you don't even understand your own excuses), but that not even mainstream credible sources presenting valid, referenced, and verifiable reason and evidence are acceptable for me and will not only be denied regardless of what I present (like the Westminster Theological Journals eve), but that you'll even have the audacity to act as though I've never offered ANY AT ALL.
"If you want to quote smoky the bear and bobo, go ahead, as they might be more objective then the author you have shown.">
Another disingenuous argument on your part showing a further lack of deductive reason (and simple honesty) on your part.
I never quoted anyone like those characters, nor obviously ever would. I referenced an article JACK cited, and then gave further links to Wikipedia, and even to a copy ONE OF THE ORIGINAL BOOKS BY LUTHER HIMSELF. A piece of factual, historical evidence further proving the point.
To LIE and pretend these things aren't credible evidence to back up a point is pretty shameful Don, to say the least.
To deny all that historical evidence, quoting Luther himself etc... and dishonestly equating it to quoting "smoky the bear and bobo"... that is intentionally dishonest on your part Don. The very definition of a liar.
Having illustrated FURTHER (as always) how incredibly dishonest and unethical you have consistently been in these debates... I can justifiably, and without committing a fallacy state in response to "This is why your argument is rediculous.; LOOK WHO'S TALKING.
And of course as with every comment until you man up enough, and develop enough honesty, integrity, maturity and humilty.. my parting request...
"Admit you were wrong about the days. Be a man."
Or even ANY ONE of the MANY clear errors in claims of fact or reason you've made thus far. Take your pick.
I'm still waiting. Thanks.
Post a Comment