The Need To Question Atheism

by The wanderer 142 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Anti-Christ

  Additionally, the second line of argument is that practically ALL physicists, astronomers, scientists etc. DO believe and DO teach that the universe DID HAVE A BEGINNING. TIME, it is also believed and taught, began when the universe began. We keep track of time today in terms of seconds, minutes, years decades, centuries, millenniums etc, all based on the earths rotation around the sun. Time, it is believed and taught does have a beginning.

  I'm sorry but that is not acurate. There is no absolut proof that the univers has a beginnig. I'm not an expert so I'll cut and past some informations.

  Does Big Bang Cosmology Prove the Universe Had a Beginning? (2000)

  Mark I. Vuletic

  There are a number of arguments for the existence of God which depend, at least in part, upon the notion that the universe had a beginning. Sometimes apologists appeal to Big Bang cosmology to support that notion. For instance, according to Christian apologist Phil Fernandes:

  The big bang model also teaches that the universe had a beginning. In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. As time moves forward, the universe is growing apart. This means that if one goes back in time the universe would be getting smaller and smaller. Eventually, if one goes back far enough into the past, the entire universe would be what scientists call "a point of infinite density." This marks the beginning of the universe, the big bang.[1]

  It is perfectly understandable that Fernandes and many others would make such an argument--as far as I can tell, the argument was commonplace among scientists and science writers long before religious apologists picked it up. However, the argument is incorrect. In saying so, I am not saying anything novel or unorthodox--rather, I am just repeating what cosmologists have long known yet somehow failed to communicate adequately to the public, as much as they may have tried. I will try to explain myself in the rest of this paper. The details may sound technical on a first reading, since I will be making reference to general relativity and quantum mechanics, but the main point is actually quite schematic, and I believe it should be understandable to anyone.[2]

  So what does Big Bang cosmology tell us?

  As Fernandes correctly notes, the universe is expanding. Using the general theory of relativity, we can therefore infer from this data that the universe should be smaller and smaller as one looks back into the past. However, this works only up to a point.[3] There is a point in time called the "Planck time" (after the late physicist Max Planck, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics) before which our ability to infer the behavior of the universe on the basis of general relativity alone is destroyed. The problem is that prior to the Planck time, the universe is so small that quantum mechanical effects become very important. Therefore, a correct description of the behavior of the universe prior to the Planck time requires a synthesis of quantum mechanics and general relativity--a theory of quantum gravity, in other words. And to this date, no full theory of quantum gravity has been developed, much less attained the consensus status that post-Planck-time Big Bang theory enjoys. Without such a theory, we cannot draw from cosmology any conclusions about whether the universe had a beginning or not.[4]

  You could read the rest on internet infidels, just search for Planck time.

  For one thing, the bible, (the same source as mentioned above which does offer sound reasons to believe it is from a higher source than man, in my opinion as well as many others)

  Do you whant to answer my previous question about that?
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  LTMD.CORE says:..."It doesn't answer ANYTHING, it just gives you something to say that even you don't understand. It's not an answer, its a fake reason for you not to give an answer.
  
  
  ***** Where do you come up with this stuff?? Which is it commando-17? Either I "do not UNDERSTAND the answer", or "I never GAVE any answer"? You accused me of BOTH in the very SAME sentence. You must be confused then. I guess that's part of being 17. Hormones can do that. But make up your mind, it can't be BOTH ways here.

  I meen exactly what I said: You don't even understand your ad hoc reason for not giving an answer. I never said you gave an answer.

  A reason for not giving an answer doesn't count as an answer.

  ****** I counted FOUR spelling mistakes in this one reply from you. But because "I am so ignorant", as you say, I am probably wrong then. So forget I said that.

  You still keep misspelling the word "argument". Just though you'd like to know that, but I already told you before.

  So what? If you can understand what I say then we're fine. Who cares if I added another E to argument? Besides, there were only three mistakes in what you quoted.

  But since this is the second (and third) time you've used my spelling as a counter arguement, I'm highlighting all your mistakes in what I quote. Besides, coming from somebody who repeatedly spelled my name: LTMD.CORE this is pretty funny.

  If the entire UNIVERSE with precision and power and order and amazingly functional, purposeful, intricate etc. can just *HAPPEN* to fall into place, all on its own, without ANY Intelligent Designer needed;

  All over the universe stars, planets and entire galaxies slam into each other, implode, collapse into black holes and other such orderly things, doesn't sound too precise or intelligent. Functional/purposeful... what's the purpose of the universe? You are trying your best to make it sound less likely than it is. But I l already explained that stars, do in fact, form on their own, without divine intervention. Planets form in much the same way. All the galaxies are moving away from a central point, this is just further evidence that the universe is not designed, and that the big bang is very likely.

  The reason why no religious leader can "create new life forms" as you say, is the VERY SAME REASON why science cannot do that. And by now, you should have those reasons permanently ETCHED in your mind our little young atheistic lad.

  Of course I know why they can't: Lack of funding, and because they've only had a few years to work on it.... but neither of those apply to religion.

  But that aint to well though out my friend.

  You need an apostrophe in your "ain't", you did that twice.

  You know, I keep waiting for one of those many explosions on the earth nowadays to result in a new New York City skyline, complete with electricty plumbing, door knobs, elevators, streets, signs, lights and plenty of yellow cabs. But for some reason, it has not quite happened yet. What you think LTMDLORE? Pretty soon perhaps? I'd like to go see this place and maybe even live there for the summer and take pics for my mom and aunty Mildred. When will an explosion result in a new city for us?

  This shows how little you know about the big bang theory. The big bang resulted in nothing but a great big cloud of matter flying out from a central point. I could stop right there and nullify this argument, but I'll continue: Gravity caused the denser regions of this matter to come towards each other, forming... not cars, not buildings, not hollowed out cubes with doors. But instead: balls of matter, some balls are stars, some planets and some asteriods. Trust me, if gravity had the tendency to form hollowed out cubes or other such formations, then the universe would be a very different place. But that's not how gravity works.

  Interesting fact though: All of those many explosions on the earth prove my point... what do these explosions do? They make coulds of debris, and what does the debris do? It doesn't stay in a disorganised could form. It is pulled by gravity towards the largest object nearby, namely the earth. So these explosions don't form cities, instead they do EXACTLY what the big bang theory says they should.

  The many PROPHECIES written that had exact fulfillments adds even more weight to possibility of the bible being more than just some good book. The bible's statement that the earth is "ROUND", and that it "HANGS UPON NOTHING", though men at that time believed the earth was FLAT, again adds value to the claim that it is from a higher source than MERE MEN. Are all of these just mere COINCIDENCES?

  What prophecies had exact fulfillments? Name one.

  It would be very easy to determine that the earth is circular, even for them. Just look at the shadow on the moon. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Plus they were really into astrology back then, that's one of the ways that Aristotle proved the earth was round, because the constellations were very different when you travel, indicating that your angle changed, not just your posistion, otherwise the constellations would be the same. Another way to know that the earth was round was this: Because the earth is curved, the bottom of a ship past the horizon is not visible. It could have been a no brainer to the educated people of the time: Pythagoras for example made that determination around 550 BC.

  That's one of the earliest recorded examples, but it's irrelevant in my opinion, because the bible says CIRCLE not sphere, so it's wide open to interpretation. And of course it's always interpreted by theists as a scientific revelation, even though it's the same book that can't get the length of a day right, the smallest seed correct, or even the value of pi.

  AND the bible says that the earth has corners and is held up by pillars, but obviously theists interpret THOSE as symbolic.

  [the bible] is from a much higher source than humans, who cannot predict the future with any kind of certainty.

  Coming from the same guy who used the idea that we can predict where the solar system will be 1000 years from now as an argument for the bible. You now use the idea that we can't predict the future with any certainty as an argument for the bible.

  The calendar we use today is based on the very year he was born. Just a coincidence?

  SO? The days of the week are named after pagan gods like Saturn for Saturday and Mani for Monday... but that doesn't meen they existed. Besides the Gregorian calender that we use, wasn't even created until 1582 by a pope... hardly an eyewitness.

  The scriptures contain numerous accounts of MIRACLES where people were brought back to life, sick and dying were healed, people were miraculously fed whether from food falling out of the sky or a few fishes feeding thousands, olive oil and bread jars that never ran out and other examples. Sea's were parted, were walked on and calmed down upon commands. You do not hear stories like this today, with hundreds of eye-witnesses to collaborate.

  ... the only thing historical evidence that Jesus ever existed IS the gospels, if he really did all that stuff then wouldn't more than four people have written about it? Besides, the gospels are conflicting, and were probably not written by eyewitnesses either.

  Give me some NON-BIBLICAL proof that those miracles uccured.

  If the sun stood still for a day, (Or more accurately the earth stopped spinning), then shouldn't there be records of that ALL OVER THE WORLD?

  Take the ten plagues for example: All of the egyptian animals died (and then were killed again later in at least two other plagues. Not sure how that happened.) all of their crops died, all of their fish died, all of their firstborns died, and they were left with no food, less children, no slaves, no army and no leader. Yet there is no record of any of that outside of the bible.... THE EGYPTIANS SHOULD HAVE FADED INTO NOTHING. But according to history, nothing happened, they came out unscathed.

  information contained is also very practical for those that wish to believe it and apply it. The Golden Rule for example.

  Like an eye-for-eye, or the correct way to treat your slaves. The best way to handle rapists... namely: If she was married, he should die. But if she was single, then she has to marry him.

  Acctually the Golden Rule was not original to Jesus... There were a LOT of versions before the one Jesus said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#History And IMO Jesus' version is one of the worst.

  Jesus sermon on the mount in Matthew chapters 5-7 is still considered by many to be the greatest speech ever given. Priceless gems for many.

  You may find this interesting. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount

  "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? "

  First of all, birds eat bugs. Plus god doesn't feed them, they work their butts off all day scavanging for food.

  "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: "

  Brilliant, let's all act like a life form that doesn't even think... plus they're not clothed by god, they're naked. They normally freeze to death during the winter, unless it snows on them.

  So since god didn't equip us with photosynthesis, and since our internal body temperatures have to remain above 72 degrees F we better not 'consider the lilies'.

  I'm not at all impressed by the sermon on the mount. It's full of dangerous, stupid, and bad advice.

  So you now want to try to compare these "stalagmites", which are simply formed by dripping water uniting with stalacite, over time, to the formation of the UNIVERSE ITSELF, to the formation of the EARTH, MOON AND SUN, and to the formation of things like the HUMAN BRAIN? Where do you get this stuff? Why am I even dealing with this at all?

  I didn't... I never said that they were anywhere near as complex as the sun or anything. I didn't complare them to the formation of the universe either. I simply said that complexity doesn't require a designer. But I did explain the formation of the Sun when I expained how stars form. (The sun is just a normal star you know... just checking.)

  But since you just said that the sun is complex: I'm sure you'll get the point that science has a perfectly acceptable natural explaination for it's formation that's simple, proven and doesn't require a fairy guy either.

  But read my lips here: THEY HAVE NO FUNCTION AND NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. They do look nice though.

  I never said they had a funtion or a purpose. In fact I never even vaugely implied it.

  The stalagmite is the result, just as the snowflake, ice-cycles, crystals are the result, of an "Intelligent Designer", that created the earth with FEATURES that allow these things to be formed. He also created the weather systems, water cycles, photo synthesis on and on we could go.

  Uh huh... I gotta agree with AA on this one, the fact that the earth has features that allow tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes argues for everything BUT intelligent design.

  LtCmd.Lore
• 

  Vinny

  Proplog2 says:.."Please quit wasting time cheering your "imagined" victories and **concentrate on the subject**."
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  from:
  
  
  http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
  
  
  
  
  
  What is the significance of Josephus' references to Jesus? Josephus provides valuable, independent confirmation of the existence, life, and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Leading scholar Luke T. Johnson offers the following opinion:
  
  Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus' writing.
  
  (Luke T. Johnson, The Real Jesus, pages 113-14).
  
  
  
  
  
  We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a wonder-worker, (c) His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f) His being the founder of the tribe of Christians, and probably, (g) the belief in His rising from the dead.
  
  (F.F. Bruce, op. cit., page 112).
  
  
  
  
  
  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq12.html
  
  
  Jewish authors recognize the miraculous character of some of Jesus' works.
  
  1. Josephus.
  
  Josephus is the earliest witness we have to the miracle-working of Jesus.
  
  
  
  
  
  "The reconstructed neutral Testimonium also provides evidence about the ministry of Jesus. Josephus calls Jesus 'a wise man.' Note that this characterization is directly linked first to Jesus' miracles, then to his teachings. "He was a worker of amazing deeds" is an explicit characterization of Jesus' ministry as a miracle-worker, with stress on the effect those deeds had on others ("amazing"). Again, there is no detail; what kind of miracles Jesus worked, Josephus does not say. "
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  6. Hierocles wrote a piece on Apollonius and made several references to Jesus' miracles:
  
  
  
  
  
  Interestingly enough he does not deny the reality of the miracles…Julian does not question the reality of the miracles, but asserts that they were ineffective in changing his audience…Julian's statement about the 'Miracle working and fabrication of the gospels' indicates that he could question the veracity of the gospel narratives, but in general he does not seem to question the belief that Jesus performed miracles.
  
  
  
  
  
  Josephus affirms that Jesus worked miracles.
  
  Early hostile Jewish tradition--in Justin and the Rabbinics--manifest the memory that Jesus did works of a miraculous nature.
  
  The hostile Graeco-Roman writers [Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Julian] accept that some of Jesus' miraculous works actually occurred.
  
  There are two strands of independent, extra-biblical tradition that support the historicity of one specific NT miracle: The Feeding of the 5000.
  
  The general trends and patterns in post-Jesus G-R literature and popular belief are easily explained (and perhaps 'best explained' or 'only explained') by the widespread acceptance by the Roman Empire that a real human in recent history (Jesus) had actually performed credible, 'sane', and non-bizarre miracles.
  
  There ARE indications from extra-biblical sources which suggest that (some of) the miracle stories reflect actual historical events.
  
  
  
  
  
  Even those who rejected Him acknowledged that He had unusual powers. Rather than deny Jesus' miracles, His enemies accounted for them by saying that He did them with the aid of the devil (Matt. 12:24).
  
  Many books outside of the bible (Quran, Hippocrates, Apocrypha books etc.) have detailed descriptions of Jesus as well.
  
  
  
  
  
  Cornelius Tacitus:
  
  Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.
  
  Lucian of Samosata:
  Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.
  
  
  
  
  Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].
  
  
  
  
  Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.
  
  
  
  
  Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.
  
  
  
  
  Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.
  
  
  
  
  Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!
  
  
  The four Gospels:
  The four Gospels are the four accounts of Jesus’ life, which are contained in the New Testament part of the Bible. Historians will tell you that the closer an historical document is written to the time of the events it describes, the generally more reliable it is as a source of information about those events. Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life is now reckoned to have been written sometime between AD 70 and AD 80. Mark’s Gospel is dated between AD. 50 and AD. 65. Luke’s Gospel is dated in the early AD 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between AD 80 and 100. If Jesus died sometime in the AD 30s, it is clear that Mark, Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels within living memory of Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel comes later and probably outside of living memory for most as John lived to an unusually old age for the ancient period, but the accuracy of his Gospel was verified no doubt by those who read the earlier Gospels.
  
  
  Another feature of the Gospels is that they were written by men who either knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who themselves knew Jesus personally. Matthew was a former tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. Mark was a close associate of Simon Peter, who is regarded as being Jesus’ most prominent disciple whilst Jesus was on the earth. Luke was a close associate of Paul who is the most famous of Christian missionaries and who wrote the largest contribution to the New Testament. Paul, in turn, was a close colleague of Simon Peter. John was the former fisherman who became the closest disciple of Jesus. The accounts of such men need to be considered at least seriously.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I posted many VERY SPECIFIC reasons why I believe it is very POSSIBLE the bible is inspired of God. I notice you did not mention that PORTION of my post. And you state an opinion here, with NOTHING to back it up anywhere. What kind of debate contribution is that? This is just too sad for the little atheists.
  
  
  
  
  
  Anti Christs reply to my quote:
  
  NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man ...." (Note: How would it be determined which women had known men? One can only speculate.)
  
  NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty. Thirty-two are set aside (to be sacrificed?) as a tribute for the Lord.
  
  DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.
  
  EX 21:7-11 A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt. A daughter sold into slavery is not released at the end of six years as is an ordinary male slave.
  
  EX 21:20-21 A slave owner is to be punished if he strikes his slave and the slave dies shortly thereafter. If the slave lives a day or to and then dies, the slave owner is not to be punished. A slave is the same as money to his owner.
  
  Now I find it weird wen people who believe the bible is from a LOVING god ignore these verses.
  
  
  
  
  
  For the relevant background see Num 22, 23, 24, Num 25:1-3, and Gen 15:16
  
  The Midianites were half brothers to the Israelites and were on friendly terms.
  
  Midianite leaders join with Moab to incite against Israel # Nu 22:4. The Midian princes had also allied with Sihon king of the Amorites (Josh 13:21).
  
  Midianite leaders together with the Moabite leaders: Sent for Balaam to curse Israel # Nu 22:5-7, God would not curse but would only bless Israel.
  
  Moabites and Midianites seduced Israel to idolatry and immorality # Nu 25:1-18 as a means to get God to judge his own people.
  
  God first judged his own people severely and 24,000 died.
  
  The reason for killing the Midianites was given in Num 25:17-18, "because they treated you as enemies".
  
  The reason for killing the women is given in Num 31:15-16, they seduced the men into idolatry and immorality resulting in a plague in which 24,000 died.
  
  As for the boys they would have died anyway because there would be no one to look after them. Given the option of a slow death from hunger and thirst, clearly God chose the merciful option of a quick death. Had he allowed them to live among the Israelites they would take revenge later when they became men. If you're going to do the job do it right. The Moabites would probably have used the boys for child sacrifice (by fire) as was their practice.
  
  He was clearly merciful to the 32,000 virgin girls, after all he spared their lives.
  
  Our text says nothing about slave-whores? See Deu 21:11.
  
  Prostitution was against the law.
  
  In the context of ancient Near East (ANE) bronze-age culture of ~1500 BC it was either the fledgling nation of Israel or the Midianites. The future of God's chosen people was at stake.
  
  Evidently they did not kill ALL the Midianites because they remained a thorn in the side, see Judg 7:12 etc etc.
  
  Further we should note that the God who gives life has the right to take it (Job 1:21).
  
  The bottom line is that the Midianites were on friendly terms with the Israelites but the leaders joined with those who wanted to destroy Israel and treated them as enemies. The children suffered because of bad decisions made by the parents. Something common to all life.
  
  
  
  
  
  First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. In spite of the elaborate/miraculous one created by the later rabbi’s (ingenious, but altogether unnecessary) using the Urim and Thummim (!), the ‘test for virginity’ in the ANE was a simple visual one:
  
  Was the female pre-pubescent?
  Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for that culture?
  Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?
  
  Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles). Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).
  
  For example, the erotic art of the ANE shows a consistent difference in hairstyles between women and sacred prostitutes:
  
  “In fact, the physical characteristics of the women on the [erotic] plaques are totally different from those of other female representations in Mesopotamian and Syrian art. As with the clay figurines, they are frequently naked and their hair is loose—none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that represent women...These groups [associations of cultic prostitutes] were defined by a generic name [the ‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations hinted at their garments, which were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure, or to their general appearance, which distinguished them from other women.” [OT:CANE:2526]
  
  Some of these patterns varied by culture/age:
  
  “Once married, women were not veiled in Babylonia. Legal texts imply that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:DLAM:135]
  
  “The bride was covered with a veil that the groom removed. Married women were not veiled in Babylonia but seem to have had a special headgear; legal texts, however, suggest that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:CANE:489]
  
  
  In other words, the process of identifying the females who were (a) not married and (b) not prostitutes, either sacred or secular, would have been relatively straightforward—at the precision level required by the event.
  
  The word "desire" here is NOT one of sexual attraction, but of delight and love -- which may obviously include or involve sexual attraction, but does not require it! It is the same word used in Deut. 7:7: "The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Antichrist quotes vinny:..."The bible's statement that the earth is "ROUND", and that it "HANGS UPON NOTHING", though men at that time believed the earth was FLAT, again adds value to the claim that it is from a higher source than MERE MEN.
  
  Antichrist reply to my quote:.. "Round does not mean sphere. Wen you look at the sun and the moon you see that they are round. Not all people in that time believed the earth was flat. You should do more reseach on history and ancient belief."
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  The many PROPHECIES written that had exact fulfillments adds even more weight to possibility of the bible being more than just some good book. The bible's statement that the earth is "ROUND", and that it "HANGS UPON NOTHING", though men at that time believed the earth was FLAT, again adds value to the claim that it is from a higher source than MERE MEN. Are all of these just mere COINCIDENCES? It is possible, I guess. But it's also possible that these facts give evidence that the source of these prophecies and scientific accuracies is from a much higher source than humans, who cannot predict the future with any kind of certainty. There are not just a couple of such prophecies, but literally hundreds which exact, detailed fulfillment. This is very compelling to myself and to billions today.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Bible prophecies are an atheists NIGHTMARE, Here are just some fulfilled prophecies.
  
  
  
  
  
  1. Born of the seed of woman
  Gen 3:15
  Gal 4:4
  
  2. Born of a virgin
  Isa 7:14
  Mt 1:18-25
  
  3. Seed of Abraham
  Gen 22:18
  Mt 1:1
  
  4. Seed of Isaac
  Gen 21:12
  Lk 3:23+34
  
  5. Seed of Jacob
  Num 24:17
  Lk 3:34
  
  6. Seed of David
  Jer 23:5
  Lk 3:31
  
  7. Tribe of Judah
  Gen 49:10
  Rev 5:5
  
  8. Family line of Jesse
  Isa 11:1
  Lk 3:32
  
  9. Born in Bethlehem
  Mic 5:2
  Mt 2:1-6
  
  10. Herod kills the children
  Jer 31:15
  Mt 2:16-18
  
  
  Concerning his nature Prophesied Fulfilled
  
  11. He pre-existed creation
  Mic 5:2
  1 Pet 1:20
  
  12. He shall be called Lord
  Ps 110:1
  Acts 2:36
  
  13. Called Immanuel (God with us)
  Isa 7:14
  Mt 1:22-23
  
  14. Prophet
  Deut 18:18-19
  Acts 3:18-25
  
  15. Priest
  Ps 110:4
  Heb 5:5-6
  
  16. Judge
  Isa 33:22
  Jn 5:22-23
  
  17. King
  Ps 2:6
  Jn 18:33-37
  
  18. Anointed by the Spirit
  Isa 11:2
  Mt 3:16-17
  
  19. His zeal for God
  Ps 69:9
  Jn 2:15-17
  
  
  Concerning his ministry Prophesied Fulfilled:
  
  
  20. Preceded by a messenger
  Isa 40:3
  Mt 3:1-3
  
  21. To begin in Galilee
  Isa 9:1-2
  Mt 4:12-17
  
  22. Ministry of Miracles
  Isa 35:5-6
  Mt 9:35;11:4
  
  23. Teacher of parables
  Ps 78:1-4
  Mt 13:34-35
  
  24. He was to enter the temple
  Mal 3:1
  Mt 21:10-12
  
  25. Enter Jerusalem on donkey
  Zech 9:9
  Mt 21:1-7
  
  26. Stone of stumbling to Jews
  Isa 28:16; Ps 118:22
  1 Pet 2:6-8
  
  27. Light to Gentiles
  Isa 49:6
  Acts 13:46-48
  
  
  The day Jesus was crucified Prophesied Fulfilled:
  
  
  28. Betrayed by a friend
  Ps 41:9
  Jn 13:18-27
  
  29. Sold for 30 pieces of silver
  Zech 11:12
  Mt 26:14-15
  
  30. 30 pieces thrown in Temple
  Zech 11:13
  Mt 27:3-5
  
  31. 30 pieces buys potters field
  Zech 11:13
  Mt 27:6-10
  
  32. Forsaken by His disciples
  Zech 13:7
  Mk 14:27+50
  
  33. Accused by false witnesses
  Ps 35:11+20-21
  Mt 26:59-61
  
  34. Silent before accusers
  Isa 53:7
  Mt 27:12-14
  
  35. Wounded and bruised
  Isa 53:4-6
  1 Pet 2:21-25
  
  36. Beaten and spit upon
  Isa 50:6
  Mt 26:67-68
  
  37. Mocked
  Ps 22:6-8
  Mt 27:27-31
  
  38. Fell under the cross
  Ps 109:24-25
  Jn 19:17; Lk23:26
  
  39. Hands and feet pierced
  Ps 22:16
  Jn 20:24-28
  
  40. Crucified with thieves
  Isa 53:12
  Mt 27:38
  
  41. Prayed for enemies
  Isa 53:12
  Lk 23:34
  
  42. Rejected by His own people
  Isa 53:3
  Jn 19:14-15
  
  43. Hated without cause
  Ps 69:4
  Jn 15:25
  
  44. Friends stood aloof
  Ps 38:11
  Lk22:54;23:49
  
  45. People wag their heads
  Ps 22:7;109:25
  Mt 27:39
  
  46. People stared at Him
  Ps 22:17
  Lk 23:35
  
  47. Cloths divided and gambled for
  Ps 22:18
  Jn 19:23-24
  
  48. Became very thirsty
  Ps 22:15
  Jn 19:28
  
  49. Gall and vinegar offered Him
  Ps 69:21
  Mt 27:34
  
  50. His forsaken cry
  Ps 22:1
  Mt 27:46
  
  51. Committed Himself to God
  Ps 31:5
  
  Lk 23:46
  52. Bones not broken
  Ps 34:20
  Jn 19:32-36
  
  53. Heart broken
  Ps 69:20;22:14
  Jn 19:34
  
  54. His side pierced
  Zech 12:10
  Jn 19:34+37
  
  55. Darkness over the land
  Amos 8:9
  Lk 23:44-45
  
  56. Buried in rich man's tomb
  Isa 53:9
  Mt 27:57-60
  
  
  
  
  
  57. Raised from the dead
  Ps 16:8-11
  Acts 2:24-31
  
  58. Begotten as Son of God
  Ps 2:7
  Acts 13:32-35
  
  59. Ascended to God
  Ps 68:18
  Eph 2:8-10
  
  60. Seated beside God
  Ps 110:1
  Heb 1:3+13
  
  
  In particular, I always appreciated this one: The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Bible passage: Micah 5:2
  
  
  Written: sometime between 750-686 BC. Fulfilled: 5 BC
  
  
  In Micah 5:2, there is the prophecy that reveals that Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah.
  
  For Christians, the prophecy is very powerful in a very simple way. It eliminates all other cities and towns throughout the world as a place in which the Messiah could be born. It narrows the possibilities to one tiny village just south of Jerusalem.
  
  And throughout the span of the past 27 centuries, from the days of the prophet Micah up through the present time, Bethlehem is credited as being the birthplace for only one person who is widely known throughout the world. And that person is Jesus Christ.
  
  The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke list Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Matthew 2:1-6 describes the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of Micah's prophecy.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Is it POSSIBLE then, that this bible is from God? I believe it is possible, and even very probable. And If so, if it IS from God Himself, this Supreme Grand Designer, then the very question as to how life arrived is ANSWERED. Because it also tells the reader that God himself made these very things that we see today. No SOUP-LIKE conditions that somehow, some way evolved into the beautiful yet complex and purposeful systems we see surrounding us today. It answers many of man's perplexing questions. Does it answer everything? No, it does not. Yet it does say there are new scrolls to be opened as well in the future. It talks about Everlasting Life being possible for those that believe and apply God's sons teachings in his or her life. A life where death and pain and mourning are things of the past. Not the kind of life we see today. It promises these things we see causing pain and death and heartaches will be done away completely and PERMANENTLY. That is a beautiful hope to me. Many other answers, too many to list here are given as well. If the bible is true then, the human race has much to look forward to.
  
  
  For me, it does make sense. It does offer hope. It is worth putting my trust in. It does offer answers as well as a good measure of comfort. It is believable.
  
  You see to many it is an old book, and I can respect that. But to myself and many, many others, it is much, much more than this. There are genuine answers and a real positive hope for those that do believe what it contains.
  
  
  Yet even WITHOUT THE BIBLE, the idea that all of these amazingly complex features simply came to exist on their very own, without any help from a higher Intellect is just not acceptable, believable or even POSSIBLE to me. Every design has a designer. Universally proven as fact. Yet somehow you want to throw that out the window because you don't believe in God and you are adamant that such a God just could not exist. At least agnostics open the door for the possibility and even believe it is probable. You say NO WAY. That EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING that we see out there today arose either from some self-replicating polymer, which arose from DEAD MATTER, from sosme PRIMORDIAL SOUP-like quagmire, all on it's own, without any guiding force WHATSOEVER. That the entire UNIVERSE with all of it's PRECISION and ORDER and POWER just happened to result from some COSMIC EXPLOSION, without ANY INTELLECTUAL FORCE behind it at all, yet resulting in such precise alignment, that we humans (who came from that soup/dead-matter/polymer etc.) can tell exactly when and where planets, moons, comets, asteroids, stars etc. etc. will be located at any given moment in time. And that in the middle of this intricate, expanding, gargantuan universe, our perfectly located, tilted, spinning and orbiting EARTH just happened to fall right into place (and stays in place) with atmosphere, ozone layer, water cycles, just the exact amount of oxygen and other delicately balanced systems due to some fortuitous series of LUCK. A continuous stream of "FAT CHANCES" that all just fell right into place so that all of this LIFE could then arise from those soup-like, dead matter conditions where a polymer can turn into the human brain and beyond.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Furthermore, this thread is about ATHEISM not about the bible.
  
  
  Atheism is The belief that there is NO God at all. Where are YOUR comments then, answering my many issues presented on that subject? My arguments are sure up there, all over this thread. Where are YOURS then?
  
  
  Here, I will help you so you can't be too confused:
  
  
  1- Antichrist, how does life evolve from lifeless matter? Please tell us.
  
  2- Antichrist, how does it feel believing that red corvette simply could arrive all on its own since universe, life and earth (all far more complex) all arrived on their own?
  
  3- Antichrist, if its true that all these things just happened on their own, why cannot the same science and technology which sends folks to the moon, create ANY LIFE (even the simplest of living things) from non-living matter today?
  
  4- Antichrist, what about the universal fact of life PRINCIPLE that EVERY BEGINNING MUST HAVE A CAUSE CAUSE? What does THAT do for atheism?
  
  5- Antichrist, what does it say to you when people such as Einstein, Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Max Planck, and thousands of others scientists, philosophers, leaders such as Ghandi, MLK, every single President elected and many other successful people as well as BILLIONS of others believe in a Supreme Intelligent Designer and REJECT ATHEISM OUTRIGHT.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  Vinny

  END OF THE ROAD...
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  **** Read above. Try 60 for starters regarding Christ alone. I can post another 100 other fulfilled prophecies. An atheists nightmare.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ****** Then why mention it at all? What complexity with stalagmites by the way? You erroneously tried to use them to support your silly atheistic belief that complex things happen all the time without any designer. Go back up and read what you said. I think it's still there. The sun, moon and stars YOU claim are also the result without any intelligent designer. The problem for you is it did not work at all. They are not complex at all. It's as simple as a dripping, leaky faucet. You sound a little more clear on this comment, but would have been better off just skipping THAT one altogether young lad. You will catch on after getting more debate spanks along the way, I am sure. But I appreciate your effort. That's more than anybody else on this thread could do. See, I can be even be warm to the atheists at times.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Unbelievable there is also a hood, with an outside and inside hood latch that allows you to look at the motor that evolved on its own. All the while fitting perfectly and symmetrically into perfect place. In another incredible act of chance, there is a gas pedal too that when pressed carefully lets that amazingly complex machine (that just happened by chance) to move forward. Of course once you did get in it and realized this amazing machine can actually take you wherever you wish to go, you have another serious problem; whoops, how do you stop it? Big problem. Well lookey here!... there is a BRAKE PEDAL right next to the gas pedal that just so happens to connect to four disc brakes that also are perfectly hitched to brake rotors, and calipers that are coincidentally just perfectly hooked up with those perfectly rounded and symmetrical tires that we already discovered earlier. And through some act of evolutionary coincidence, this braking system has a MASTER CYLINDER that just also happens to have the perfectly positioned brake lines, filled with just the correct kind and correct amount of brake fluid. Of course if it were instead power steering fluid, or transmission fluid or gasoline in them there brake lines it would not work one bit, and may even catch on fire, but since it has the exact consistency needed for brake fluid, it works like a charm. How bout that!
  
  
  There are several clear windows to look out from as well. Sure need those; glad they just happened to evolve just where they did too. Pretty amazing how the snails and other external forces just happened to get that red shiny paint job only where it is and not on the windows, would have a problem there for sure. And guess what else, inside it has heat and ac and rear defrost and windshield wiper blades, a fuel gauge, temp gauge, tachometer with speedometer, with perfectly located knobs that even say heat and ac and wiper speeds. How did that get here on it's own? Amazing aint it? And for some strange reason it needs to have some little piece of metal to turn the thing on, I believe they call it a KEY. Low and behold there IS a key, with the exact correct notches already in the perfectly located steering wheel. How bout all that, what an amazing coincidence!
  
  Obviously I could continue on with this for pages and pages. I am sure you can see the point. (Try as you may to miss the point), It would be silly, foolish, absurd, outrageous, strange, weird and just impossibly IGNORANT to believe ALL of these things just happened by blind chance, without any intelligence at all, creating one single, ready-to drive Red Chevrolet Corvette. If nobody on this board could be convinced of such a foolish idea with one automobile in the middle of nowhere, how then could people POSSIBLY believe that a FAR, FAR MORE complex universe and earth, filled with far more complicated life (than that single corvette) could possibly just happen by itself, through some evolutionary process, with absolutely no help from an intelligent source anywhere?
  
  
  The reality is, I would have a better chance of selling somebody on that car that just formed by itself, through abiogenesis (the supposed origination of life from lifeless matter) and then evolved with all the perfect pieces fitting together, than on the UNIVERSE and EARTH itself just happening to make themselves as well as all life forms upon the earth. A human being is far, far more complex that that car. With our immune systems, lymphatic systems, digestive systems, cardio systems with heart chambers and blood vessels, nervous systems, joints, muscles, tendons, brains with billions or neurons, eyes that see, ears that hear, nose that smells, fingers that feel, skin that sweats, mouth that tastes, chews and swallows. Feet, legs, knees that move and bend. Reproductive systems that can create new life etc etc on and on. The complexity of one human being puts that new Corvette to shame. Millions of time more complex. You get a scratch on that new car and you will visiting the body shop. Scratch or hurt yourself, and the body has the ability to actually heal itself. And you really hope to convince me it happened all by chance, with no designer, no intelligence behind it all, some primordial evolutionary soup like process? We haven't even started discussing the complexity and incredible order of our universe yet. Or the earth , how outstandingly complex yet perfectly harmonized it is. Photosynthesis, clouds and rain, the perfect tilt and rotational speed of the earth, perfect location of the sun, the moon, our orbit speed. The atmosphere, ozone layer, perfect amount of oxygen in the air. Gravity, food cycles, fire; all happened by blind chance? No intelligence required? Sorry but you are DEAD IN WATER.
  
  
  Lets talk about science for just a moment. The science where many get there beliefs that there is NO God, no maker because we cannot prove he exists. If science is so smart and such a trustworthy source, why cannot science then create life from non living matter? It has not been done. EVER. Not only can it not do such a thing as make life from non-living matter, even if all the parts are already there, in human form, animal form or any form, science cannot even GIVE LIFE BACK to the body that lost it prematurely through accidents, disease or any other disaster, or death through natural aging? With all the parts ALREADY TOGETHER, in front of them these scientists, they are still helpless and cannot make LIFE appear. Yet they insist that ALL life as we see it today, just happened by some series of chances, without ANY help from any intelligent source. How reasonable is this? Let me answer that, IT'S NOT.
  
  
  This is why I believe in an intelligent Creator rather than some evolutionary process. It makes sense. It is reasonable, it is logical and rational. To believe everything we see just happened by itself is none of those things in my sincere and honest opinion. Science cannot feed the poor nor cure the worlds problems either. It has not even cured AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, fixed global warming, the ozone layer and tens of thousands of other issues. And people wish to put their trust in science when it comes to believing in a God or not? Sorry, I am not convinced.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  There is just no way that it is even remotely possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided chances. When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY.
  
  The many systems that allow life on this earth to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and finely tuned with other systems. Again, by some accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. For me there is just no way these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect. For you and some others they may have come together by chance or in fact did come together by chance. I disagree. I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant stretch after another. Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.
  
  
  Folks, this is one reason why the internet is so coooool, everything that is being said, is in PRINT. Just reading what our little atheists have to say is LAUGHABLE here. I feel sorry for them. Seriously. Poor little atheists. They are completely stuck in mud with their beliefs.
  
  
  I have asked our little atheists to explain just how "DEAD MATTER" turns into "LIVING THINGS". Now read the thread, all of it folks. A lot of comments have been posted. After all of these written posts, THIS IS ALL that the little atheists could come up with in answer to how dead matter turns into living things:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Folks, our little atheists also believe that the entire UNIVERSE with all of it's PRECISION and ORDER and POWER just happened to result from some COSMIC EXPLOSION, without ANY INTELLECTUAL FORCE behind it at all, yet resulting in such precise alignment, that we humans (who came from that soup/dead-matter/polymer etc.) can tell exactly when and where planets, moons, comets, asteroids, stars etc. etc. will be located at any given moment in time.
  
  
  Yep, our little atheists believe that in the middle of this intricate, expanding, gargantuan universe, our perfectly located, tilted, spinning and orbiting EARTH just happened to fall right into place (and stays in place) with atmosphere, ozone layer, water cycles, just the exact amount of oxygen and other delicately balanced systems due to some fortuitous series of LUCK. A continuous stream of "FAT CHANCES" that all just fell right into place so that all of this LIFE could then arise from those soup-like, dead matter conditions where a polymer can turn into the human brain and beyond.
  
  
  Not only do our little atheists BELIEVE THIS HILARIOUS LOAD OF GARBAGE, even though it's only a scientific "hypothesis" (cause it's NEVER been duplicated in ANY CONTROLLED scientific setting, so ain't even a THEORY yet). But then, our little atheists go beyond just believing but now want to show up on this debate thread and CONVINCE OTHERS here to believe this same HILARIOUS LOAD OF GARBAGE.
  
  
  Folks, like I said, this is why the web is so great today. It's all there in b&w PRINT for everybody to read for many years to come. I will be BOOKMARKING this thread.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Probably all on this site were JW's at one time, myself included. My own story for leaving is posted here if anybody cares to read it. I wrote it as I was still a JW:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  What I find difficult to understand is that as JW's, we were probably most very zealous and quite into spiritual things at one time. But why so many EX JW's have decided thanks but no thanks to God altogether is surprising to comprehend. To myself, it really is like the proverbial, "Throwing the baby out with the bath water". I guess many perhaps blame God for the JW experience. Or the JW experience was so repressive that people want nothing to do with anything in terms of an authority figure. I don't know. But I personally am still 100 percent convinced that there is a very capable, caring, loving and just Creator that will soon bring all of these many problems to an end.
  
  This is not based on emotionalism or wishful thinking either. But a belief based on logic and examination as well as what the evidence tells me. At least you folks now know why I believe it makes sense to not give up on God altogether. Life can be beautiful in my opinion. No matter what your circumstances in life, you can still find the good. It is definitely there.
  
  
  If there is a God, then there is true hope that can be absolutely remarkable. I hope people will at least read what has been presented with an open mind.
  
  
  I basically spent an entire week on this thread with very little time taking care of other important things. I am self employed too. Also have a wife, kids and dogs that need my time and attention. I have always promised myself not to get too wrapped up in forums like this as well. So, I will bid a fond aloha for now to get back into the normal routine of living and enjoying the things that I do. I do not need the last word, so I am sure you atheists will have a few things to say, but it is the end of the road for me.
  
  
  I am sure I will see you around though.
  
  
  Thanks for the interchange.
  
  
  My best to all,
  
  
  Vinny
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Vinny. Who ever said I was an atheist?

  I'm going to answer SOME of your questions later. Tank you for your answers

  Yet you have ZERO answers to MY NUMEROUS QUESTIONS. I wonder why that is so? You are no better than the others here. NO meaningful contribution to support atheism. NO meaningful contribution to rebutt creationism. That's the way it goes on on this thread again and again over and over.

  I'm not here to support anything, plus you assume to know what I believe, I'm here to talk and get diverent point of views. I only answer to things I feel like, but again thank you for your answers even if I don't agree with every thing you say.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>"This would be the same set of weather systems that create tornados and hurricanes? ... I see "design", but not "intelligent design". I see emergent design, layer upon layer, with the odd-but-livable mistake made.

  >> These are fair and reasonable questions AA.

  That was a kind reply. Thank you.

  >>He went in as a strong, muscular, healthy man, three weeks later he died, after incredible suffering.

  I'm sorry for the loss and pain you and your family suffered.

  >>the bible makes the promise that ALL of these problems will be completely done away with PERMANENTLY.

  I can't see how this is relevant. If I placed a 500lb weight on your foot, would it be comforting if I promised to remove it someday? Even if you truly believed I would remove it, the fact that I was willing to subject you to it in the first place would have to make you wonder...

  >>he also has the POWER and ABILITY to put an end to these things causing so much pain and misery today.

  If true, why doesn't he act? If you saw me in pain, you'd do everything you could to help me, and you don't even know me. God says he has the hairs of your head numbered, but he'll let you die a miserable, suffering death. If he truly has the power and ability, it's all the more untenable that he doesn't act.

  >>Regardless of just why the lion (for example) kills with such savagery, the bible says it will eat grass, just like the bull in an everlasting world.

  Part of the design of predator carnivores is their ability to capture and digest other animals. Why would a god intelligently design them to do this, if his intent was to have them eat grass? That doesn't make any sense.

  >>Especially if the "source" of these promises is one that offers sound reasons to believe them.

  Since he would also be the source of the problems he promises to resolve, there is a serious "trust" issue created. "I'm hurting you today, but I promise I'll make it stop someday." This idea doesn't comfort me at all.

  >>nobody enjoys suffering, pain and the like, it is also true that these conditions can help develop desirable qualities in the individuals that experience them.

  There are certain types of adversity that can help a person grow. But a child that is born severely retarded and dies before age three can't be said to have learned anything. Nor can a baby that was killed as an infant. The people that died in the most recent natural disasters didn't learn anything -- they died. Perhaps those around them learned something, but at the cost of their fellow man's lives.

  >>When I had a very serious staph infection earlier last summer, I was very scared and worried for a few days. However, When I knew I made it out of the woods, safely, I was really happy to be alive. My appreciation had ACTUALLY GROWN through that experience.

  But what if you had died? And what of the thousands of others that DID die last summer? This idea of "suffering as a teaching aid" just doesn't hold water when you carry it thru to its logical end.

  >>The existence OF these problems however, does not just automatically discount or deny God's VERY existence. At least not in my mind. HE has simply decided to allow these conditions to exist at this time, for reasons, that are not crystal clear to humans.

  This would be where "faith" comes into play. You have faith that God is good and loving, so when faced with evidence that he isn't, you find a way to look at it that still allows him to be as you imagine him to be. In the minds of some people, faith is an admirable quality. I'm not one of those people, but there are plenty of them. Don't get me wrong, I respect you as a person. But I don't view "faith" as a commendable quality.

  >>God may be simply allowing man to live for himself, and we can all see the results of this attempt.

  Animals killing and eating one another existed long before man and sinfulness came along, as did earthquakes and volcanoes. While I'd be hardpressed to show evidence that hurricanes and tsunami existed before man's appearance, I'd bet that they did. The bad things that god promises to eliminate were placed here before mankind -- they can't be blamed on "inherited sin".

  >>It's not ALL bad and rotten and miserable. I enjoyed a wonderful swim in the ocean today.

  True enough, but that hardly excuses someone that has the power to remove suffering from doing so. America is a rich nation. Whenever a major natural disaster occurs, the world at large cries out asking, "Why isn't America doing more to help?" And yet god -- who has infinite riches and power -- gets off scott-free. People continue to pray, worship, and even THANK him that THEY were not killed, while their neighbors were.

  >>eat a nice fat steak or whatever else we feel like doing. My mother visits next month. Look forward to doing many things with her. Life is not all bad folks, as some might have people believing.

  It's easy enough for you or I to say that, since we are rich enough to afford good foods, pleasant living conditions, relative freedom. Say "life it not all bad, folks" to the people that don't get even one good meal a day. Tell it to the parents that watch their children starve to death. Just because you and I enjoy life, doesn't mean everybody does. A majority of mankind will never enjoy the level of luxury you and I do.

  >>Again, why would God want this wicked influence on the earth? Possibly because it allows us to be tested, to develop endurance, and for some perhaps to even find God.

  If God wanted to be found, simply appearing before us all would be an easy, painless way to do it. No need for any "test", or even any "faith". Just pop in, work a few miracles, and boom -- instant believers.

  >>And it sure sounds better and more plausible than the alternative some believe; that all life just happened on its own, with no governing force whatsoever for all of the complexities of what we see around us.

  Certainly at one time, I would have agreed with you. But now I find it much more satisfying to see the world WITHOUT a creator. It all makes so much more sense. If simple, natural forces built up the universe, and if natural selection created the various living creatures, then it makes sense that there would be death and disease and natural disasters. No special pleading, no excuses -- it fits like a glove.

  >>There is no hope of a better future. No chance of anything wonderful. A dog eat dog world where even the dogs that win have no future whatsoever. Survival of the fittest with the fittest have nothing to look forward to but permanent DEATH.

  I won't argue with you -- there is a certain pointlessness to life. But again, without a creator in the picture, that makes sense.

  As intelligent, sentient creatures, though, we have the ability to pursue a purpose for ourselves, outside of the "survival of the fittest" concept. We can enjoy our lives, and enhance the enjoyment of others. Eternal life? No, probably not. But an enjoyable life? Yes, that's possible.

  Would you say it's better to have a false hope of something wonderful, or a reality that's good? Simply having hope is valueless unless the thing you're hoping for actually happens. Worse, it may cause you to give up some of the good you could experience now, in the pursuit of that hope.

  >> A bleak, dark no hope kind of existence. Not too much to get excited about with a life and hope like this.

  I disagree. Living each day to the full can be a wonderful existence. After all, even if I was going to live forever, I can only be alive one day at a time. An infinite future doesn't enhance today.

  Vinny, I'd like you to consider something. Whether you realize it or not, you've been acting in a very arrogant fashion on this thread. You've made fun of people, engaged in name-calling, belittled people. You've spoken what you admit is your own opinion as if it were set-in-stone fact, and condemned anyone that doesn't agree with you as an idiot.

  Why do you think you've been acting this way? I ask, because it is not unusual for people with strongly held beliefs to act this way. Not unusual at all. When I was a believer, I acted this way at times.

  Why would this be the case? Why is harder to rationally, calmly, respectfully defend one's beliefs, the more strongly they are held?

  Any thoughts?

  Dave
• 

  Odrade

  LtCmdLore, I was going to send you a PM, but I changed my mind and would like to say it publicly: I'm quite impressed with the dignity you showed here, and your ability to express yourself logically, reasonably and without resorting to personal insults, even while you were repeatedly subjected to gross disrespect by Vinny. Vinny, you handled yourself like... well, a JW. It's too bad you didn't approach this discussion with the intellectual honesty you claim to have, instead resorting to repeatedly calling people "little" and laughing at them.

  I suspect anyone who reads this thread will have respect for the "little" 17 y.o., who displayed so much class, whether they agree with him or not. Vinny, I suggest you do some reading on logical fallacies. Perhaps if you understand the concept, your "debating" might actually resemble a debate, where all participants are respected. I saw the other posters on this thread treating you with respect, but I saw zero respect in your replies to them. A shame really. There are many Christians and theists on this board who can participate in these discussions with reasonableness, respect, intelligence and class. Being the most insulting does not make you right, being the loudest does not make you right either. Being in the company of intelligent people does not necessarily guarantee you are either right or intelligent. It simply means you hold the same opinions. Remember the "moral majority?"
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>Nobody ever dealt with the Red Vette. EVER. It is stuck to all atheists forhead. Let's imagine that you are completely alone in the middle of North Dakota somewhere, surrounded by nothing but mountainous wilderness, no people, no buildings, just you alone and the wilderness for hundreds of miles. And right there in the middle of it all you suddenly walk up to a brand new Red Chevrolet Corvette, unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, a full tank of gas and one road taking you out. Now, it would in my opinion be nothing short of preposterous, actually INSANE to even entertain the mere possibility if someone were to try telling you that THAT brand new Red Corvette just happened to get there, on its own, without any intelligent designer behind it whatsoever.

  You're right Vinny, it would be insane to assume that your red vette appeared out of nothing. No one disagrees with you. No atheist, no theist, nobody.

  However, this is a false analogy. You may not AGREE that it's a false analogy, but that is the answer atheists have given you. We've also told you why it's false -- your corvette doesn't reproduce. It had no forces of natural selection that could be applied to it. Life, on the other hand, reproduces imperfectly, creating opportunities to change and evolve.

  You don't have to believe in evolution to see that this corvette analogy is flawed. It's ok to not believe in evolution, but at least see the difference between living populations of creatures and a single manufactured item.

  Dave of the "no vette's stuck to the forehead" class
• 

  proplog2

  Almost Atheist:

  Actually the Corvette did evolve. There could not have been a Corvette, before cars were invented. There couldn't be Corvettes before the internal combustion engine was invented. There could not have been a Corvette before wheels were invented.

  These inventions were the results of concepts vying with each other at millions of stages in the brains of humans.

  The brain is an evolutionary space. It just speeds things up.

  The only example we have of design is trial and error just like evolution.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>The only example we have of design is trial and error just like evolution.

  Touche'. To carry it further, the "environment" is changing, no longer favoring gas-guzzlers and favoring hybrids. How much longer before the muscle-car species is extinct?

  Dave