Posts by Elemental

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

>> As a result I am leaving the board

Thank Jebus.

.... Oh wait, he's still spouting nonsense. Nevermind.

It wasn't that I was still "spouting nonsense" as there was nothing nonsensical about my statements. Rather the issue was that most of you are too uneducated to reason with so I gave up. B_Derserter's constant errors and mistakes in statements he made compiled with Rebel8's horrid lack of deductive reasoning in addition to endless character assassination attempts (such as in your case) led me to the logical conclusion that you people do not know what you are talking about. And yet you tell me I am the one "spouting nonsense."

In short you don't reason, you attack.

Now I truly understand what Christ meant when he said...

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

I would like to thank you MissingLink for showing me a living example of his words and that He unlike you and B_Deserter knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. Not an insult, just a painful truth that you will have to come to terms with one day.

Have a nice life.

Oh, by the way MissingLink...you might want to consider investing in a spell checker as never mind is two words, not one.

AND before you respond,

I at this point could care less what you think so please spare me insults as one, you don't do it very well, two, I have heard it before and I doubt you would come up with something original anyway. And three, I really do not care what you say about me. In fact, the only reason that I am writing this is to beg you not to bore everyone else with your response. (Yeah I know I am the only one boring everyone, I get it...)

Please do not waste time with trying to respond with some comment in the attempts to "win the argument." If that is how you need to have your ego stroked. Fine, I concede, you win. I just can't takes’ no more Popeye. Your brilliant deductive reasons have overcome my stupidity and I could no longer look upon the light of your beaming intelligence. You and B_Deserter truly are geniuses of the highest caliber along with all the other greats such as Einstein. Hence, I do not wish to embarrass myself further so I will go crawl back into the hole whence I came.

Now that your ego has been satisfied and you won, perhaps you won't bore everyone with the inevitable and utterly predictable responses that you are going to no doubt borrow from others. I know how your statements are going to go before you even utter them. So whatever statement such as "well you are making yourself look stupid enough so I did not have to" or "Well, you just are too ignorant to understand so I gave up before you did...etc." or “I am glad that you recognize our intelligence and saw that you were stupid” or whatever else you concoct will not be read by me as I simply now ignoring you (and no, I am not ignoring you because I lost but because there was nothing to gain, again, get the drift?) Rather, I ask this so you do not bore everyone else with some mind numbing rhetoric that has been rehashed since the dawn of mankind.

So please be kind and don’t say anything stupid.

And before Rebel8 decides to utter predictable psychobabble in an attempt to analyze this as a "response of a person who is in need of attention to justify their intelligence to others" or whatever else she tries to analyze...

Remember what Freud said..."Sometimes as cigar is just a cigar." And that is the case here. I really am simply trying to stop MissingLink or anyone else from boring everyone here with a response that I will not read as I really do not care what they think.

Get it? Good.

Now that I covered all of the possibilities of someone saying something stupid, I bid you all goodbye.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

Thank you for participating in global labeling.

When someone finishes comparing a lighting bolt to the creation of a cell. That is not called global labeling, it is called accurate observation.

Have a nice life all. I am done.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

Miller was not part of the experiment because his presence was not required for the equivalent real-life occurences in the experiment to happen, unless of course you think every lightning bolt has a divine purpose behind it, and even then the theory of electromagnetism provides a much more plausible answer. You're arguing for the idea that God is directly behind earthquakes and weather patterns, consciously guiding each one because someone can set up a weather or an earthquake simulation (who does the supercomputer programmed by software engineers represent?). You're arguing that every murderer is guided telepathically by God because crime scene detectives can set up recreations of events they did not witness (who do the detectives and crime scene investigators represent?)

Flipping the switch on the lightning bolt and compiling the molecules in a vessel don't count as being part of the experiment because there is no intelligence required in the equivalent events happening naturally. We know why lightning occurs, and why carbon hydrogen and oxygen would be on the earth, and we also know how the earth got here. None of those explanations require a deity. Stellar nuclear fusion accounts for the elements without the need of a deity, the electromagnetic force accounts for lightning, and the forces of gravity account for the earth. Merely mimicking these natural occurrences for the sake of experiment does not constitute a designer. Sorry.

Comparing a lighting bolt striking the ground to the creation of a cell is like throwing paper and a typewriter in a tornado and expecting to get an unabridged dictionary.

All I can say is words escape me...

Have a nice life.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

Elemental's arguments here are not new, but I want to focus on the tone, because I interpret that tone to be in retalliation for perceived "attacks" on faith by Atheists. (such as "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris) What better way to respond to statements like "Faith in god is evidence of a weak mind" then to respond exactly in kind and trying to label Atheists as the stupid ones who refuse to look at "the facts".

In this, Elemental's arguments, (and others like them) are nothing more then a debate tactic, designed to defend one's right to think and believe.

I am amused at the amount of evidence that Elemental puts out there. Elemental, you are far more real to me then Jesus. You have talked to me. I would even worship you if you could put out some bona fide credentials. Until "god" somehow gets it through her head that accepting scrolls several thousand years old as evidence do not satisfy the mind that she supposedly created for me to question and learn with, I will abstain from woshiping her, hysterical attempts at defense by some of her adherants notwithstanding.

Well, I am not asking for all of that :)

Personally I do not care if one believes what I do or not. They have free will to believe as they wish. If you do not want to accept there is a God, that is your choice. It is also true that as I said before one cannot give "proof."

I also said that I had no issue of thinking that perhaps God did use evolution as a means to create the earth. I also have no issue with the earth being 4.8 billion years old. The point is that I am open to these ideas. But what I do get irritated at is the notion that believing in Christ is pure nonsense. It is nonsense to them but not to others. There are plenty of people who do believe that Jesus rose from the dead who are rather intelligent and yet these are dismissed.

Those arguements that you mention are used because for the most part they still work. There is no logical flaw with them from what I can tell other than you cannot accept the idea of the supernatural.

But instead of telling me why my reasoning was flawed, several times I have been insulted by people who say "go back to your imaginary sky daddy." This does not sound to me like people who are simply interested in listening to another's view point. Rather it seems to be just an attack.

Over and over again I was willing to listen carefully to what people on both sides have said as I came from an agnostic/athiestic background. As such I was even willing to admit that persons had points when they did. I told them I could see where they were coming from.

But few times on this board have I ever heard anyone tell me that the could see AT LEAST a valid point to my view. It seems to me that they are so stubborn that they cannot even acknowledge a point. Never have I ever read once someone say "well perhaps they really did feel the Holy Spirit. No, what I hear is delusion, stupidity, arrogance, nonsense. Frankly that does not do much for me because all that tells me is it is nonsense to them.

What truly bothers me about this is that many times I am told that despite the fact of not knowing me that somehow they know me better than I do myself for despite never having met me they can tell me that I am allowing my imagination run away with me or I am insane. It is that level of arrogance that bothers me for when someone tells me I am delusional without knowing me, I get rather irritated. I would never tell anyone that they were delusional unless I had some proof and these people have none.

For example your statement about my coming here and using my view as a debate tactic. I respectfully disagree with this as that was not my intent. My intent was to get more clerification on what was being said and why. Athiests claim that they are not in a religion, that they are above that. Then why mention it at all to people? Why bring it up? If you are truly away from all the "religious nonsense" why tell everybody your business? You believe there is no God. Uhm, okay. Fine. But how do you know that was my idea? Do you know me? But somehow you felt that you were able to figure out my motive. I mean no offense to you but no one on earth is so intelligent that they know what another is thinking. You can guess but you do not know.

It is the fact that they have to mention it to people that puzzles me as I fail to see what it does for anyone. Christians at least feel that they are defending God when they talk. If one believes that there is no God why bring it up? As a result, the one I see using a debate tactic is the athiest after all I did not come here telling people why I accept Christ as that is personal. It is sharing these views with others that shows they wish to debate it. I simply responded to the invitation.

But all of that for the most part is over as I am not going to discuss it futher. I am simply letting you know that I read your post.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

"Except the fact that the cloning required technology that wasn't accessible to bronze age man, and the cloned sheep didn't survive long. "
The point is that is was possible to do something which scientists are now discovering. To say that man is the only one who could accomplish this is not only illogical but absurd. Again you are limiting your views to only what you see at the moment. Very narrowminded.

"Because there is evidence for dinosaurs, we have fossil evidence scattered throughout the earth. And depending on how you define "sea monster" I don't really think most people really focus on THAT in the Bible. Usually we laugh at the references to unicorns and dragons, and we laugh at them because there is no evidence that they exist, unlike dinosaurs."
So there were no underwater dinosaurs? The word monster in hebrew simply means gigantic creature. Are you saying there is no such evidnce? Again you show your narrowmindedness as a mutated horse with a horn in its head is plausible. The idea that life came from non existance to me is not.

Your complete misunderstanding of evolution is evident here. Hominids were not monkeys, they were not apes, they were hominids like we are hominids. And yes, a gradual evolution of the brain and vocal chords sound much more plausible to me than an invisible man using magic to make donkeys and snakes talk.
In your mind that is. Again where does it say in the Bible that this was done with Magic?
The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes [ notes 1 ] ) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans. [ 1 ]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Hominid or hominin?
Some scientists use a broader definition of Hominidae which includes the great apes, and instead call the group I am discussing "hominins". For a good discussion of the hominid/hominin terminology issue, read this article by Lee Berger.

The word "hominid" in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids.
Funny but didn't you just get done saying that "Hominids were not monkeys, they were not apes, they were hominids like we are hominids."
So uhm who is ignorant of the subject again?
"Again, you are willfully ignorant of the subject, here. Evolution is not chance, abiogenesis is not life coming from NOTHING. It is the process of trying to understand how the building blocks of life formed. In contrast, you believe nothing created a superintelligent being capable of creating a universe. Which one sounds less reasonable?"

Uhm we both know the answer to that one. I will take the idea of someone that is more powerful than humans any day of the week over the idea that all of it came from no guidence whatsoever. Again you show you limted thinking because I am refurring to that those things all had to come from nothing at some point by random chance. You also show your ignorance of Theology and science becuase there was something at the begining of the big bang that science is now adimiting was there forever. This was in one of my astromony books that I read last year in college that according to the book the thing that was before the begining of the universe was probibly eternal. In short the universe had a start by an eternal something. When I say nothing I refer to the idea of without guidence. If you want a reference I would have to go back to the college and get it to give you an exact response. Since you would not be willing to listen to it and since I have no intent on being here that long, I will not bother getting it. Go to a college and ask yourself.

So the problem is that the data is pointing to my view, not yours.

Straw man argument. You really need to stop getting your information from creationist propaganda. That is NOT what abiogenesis claims.
"abiogenesis claims (or rather is associated with the claim) that all life started from a single celled organism from a primordial soup.This cell evolved over billions of years into the life that we now have on this planet." Is that exact enough for you? You are also missing the point in the fact that when I say nothing I mean without intelligent guidence. " You are the one who keeps complaining that this is not an acidemic website. So per your request I dumbed the discussion down to the level that you wanted.
So make up your mind, do you want dumbed down or technically accurate? You can't complain on the one hand about me using the word nothing in the context that I used it and then get defensive when I point out that you made a mistake in quoting one of the Bible writers namely James in Acts.

"You're going to have to be more specific than saying "science is not showing." Who is this "science" person? What are his credentials? Where is he published? Oh lemme guess, I bet he's published in "Creation rules evilution drools science magazine" right?"
Uhm you DO read don't you? Pick up a book for once and look it up. Then again seeing as you did not look through the Bible in detail and did not have the information correct about hominids, I am not surpised.
Uhm yeah, the college that I went to was a theology college. Not. After all, I never touch books by Bart Erhman or Kenneth Humphreys.
Only an ignorant person would assume that I did not do the research. I had assumed that you had done the research but since that above shows that you HAVE NOT, I will no longer bother discussing it. I don't have time to simply check everything out that you have made a mistake on.
They reject the idea that God could part water but have no issue with this when a scientist in Japan did this a few years back.

Who is this scientist? How did he part water? Assuming he did this in a labratory, how does his experiment work when tried in scale?

It was done a few years back and was dubed the "Moses effect" named after the parting of the Red Sea.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1468-6996/9/2/020301/stam8_2_020301.pdf?request-id=ec9ecb52-6f1a-422b-b97d-5d87049f0a6b

"For example, it was

demonstrated that water in a vessel could be separated into two parts by applying

strong horizontal magnetic fields to create the so-called Moses effect. Reportedly,

diamagnetic materials such as water and wood can be levitated by applying

vertical magnetic fields: magnetic levitation. These phenomena are interpreted in

terms of magnetic force."

The information shows that if a magnetic force is applied to a object such as water it will not only levitate the object but can be used to split it. This was done in a labortory in Japan (but who the scientist was I do not recall) where they split water using a high power magnet. Theoretically if the magnet were powerful enough the effect would be inifite.

Frankly, I do not have enough time to go through every time you make a mistake so I am stopping this right here. The point is that you have shown that you do not know what you are talking about and are biased. A good example is the site you used to point everyone to when you said that "Christians are often dishonest."

Well, it appears that you were not "honest" in telling them that this is an anti creationist website that has wonderful articles such as

"How Not to Argue With Creationists

Certain tactics should be avoided in public debates with creationists, as this continuation of an exchange between James Lippard and Ian Plimer illustrates."

Yeah really unbiased there.

"This statement is not correct. The Miller-Urey experiment did, in fact, produce 22 amino acids, which are, in fact, some of the molecules necessary for life. Additionally, the experimentation did not end there.

As far as the atmosphere goes. Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (sources 1-4). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions. Additionally, the early atmosphere, even if it was oxidizing, was nowhere near as oxidizing as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules (source 5).

I highly suggest you do some actual research. You'll find that Creationists are often not being honest with you, and will repeat the same tired arguments no matter how many times they've been debunked. Here is a good place to start reading about the Miller-Urey experiment. You'll find it goes into far more detail than "it didn't create the organic molecules required for life": http://talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey

Finally, your statement that abiogenesis is a "pipe dream" is not proof that a deity wished it all into existence by magic. You're committing a false dichotomy. If Abiogenesis is proven to be false, then the default answer is "we don't know," not "magic man done it!""

Right, but the experiment shows the need for intelligent design for if the lab represents the primordial soup and atmosphere who do the scientists who did the experiment represent? All this shows me is that it took someone with intelligence to bring a cell into existence as they were part of the experiment. I mean are you going to sit here and tell me that no one set up the lab? When you get a lab that set up itself and did the experiment on its own then come back and talk to me. As it is all you have done is reaffirm that someone was behind it. In fact every experiment that you bring here only reaffirms intelligent design as it took intelligence to set up the experiment in the first place. Congratulations.

But like most other atheists you brush that little bit of information aside and pretend that they were not part of the experiment. You thus dismiss them due to your "faith" and pretend they did not exist or were not part of the experiment. You have to consider all of the evidence and the evidence points to you requiring intelligence to set up the environment to bring a cell into existence. Thus we have repeatable, observable, empirical evidence that shows that one must have intelligence to bring something of this magnitude into existence.

This is why I find that it is pointless to have a debate with people like you. You tell me that Christians are delusional and then imagine away that there is any intelligence in the experiment to come to the conclusion that it proves that you can make a cell without intelligence. Bring me a lab that came into existence in its current form on its own and a cell came out of it by itself and we will talk. You call this absurd but that is what you are saying to every person who believes in God. That the earth with all of its wonders and complexity are just a result of a natural occurring event without governing intelligence. You want to prove to me that this is not the case then bring me something far less complex, that lab. DO NOT tell me that I do not understand science or the situation or that my reasoning is absurd because anyone who can come to me and imagine away a scientist in a lab pretending that they did not matter in the experiment is more so.

In fact I am stopping the debate here because if you state anything beyond where the evidence is pointing you are as delusional as the Christians you claim are ignorant.

Have a nice life.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

While I thank you for requesting me to post some more as I stated I will be leaving the board pretty quickly as most of the intellectuals here do not have the intelligence that they claim to have.

They can only see "checks and balances" hopelessly stuck in a mental prison assuming everything that does not come into their little world view must be false. They say things such as "If Osiris is false then the God of Christianity must be as well." This reasoning is false of course as the Bible said there was only one God to begin with. They cannot see that both evolution and God are acceptable.

In fact their idea that macro evolution would destroy the Bible is false as there are several scriptures in the book that support the idea (such as a snake being transmuted from a staff) so even though I accept that the idea of macro evolution is very viable they will not even consider the idea that the Bible was correct in saying that there was one God who did it.

No, they namely athiests who say they have an open mind refuse to accept the accounts in the Bible claiming they are nonsense despite the fact that science now begining to back these stories up. Hence their thinking is the real contradiction...

For example.

They scoff at the idea of Eve coming from Adam's rib, but have no issue of accepting cloning a sheep from far less.

They laugh at the "absurdity" of a sea monster in the Bible but have no issue with dinosaurs.

They wave their hand in dismissal at the idea of God making an ass speak or the devil making a serpent talk but have no problem of believing that monkeys learned to speak all by themselves.

They roll their eyes at the idea of God giving a man life by bringing him back from the dead and yet can accept that nothing brought life into existence in the first place.

They mock when someone says that God breathed life into the dust of the ground and yet have no issue of accepting that nothing did the same thing.

The mock at the "absurd" story that says magicians changed a staff to a serpent despite the fact that science is now showing that this could be possible by alterations in the DNA structure of a cell. Granted it would take a lot but it is possible (after all we share 50% of our DNA with a banana.)

They reject the idea that God could part water but have no issue with this when a scientist in Japan did this a few years back.

I could go on but it becomes clear that over and over again the atheist does the very thing which they claim Christians are guilty of namely accepting evidence when it suits their purpose but then rejecting it when it does not. They claim that the Christian is guilty of accepting myths and legends despite the fact that their own view is being destroyed by the very scientific method that they claim to hold onto. They cannot accept that God in his wisdom can manipulate nature by using laws that we are just now becoming aware of. Then when a Christian who is willing to accept these things and always did DOES say that they that God answered their prayers, the atheist dismisses this a delusion or insanity while at the same time embracing ideas as truth that they concocted in their own mind. They on the one hand hold a Christian to a higher standard than they have for themselves by saying they require evidence but then accepts without proof ideas in their own head. But then when evidence IS presented such as a record which in normal cases would be accepted in court is rejected because of ideas that their own peers are now showing are possible namely that these so called supernatural events are not really supernatural at all but were a result of humankind's ignorance of nature.

Thus they have shown themselves to be guilty of the very stupid, narrow-minded arrogance that they claim Christians have. Indeed it saddens me that they who claim to have an open mind who say that they look at things impartially, really are not impartial at all.

As a result I am leaving the board as I am sick of being told as a said before that my relationship with Christ is imaginary using evidence that came out of their imagination.

Please email me if you wish to talk further. I am done at this point at least for now.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

You’re Welcome rebel8 as you don't seem to have a response to anything I stated anyway.

I didn't read your drivel because, as I pointed out, you're not worth my time.

Anyone who does not possess knowledge of basic manners probably does not possess knowledge of more complex topics.

Please commence the ignoring as promised. Or are you not in mastery of your emotions enough to not have the last word? Let's see. Bye now.

First of all nice attempt in using reverse psychology in trying to keep me quiet. It seems that someone needs to go back for their psychology degree again. If you had actually taken the time to read my "drivel" you would have noticed what I actually meant. Go back and read it for a change.

"Anyone who does not possess knowledge of basic manners probably does not possess knowledge of more complex topics."

How did you ever graduate from college? Seriously, for your patients (God help them, oh I'm sorry wait, NOTHING help them) and yourself learn logic. One's ability to be polite has nothing to do with one's ability to reason on things.

But thanks for allowing me to put you on that ignore list as giving my personal opinion about you will be a lot easier. I did not say when you say something stupid that I would not make a comment. I simply meant that if you have nothing worth saying I am going to not respond.

And Oh, BTW, suggestion...

"I didn't read your drivel because, as I pointed out, you're not worth my time."

Psychologist, counsel thyself. Before you talk about being rude to people, take a good look in the mirror and fix your own problem with insulting people first.

But what do I expect from a person who on the one hand says

Anyone who does not possess knowledge of basic manners probably does not possess knowledge of more complex topics.

And then proceeds to be rude by saying

"I didn't read your drivel because, as I pointed out, you're not worth my time."

So congradulations Rebel 8. Not only have you shown that you cannot read well, but that by your own criteria you do not have enough knowledge for discussing more complext topics.

But don't worry I am leaving the board for this type of reasoning is what I have come to expect.

So have a nice life. I am sure that one day you will fix that reading probelm of yours. :)

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

Elemental:

Today it is a fairly common practice for students to lift essays or other papers off the internet to submit to their teachers, passing it off as their own work.

Teachers are aware of this practice, and are able to do some searching to find out if their students were cheating.

In an attempt to avoid getting caught, and still do as little work as possible, the student may change certain parts of the essay or paper, in order to make it seem like his own work. It remains the same basic message and outline, but there are certain differences that make it seem like individual authorship.

Your argument for the validity of the gospels above is an argument based on the assumption that the differences in the account lend themselves to it's validity. If you are allowing that argument from assumption, then you MUST concede that the opposite assumtption is just as likely - that the differences in the gospel lend themselves to it being a farce.

Great thread, B. I really enjoyed reading it.

Depends on the differences. In the case of the Gospels those differences are minor (sometimes major such as in the case of the lineage of Jesus Christ) However, I have yet to see someone give me a valid argument as to why in the case with the Gospels the stories are false because of them. Exactly what in the Gospels is so contradictive that they are impossible to be true? Indeed I would expect if writers were truly writing independent of each other that there would be some differences. It is the scholars and atheists who are contradictive in their conclusions for one side says that the Gospels copied from each other and the other side says that they are too contradictive for this to be the case.

Given the above contradiction or that one Gospels says one angel was there at the tomb while the other says two I would say that the scholars and atheists have a bigger problem on their hands.

Speak out of your rear end again and I am simply going to ignore you.

You're verbally abusive and argumentative (code words for "not worth my time"). I'd enjoy it if you'd ignore me. Thanks in advance.

You’re Welcome rebel8 as you don't seem to have a response to anything I stated anyway. By the way, you might want to read what Freud said about a cigar sometimes being just a cigar.

I am out of responses for today as I have reached the limit one what I can post. So I will not be able to respond the rest of the day.

Theist arrogance that only a technical, 10-comment forum limitation can bridle?

Please place me on your ignore list, Elemental.

Incredible, I am called arrogant and people say they have no need to prove their beliefs but Christians have to. If creating a standard that you hold others to that you do not is not the epitome of arrogance then I don't know what is.

You want to hear about arrogant? How about a group of people who claim Christiains are delusional while coming up with evidence from their imagination and then when they are called out on it they wave their arm around without needing to justify their case? Then when they are presented that evidence presume to say it is all imaginary without backing the case up with fact? Then when I ask them to justify it they say things like "Please place me on your ignore list, Elemental."

So far not one of you has been able to state WHY I am wrong. But you know what, I am out of here for today as this will do no good.

Since you cannot not stand not having the last word, you may now have it.

Post a reply ...

You have already made 10 post(s) in the last 24 hours out of your limit of 10.
You cannot start another until your oldest post expires 6/17/2009 11:18:00 AM.

Close

Confirm ...

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

So where did I say the Bible says that Christianity is irrational? Read my statement again. I say that he or she may feel. While I agree with you that faith is an inherently irrational thing, and that the Bible says that faith is needed, where exactly did I make the claim otherwise? I think you have to admit that there are some Christians who believe the Bible and Christianity are indeed completely rational. Just look at Answers In Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. I don't see how you can think there aren't a lot of Christians who believe that their religion is rational, regardless of what the Bible says.
The flaw in your reasoning is this idea that faith in the Bible means "acceptance without proof" when the word means acceptance based off of factual evidence. There is no idea of the notion in the Bible of belief without proof. All of the writers said that Christains were not to accept simply based off of invented stories.
2 Pe
16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." [a] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
So this idea you have of the Christains accepting without evidence is false as it is not in the Bible at all.

Surely you don't believe every single ancient myth (pardon my term) out there do you? If so, then what is your criteria for telling fact from fantasy? Does writing something down in a book automatically make it true for you?
Of course not no more than I would accept anyone to do this. And you are correct in saying that just writing something down does not make it true.
However, if the writers are saying that they saw something that happened, either they are liars or are telling the truth. In such case the myth could be fact.
True, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe something because it was written in a book a long time ago. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I am not claiming that Zeus never existed, I am rejecting the claims by others that he existed due to lack of evidence. When I say "there is no God," I don't mean that I absolutely positively know to an absolute certainty that he doesn't exist, I mean that I am as certain as I can be about anything that I see no compelling evidence for one. I cannot be absolutely certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist, nor can I be certain the Easter Bunny doesn't either. But I am certain they don't in a practical sense, as much as I can be certain about anything.
It one thing to accept the easter bunny and santa claus when people confess the story is made up. It is quite another to reject an idea when the person says they truthfully observed an event. If witness testimony is something you do not adhere to then you better never accept anything you hear in a courtroom.
My not believing in God requires no evidence. YOU are the one who is making the assertion that he does exist, therefore YOU are the one who has the burden of proof, not me. I am simply saying that I don't believe you. If I were to claim that there is an invisible gnome, undetectable by any human means living in my stomach, would you have the burden of proof to disprove it and automatically believe me because you couldn't? Or, would it be my responsibility to provide evidence if I wanted to convince others of it?
So what you just admitted to is that you go by a double standard in the fact that you simply just believe that God does not exist. Tell me exactly how is that any different than the person who says I believe in God even though I have no evidence? Why are you telling everyone this when it is just your opinon? You are enitiled to it but frankly it is rather contradictive to call Chirstains arrogant when you go by the same criteria they do and yet insist that if God answers back it is insanity. You claim Christians are arrogant or insanefor thinking God answers their prayers but then tell me you need no proof for your beliefs? After all it could be that God just did not go to you.
Where in the Bible does it support the idea that Zeus and Thor were real? You're making a leap between the Nephilim and the Greek Gods. You have no compelling evidence to support that belief, either, and you're condemning ME?
I did not say that I had compelling evidence only that I do not dismiss the idea. I said that it is logically impossible to dismiss this idea entirely.
Again, I don't need proof not to believe in something that has no proof. I simply don't accept it because I haven't seen compelling evidence? I am making no assertions, you are. You are claiming that something exists, and it is your responsibility (if you want other people to believe it) to provide proof.
Please. You mean that you don't want to BOTHER to find out.
A myth can very well mean a false story. The academic definition of a word is not the only definition. I still use the word theory when referring to an idea or a guess, but I understand that it has a different meaning in an academic setting. This forum is not an academic setting and therefore am using the colloquial meaning. You're trying to distract the topic at hand by being pedantic.
And you implied that all myth is false. As I have said not all myth is false. You can say that you feel that myth is false but you cannot say that it is false.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..." Again, you're being pedantic, pointlessly splitting hairs over semantics. You cannot ignore the fact that many Christians DO believe that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says that it is inspired of God, that God cannot lie. Therefore it presents itself as the message of God.
Incorrect observation on your part. This is not pointlessly splitting hairs as inspired can have a number of meaings. You assumed that the one that you were using was correct much like most of your arguments that you used. If that is not the case then please show me where it states that God said the book was infallible? It states that he breathed on the writers to wriite about him but write what in what way?

I do not believe there is a God because there is no compelling evidence for his existence. I do not believe something simply because it cannot be disproven, otherwise I would believe everything everybody said all the time. That course is not an advantageous one.
The no complelling evidence you discribe happens to be all of creation around you. If you are too ignorant to see its complexity that is your problem not mine.
Here you are creating another straw man argument. Where did I argue that because the Bible contradicts itself that it must mean God doesn't exist? Where? You're blinded by your assumptions about atheists. Your Titanic example is flawed for a few reasons. 1) A shipwreck is something that happens all the time, and is not a miraculous claim, therefore it's easy to believe that a ship called the Titanic sank in 1912. 2) There is physical proof of the Titanic sinking. Newspapers all over the world at the time reported on it. There are eyewitnesses (up until recently living eyewitnesses I believe). There is the ACTUAL SHIP at the bottom of the Atlantic and there is VIDEO FOOTAGE of the ship before and after it sank.
Actually that tape of the ship is fake and the witnesses are all liars. It is one thing to say that a witness testmony is false it is another thing to prove it is.
There is evidence that those events happened and that is the Apostles seeing those events but you choose to ignore this. That is an assumption on your part. So I AM the one that has the burden of proof as I have the Apostles saying they saw this man resurrected. It is now up to YOU to prove that they were lying and so far you have done a very poor job doing it.
If someone told me a ship called the Titanic sank in 1912, grew fins and danced a hula all the way down to the bottom and now lives as an invisible celestial shark that we all must worship, but there were no corroborating records for it, no video footage, no eyewitnesses, no newspaper clippings, then yes I would have trouble believing it. I wouldn't believe it until that person brought me better evidence for it. The Jesus story was written by those who CLAIM to be eyewitnesses almost 2,000 years ago. No contemporary records exist at the time (and don't bring up Josephus, either. The mentions of Jesus were forgeries added by Christians hundreds of years after the fact) The authorship of Matthew at least is very debatable, considering the fact that here was a supposed eyewitness using other gospels as source material. Unfortunately for you I have put some basic study into that issue, and not just from "Atheists suck and the Bible r00lz University."
There is outside testmony for Jesus of Nazereth, by plenty of historians. Celsus for example says that Jesus existed and did the miricles. The problem is that you REJECT this testimony becuase it is not what you want to hear. The authorship of Matthew is a good example as Papias who knew the Apostles says that Matthew wrote the Gosple bearing his name. But you reject this becuase you just do not want to hear it. If I am wrong then please bring forth this evidence from the person who knew the Apostles that says that Matthew DID NOT write it.
Again, more pointless hair-splitting. Oh my God I was wrong about who authored Acts. So what? Are you saying it really did matter to me? Can you read my mind? Who's going to win next year's Super Bowl?
I love when people do this. The point is that you did not know what you were talking about. If you are going to state a fact you better be prepared to be "called on the carpet" for it. It is not hair splitting if you misquote them.
If you read the book and found proof in the book that God was behind it, good for you. I need more than that. I don't simply accept every wild claim written down in a book at face value, as you apparently have the habit of. I think that using the Bible as its own proof is circular logic. You can't use the subject in question as proof of its own conclusion.
Just as acccepting the accounts of Alexander the Great by historans is circular logic right? Again I do not accept the book because the book says that it is inspired of God rather because it was written by people who were there during the events and you wern't. Get me someone as a reference that was there during the events that said they did not happen and we'll talk. So far the only thing that you have brought me is the very circular logic that you accuse me of. After all does "My not believing in God requires no evidence." ring a bell?
Well, I'm not impressed with you, either. You've brought nothing to the table, here. Just theist arrogance.
Theistic arrogance would require having no proof and still stating that it is fact. I have proof in the writings of the Apostles. I have proof in the complexity of all creation. I have proof in the writings of Josephus, and others. I have proof. You however have fail to bring forth one shred of evidence that these men were lying other than "Well, my beliefs require no proof." Funny, but the only one who seems to have "brought nothing to the table" here is you.
Again when you actually get off of your rear and show me this evidence at the time that the Apostles were liars then we'll talk. Until then spare me your opinion.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

Elemental

Back to what I was saying and that is that at the time Christians did not accept Christ because they were simply told to believe. They accepted it on the idea that people had seen Jesus rise and it is this testimony that I find a strong evidence for Christianity.

There are writings about different gods and goddesses such as the Poetic Edda which involves Odin and Thor to the Book of the Dead in Egypt but most of them from what I have read are vague. Even accounts such as with Siddhartha Gautama who was a real person are rather general in nature.

But the point is in all of the cases that I have seen; I have never observed the same level of correlative testimony as I have in the writing of the Bible as virtually all of the accounts have at least one other person confirming them. Granted this is not the only evidence but it is a strong one as it simply does not exist in any other literature that I have encountered.

A good example of this is the Book of Mormon where in 3 Nephi Jesus is said to have raised someone from the dead. It is an impressive account but nowhere is the in any other location in the book. In fact there is no collaborative witness testimony in either this or the Koran. Further I have not see any literature that this is the case other than the Bible.

The person who tries to rationalize this away brings up more problems than they solve. For on the one hand scholars believe that the accounts are so similar that writers are copying from each other while on the other hand many atheists believe that the writers were so contradictive in the accounts that they are false. This only to me proves that they were not copying each other for if they were why are the contradictions there in the first place? Would these have not been removed or rather not been added at all? If Luke and Matthew were copying from Mark then which was borrowing their lineage of Jesus when there is no lineage of Jesus in Mark at all? Why were they different seeing as there is no lineage of Jesus in Mark's account? In addition Mark's account of the resurrection ends with the women running in fear and that is the end of it. In the case of Matthew and Luke neither one borrows from the other and Mark's account does not cover either story. So where were they getting this information from? Thus both sides of the issue are less than satisfactory.

My point is that as you can see unless you wish to invent a conspiracy from inside of your head, there really is no getting around the idea that these people were NOT copying each other and that the witness testimony is genuine. You could try to say that they were not written by the people whose names appear on the Gospels but the internal evidence of each book does not support this. It would take too long to explain at the moment however.