Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

One Eyed Jack

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by heusdens
Am I now making a mistake to believe that Christians believe in what is stated in that book?

No, your mistake lies in assuming what is stated in that book, when it's obvious that you have no idea.

I don't know where that is stated

Of course you don't, because it's not in there. Which only goes to prove my point above. How many times does that make now?
 

SOTKForEver

New member
Hey Huesdens,

Why don't you go to an Atheist or Agnostic forum to discuss your theories and beliefs in the non-existence of God? I know that I am new to theology-type forums, but for the life of me, I don't understand what atheists and agnostics are doing hanging out in a theology based forum site. What is the atheist motivation? It can't be an interest in the theists' belief system as I've seen no evidence to suggest this yet. It can't be an honest curiosity either? All of the atheist posts which I've read thus far show no signs that they are even remotely interested in giving up their belief that God does not exist. Why stay? The atheist motivation is suspect. It is my belief that the motivation is to tick off believers. To my knowledge, I know of no christians who go hang out in an agnostic or atheist forum and start arguing the same points over and over again. See, I'm not willing to give up my belief in Christ no matter what you say so therefore I will talk with other people who share this belief in order for me to gain more knowledge of my faith and to grow more. Why don't you take your atheistic theories and talk with other atheists about them?

By the way, I'm not angry and do not wish to give you this impression. Just stating an observation and an opinion of that observation.
 

Flipper

New member
SOTKForEver:

To my knowledge, I know of no christians who go hang out in an agnostic or atheist forum and start arguing the same points over and over again.

Haw. Not been carrying your lance into Internet forum battle long, have you?

You'd be surprised though - Christian theology forums without any opposition (other than on abstruse points of theology) can still be surprisingly bitter and bitchy unless policed in a heavy-handed way.

If this happens, then they're just boring to read.
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by SOTKForEver
I know that I am new to theology-type forums, but for the life of me, I don't understand what atheists and agnostics are doing hanging out in a theology based forum site. What is the atheist motivation?
Speaking just for myself, I came here because I heard about the current debate. Once it is over, I'll be leaving (I'm sure Knight & posse won't be too upset).

To my knowledge, I know of no christians who go hang out in an agnostic or atheist forum and start arguing the same points over and over again.

You'd be surprised. They are plentiful. Now, the day atheists start going around knocking on people's doors and stopping them in airports to get people to stop believing in God and stop going to church... that'll be the day that I think you have a point. Until then, atheist "evangelism" pales in comparisson to theistic evangelism.

See, I'm not willing to give up my belief in Christ no matter what you say so therefore I will talk with other people who share this belief in order for me to gain more knowledge of my faith and to grow more.

At least you are honest: you are gaining knowledge of your faith. Not of the real world. If you want to know more of the real world, I'd suggest talking to more people than just those who share your beliefs.

Why don't you take your atheistic theories and talk with other atheists about them?

Honestly, I would be more than happy to not even ever discuss your religion and faith and God and Jesus with you or anyone else ever again. However, unfortunately, the fundamental Christians in my society tend to be very vocal -- and often try to legislate their morality and world view. If you stop your preaching, the atheists will be more apt to stop theirs.

--ZK
 

SOTKForEver

New member
Originally posted by ZroKewl
Speaking just for myself, I came here because I heard about the current debate. Once it is over, I'll be leaving (I'm sure Knight & posse won't be too upset).



You'd be surprised. They are plentiful. Now, the day atheists start going around knocking on people's doors and stopping them in airports to get people to stop believing in God and stop going to church... that'll be the day that I think you have a point. Until then, atheist "evangelism" pales in comparisson to theistic evangelism.



At least you are honest: you are gaining knowledge of your faith. Not of the real world. If you want to know more of the real world, I'd suggest talking to more people than just those who share your beliefs.



Honestly, I would be more than happy to not even ever discuss your religion and faith and God and Jesus with you or anyone else ever again. However, unfortunately, the fundamental Christians in my society tend to be very vocal -- and often try to legislate their morality and world view. If you stop your preaching, the atheists will be more apt to stop theirs.

--ZK

I understand your feelings and agree with you that a lot of Christians or other religious people shove their beliefs down others throats. I think this is wrong. I feel that my belief in Christ is based on attraction and not promotion. What God has to offer sells itself. That's my opinion.

You seem bitter to me. Sounds like you have had some bad experiences with "evangelism". That's unfortunate. Maybe this is why you and other atheists come to theology sites....revenge?

If this is the case, I can relate. I eventually got over this and found a Christian who was willing to talk with me and not shove Christianity down my throat. I learned a lot.

As far as your comment about the real world, I learn about that every time I pick up the paper or watch the news. Not a lot to learn out there unless you are referring to crime and the lengths at which man can go to inflict harm on his fellow man.
 

SOTKForEver

New member
Originally posted by Flipper
SOTKForEver:



Haw. Not been carrying your lance into Internet forum battle long, have you?

You'd be surprised though - Christian theology forums without any opposition (other than on abstruse points of theology) can still be surprisingly bitter and bitchy unless policed in a heavy-handed way.

If this happens, then they're just boring to read.

No, I haven't been carrying my lance into an atheist or agnostic web site at all. What's the point? I don't have an ax to grind. I am secure in my beliefs. I don't feel the need to test my beliefs against the opposing side to feel better about what I believe in.

I do have experience with other Christian or theology forum sites. I noticed the same there as I do here.

Sorry, I don't find anything that a fellow believer has to say about God to be boring. I don't require conflict in order for my belief in Christ to be interesting. You are right though, conflict can come up between fellow believers. I just don't go looking for it or neccessarily wish to cause it.
 

JanowJ

New member
Afraid to tread there?

Afraid to tread there?

Well, Zakath's latest post is up, and once again he refuses to answer Enyart's questions. The only thing he seems to want to do is complain about the Christian God. He seems to be working hard to say that the Christian God doesn't exist. But, that isn't what the debate is about. It's not about the Christian God existing, but Does God Exist?
The reason Enyart is not mentioning the Bible is because the debate is not about the Bible. It's about Does A God exist. Not does the Christian God exist.
After all, if God Doesn't exist, then there is no need to debate the Christian God. But if God Does exist, then we can have a debate on which God. This would be like putting on the roof of a house before laying the foundation. Zakath, please address first things first. And answer Enyart's questions. Don't give weak "answers" like "I do not have either the time or the science training to answer Pastor Enyart's listings of anomalies." Sounds to me that you take on faith what other scientists say. If you can't defend your beliefs, maybe it's time to reconsider?
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by SOTKForEver
You seem bitter to me. Sounds like you have had some bad experiences with "evangelism". That's unfortunate. Maybe this is why you and other atheists come to theology sites....revenge?

I told you I'm here to watch the debate. I'm passing the time by engaging in some idle conversations for curiosity sake.

I'm not bitter... no more than you, I think. I find it funny that people can believe the craziest things without an iota of evidence. Then, you think the same thing. That doesn't make me bitter. I do, however, get upset when people try to force other people into their belief system. Especially when they use the law to do it. Alas, I'm thankful that the natural order of things is that those who question the most, tend to not be religious, and end up being more learned because of it. Truth will prevail. Stupidity is self-defeating.

--ZK
 

flash

BANNED
Banned
Re: Afraid to tread there?

Re: Afraid to tread there?

Originally posted by JanowJ
Zakath, please address first things first. And answer Enyart's questions. Don't give weak "answers" like "I do not have either the time or the science training to answer Pastor Enyart's listings of anomalies." Sounds to me that you take on faith what other scientists say. If you can't defend your beliefs, maybe it's time to reconsider?

Zakath is doing just fine. Of course, he takes on faith what scientists say. So does Bob. Do you think Bob goes into the lab with test tubes and reagents each night to do scientific research?
 

flash

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Chris Chrusher
They don't have a logical reason for disbelieving in a creator, they just simply DISBELIEVE! \

Are you serious? Is that how you construct your worldview: Believe in everything unless you find reasons not to? What is your reason for not believing in flying fish orbiting the andromena galaxy and controlling your conciousness?

I think that *is* the logical reason atheists have for not believing: There is no reason to believe.

Once again, The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests, The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests,The Burden of Proof is on the Thiests.....
 

JanowJ

New member
Re: Re: Afraid to tread there?

Re: Re: Afraid to tread there?

Originally posted by flash
Zakath is doing just fine. Of course, he takes on faith what scientists say. So does Bob. Do you think Bob goes into the lab with test tubes and reagents each night to do scientific research?

Thank you for being honest. You and Zakath take on faith that the evolutionary scientists are right. Can you be sure that they are absolutely right? Could the scientists have miscalculated the ages they come up with? Could the assumptions they make regarding some of the details be wrong? Do they have preconceived notions that affect their research? These are the questions asked of and charges made against Christians, but it goes for athiests and evolutionary scientists as well.
This, of course, gets to the heart of the debate on whether God exists. The only thing one can do is look at all available evidence, which includes looking at the physics of the earth, solar system and universe and weighing the evidence. Questions about human nature, morality and internal conscience are also available forms of evidence. All of these must be considered when answering these questions. And yes, the motive of scientists and religious teachers must be taken into consideration.
These are the evidences that must be weighed in deciding the "Does God Exist" question. Not "I've never seen God, therefore he/she/it doesn't exist." Not, "I asked God for a sign and didn't get an answer," so God doesn't exist. Neither one of those statements (which seems to be the foundation for Zakath's argument) are legitimate. There is the one thing that both Christians and athiests can do: weigh the available evidence and come to a conclusion. This is something I would encourage both Christians and athiests to do.
Christians are, of course, encouraged to do this in the Scriptures: Acts 17:10-11 "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." and also 2 Timothy 24:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." And finally: 2 Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified." So, Christians are encouraged to verify, study and examin themselves. Do athiests have these standards?
So, the question remains: Does God Exist? In trying to answer the question, make sure you're asking the right questions. For without the right questions, the right answer won't be found.
 

LightSon

New member
Use the right tools

Use the right tools

Originally posted by JanowJ
Thank you for being honest. You and Zakath take on faith that the evolutionary scientists are right.
.....
So, the question remains: Does God Exist? In trying to answer the question, make sure you're asking the right questions. For without the right questions, the right answer won't be found.
Well said.

Science is a wonderful tool. But by its very nature, that of requiring observation and experimental reproducability, science is ill-equipped to answer all of life's questions. Not all of life's wonderful "truths" can be stuffed into a test tube for scientific examination.

It would be the honest atheist who admits that he often has to operate on faith, especially where science cannot be readily brought to bear on a particular problem.

It is the wise atheist/agnostic who recogonizes that macro-evolution is not true science, but rather is a hypothesis, often dressed up in scientific garb, and that it is really a faith-based approach to explaining our existence. I maintain it takes more faith to believe in macro-evolution than to believe in all all-wise creator.

In short, explaining our origin is a matter of faith and not of science.
 
Last edited:

Psycho Dave

BANNED
Banned
Re: Re: Re: Afraid to tread there?

Re: Re: Re: Afraid to tread there?

Originally posted by JanowJ
Thank you for being honest. You and Zakath take on faith that the evolutionary scientists are right. Can you be sure that they are absolutely right?
We don't have to be. Nobody is ever absolutely sure about anything. Are you absolutely sure that your workplace didn't burn down in the middle of the night before driving to work? Are you absolutely sure about George Washington chopping down the Cherry Tree?
Could the scientists have miscalculated the ages they come up with?
It's happened before. It may happen again. But science accounts for that. If we found serious flaws in dating fossils, we would simply find out what was wrong, and start over. Currently, the dating methods we use are fairly accurate, and very well backed up by lab work. Until we start finding flaws in it, we will stick with it.
Could the assumptions they make regarding some of the details be wrong? Do they have preconceived notions that affect their research? These are the questions asked of and charges made against Christians, but it goes for athiests and evolutionary scientists as well.
I don't think anyone is disputing that. Scientists are humans, and can make mistakes. EVERYONE HAS A BIAS. However, it is one thing to acknowledge these things. It is another to provide good proof.
This, of course, gets to the heart of the debate on whether God exists. The only thing one can do is look at all available evidence, which includes looking at the physics of the earth, solar system and universe and weighing the evidence. Questions about human nature, morality and internal conscience are also available forms of evidence.
But they are not objective evidence, and are of no real use to science. They are strictly opinions.
All of these must be considered when answering these questions. And yes, the motive of scientists and religious teachers must be taken into consideration.
Since many Scientists are Christians, and hace no problem with evolution or the possibility that life on earth is the result of naturalistic processes, what is their motive? Could it be that they are actualy objective, and realize that "being a Christian" is not equal to "being an evengelical fundamentalist CHristian"
These are the evidences that must be weighed in deciding the "Does God Exist" question. Not "I've never seen God, therefore he/she/it doesn't exist." Not, "I asked God for a sign and didn't get an answer," so God doesn't exist. Neither one of those statements (which seems to be the foundation for Zakath's argument) are legitimate.
You are correct, but nobody here has used those for answers. If you think that Zakath has used those arguments against God, then you obviously are reading a different debate than the rest of us.
 

Michael12

BANNED
Banned
Re: Use the right tools

Re: Use the right tools

Originally posted by LightSon
It is the wise atheist/agnostic who recogonizes that macro-evolution is not true science, but rather is a hypothesis, often dressed up in scientific garb, and that it is really a faith-based approach to explaining our existence. I maintain it takes more faith to believe in macro-evolution than to believe in all all-wise creator.
I am in agreement with just about everything you said, except the part I quoted here. You may call this "semantics", but the significance is vital to the understanding of how science works. A hypothesis is science. I'm not going to get into a debate on evolution here because it's off topic. But the reason the hypothesis of evolution became the theory of evolution is because
  • Much of the evidence known today supports it.
  • Of the evidence that doesn't seem to support it, none categorically refutes it.
  • It makes predictions that science has been able to confirm.
The reason it isn't the Law of evolution is that not all evidence supports it, and not all predictions have been confirmed. You can argue that it's shakey, and that there is a lot of room for reinterpretation of observable data, but you can't argue that it isn't the best scientific theory that, thus far, fits the observable evidence.

Until such time as it becomes a law of science (if ever), there will always be holes in it. That doesn't take away from the fact that it is still, to the chagrin of creationists, a scientific theory.

To suggest that the theory is nothing more than a trick being played by scientists to lure people away from creationism is tantamount to the "12 men in a smoky room that rule the world" idea.
 
Last edited:

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Ok... now I don't mean to be petty but....

Why is that when Bob was 3 minutes late posting one of his posts guys like Eireann about had a coronary!

Yet Zakath posts almost an hour late with his last post (post #7) and not a single peep from his clan. Hmmm go figure! :)

Personally I think Zakath should be allowed an extra hour or two or possibly a day or two so he might be able to compose a post that actually addresses what Bob has posted without blatant mischaracterization but I digress!

So, Eireann where are you this time?
 

heusdens

New member
Re: Use the right tools

Re: Use the right tools

Originally posted by LightSon
Well said.

Science is a wonderful tool. But by its very nature, that of requiring observation and experimental reproducability, science is ill-equipped to answer all of life's questions. Not all of life's wonderful "truths" can be stuffed into a test tube for scientific examination.

It would be the honest atheist who admits that he often has to operate on faith, especially where science cannot be readily brought to bear on a particular problem.

It is the wise atheist/agnostic who recogonizes that macro-evolution is not true science, but rather is a hypothesis, often dressed up in scientific garb, and that it is really a faith-based approach to explaining our existence. I maintain it takes more faith to believe in macro-evolution than to believe in all all-wise creator.

In short, explaining our origin is a matter of faith and not of science.


Evolution is supported by a large amount of evidence, and does not require faith. It is a proven mechanism. And it is the only mechanism that can explain how species developed in billions of years from macromolecules to one-celled, ect., to mamals, primates and humans.
We see evolution in action. Due to the fact that our time scales are small, we don't see gigantic leaps. But the factor time and changing environment does the rest.

What is the mechanism of the creator? There is no. So that is purely faith based.

It can be reasoned that "creation" does not work. Never.

Let us apply the idea in the arena where it is derived from, the world of our own (technical) activities. We call ourselve "creative" and we "invent" new things. But that are just things which we see on small time scales.
If we apply larger time scales, it all drops back to small and gradual steps, which is evolutionary development.

Of course we design things. But that is one aspect. The other aspect is that our designs change constantly. They develop and evolute. The design of a house of 2000 years ago is something entirely different now. The design of a transportation system, has gone different ways. Etc. etc.
 

Michael12

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by novice
Ok... now I don't mean to be petty but....

Why is that when Bob was 3 minutes late posting one of his posts guys like Eireann about had a coronary!

Yet Zakath posts almost an hour late with his last post (post #7) and not a single peep from his clan. Hmmm go figure! :)
Honesty I never even realized either of them was late, with any of their posts. Ever since Knight said the clock wasn't perfect, I haven't paid any attention to it. I just assumed he would be keeping track and that the clock was just a reference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top