Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Proving religion wrong is easy and it can fool you into thinking you have disproved God.
All it does is sidestep the question of God.
Its a self deception.
You don't understand.
I invented god to get people to conform to my ideology.
People think they're doing what god commands.
They are not. They are doing what I command.
They don't realize they're doing what I command, because they think they are conforming with god's commands because I conjured up a surrogate -- the deity -- and convinced them through coercion, intimidation, threats and fear, that if they don't do what this non-existent-figment-of-my-imagination-deity commands -- which is really what I command -- that they'll be punished.
It's a big con-game. Get it?
When they ask to see my god, I tell them, hey, that ain't possible, because none of you can see this god-thing because if you look at god you'll turn to stone.
And they believe me.
When they ask to speak to god, I tell them, you can't because you're not worthy. God only speaks to me, because I am worthy.
More than that, since I am worthy, and they're not, I should be their king, and so should all my male descendants, since I'm worthy and they're not.
Yes, male descendants, not female.
That's my rule, not god's rule. They only think it's god's rule, because I told them that's what god said, because god only speaks to me and not to them.
If they think they hear god's voice or god gives them visions, I say you're a heretic and exile them, lest others come to believe they can hear god and see visions too...
....unless I designate one of them as a prophet, in which case so long as the prophet says things I want to hear, the prophet can remain a prophet, but if the prophet says things I don't want to hear, then very obviously the prophet is really a fallen angel or possessed by demons or speaking through a false god, and in that case, the prophet should be stoned to death.
Afraid to open it? LOL. I read the whole thing years ago, and I have no problem with opening it to refresh my memory of some part of the story, just as I have no problem opening 'The Hobbit' to refresh my memory of some part of *that* story...speaking of which, I wish I could find another copy of 'Bored Of The Rings'...that was a hoot. I read the whole thing on my flight to Ft. Sill for Basic Training, I was literally laughing out loud, some people must have thought I was nuts.
Hi Zymer. You're new to this thread. Thank you for joining us! I want to invite you to tell me your story about how you ended up holding the worldview you currently do. In as much, or as little, detail are you care to share.
J. Warner Wallace was an atheist homicide detective. He decided to put apply his professional skills to this matter, and ended up discovering that biblical Christianity is true, and the eyewitness account of the resurrection of Jesus are reliable.
Sorry. I've heard his apologetics. He is like a detective that is convinced of the verdict beforehand and selects and Interprets the evidence accordingly.
If you want to take any or all of it arguments and put them across me, I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with them.
Using style of writing to date texts is difficult and subjective, and the early dates are pushed by Christians. But later research matches the mss with a text in Köln that is dated to around 200 AD.
I agree that the date of the fragment (Ryland, isn't it?) is contested, but the date I heard more generally is mid 2nd c A.D. Don't take me as an authority, though
Quote:
I have thought this since their second post. But it gives us a chance to expose the bad arguments used by apologists.
Yes, this has become evident, but we can pick and choose his posts as to whether they can be 'Used'.
[(deleted - duplicate post)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-06-2020 at 05:31 PM..
I agree that the date of the fragment (Ryland, isn't it?) is contested, but the date I heard more generally is mid 2nd c A.D. Don't take me as an authority, though
Yes, this has become evident, but we can pick and choose his posts as to whether they can be 'Used'.
Sorry. I've heard his apologetics. He is like a detective that is convinced of the verdict beforehand and selects and Interprets the evidence accordingly.
If you want to take any or all of his arguments and put them across me, I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with them.
Failing that, I can only say I am not impressed.
I did have a look but good grief what a load of waffle without getting to any hard arguments! I agree with him though that Christianity needs #better arguments' than the other religions.
An hour long video is too long for this forum. Here's a short video from JW Wallace.
"How the Origin of Life Points to the Existence of God" (14 min.)
Cold-Case Christianity - J. Warner Wallace
Let me know if you disagree with any of Wallace's reasoning. Pick the most obvious flaw in his logic, if you detect any. Otherwise, the impressionable lurkers will assume that you're incapable of refuting his reasoning and, as a result, be more open to knowing the truth about God. You wouldn't want that on your conscience!
Ha,ha. I was responding to your ad hominem filled post! You are aware that all field manifestations in our Reality are forms of energy, mass, momentum, right? If your consciousness is in a form that we would recognize as material why can't we measure its energy form? Where can I see the consciousness that is actually Marc? Where does the Marc-consciousness that is communicating with me reside? It cannot be your brain because your thoughts are NOT made of matter. They are immeasurable thought-energy. I am not communicating with a piece of meat, although it can seem so at times.
Now you are getting it. We are all basically meat bags, with an attribute of awareness that we have labelled consciousness. It’s merely a property of brains evolved to a certain point. Intercranial electro-chemical process. Nothing more, nothing less. Do we understand everything about the attribute? No, not yet. But we do know that consciousness is directly associated and delineated by a living brain and disappears forever with death. That’s what all the evidence shows. Your fields and your momemtum and your energy are all masturbatory exercises of your mind, which seems to be of a fairly common type. A type that loves drama and fantasy and vague expanses where your imagination can run wild and “remove” the restrictions of a reality you just don’t seem to like. Very, very common. Very, very emotional. And I actually am fine with it. As long as you’re having fun, not taking from others against their will, and exercising your free right to do whatever you want with the consciousness that you own and operate.
Now you are getting it. We are all basically meat bags, with an attribute of awareness that we have labelled consciousness. It’s merely a property of brains evolved to a certain point. Intercranial electro-chemical process. Nothing more, nothing less. Do we understand everything about the attribute? No, not yet. But we do know that consciousness is directly associated and delineated by a living brain and disappears forever with death. That’s what all the evidence shows. Your fields and your momemtum and your energy are all masturbatory exercises of your mind, which seems to be of a fairly common type. A type that loves drama and fantasy and vague expanses where your imagination can run wild and “remove” the restrictions of a reality you just don’t seem to like. Very, very common. Very, very emotional. And I actually am fine with it. As long as you’re having fun, not taking from others against their will, and exercising your free right to do whatever you want with the consciousness that you own and operate.
Given this example of your thinking, you probably think that because the program comes out of the TV, the TV is the program.
By the way, neuroscientists have done some very interesting brain studies where they ask participants hooked up to diagnostic equipment various questions about different topics. Different areas of the brain light up with different questions, with one area especially active when questions are asked about the self. Well, guess what area lights up when questions are asked about God? The same areas! Which explains why God always seems to like what you like, and seems to be against what you are against, and seems to dislike and disapprove of the same people and things that you do. What a surprise! God IS you, and you are God.
Which begs the question. We always hear people who proclaim that God loves them. We seem to be able to “detect” divine affection. Why does nobody ever say: God doesn’t like me at all; God hates me? Yes, I know it’s obvious, it’s our Ego. But still, it’s interesting.
Given this example of your thinking, you probably think that because the program comes out of the TV, the TV is the program.
The program, designed by man and for man, is transmitted from the device in an audio/visual format that our discrete, delineated, inter-cranial consciousness is able to process through our individual senses.
An hour long video is too long for this forum. Here's a short video from JW Wallace.
"How the Origin of Life Points to the Existence of God" (14 min.)
Cold-Case Christianity - J. Warner Wallace
Let me know if you disagree with any of Wallace's reasoning. Pick the most obvious flaw in his logic, if you detect any. Otherwise, the impressionable lurkers will assume that you're incapable of refuting his reasoning and, as a result, be more open to knowing the truth about God. You wouldn't want that on your conscience!
What is this nonsense? What has that cellphone message to do with the origins of life? Other than it is a puzzle that needs detecting. very well. So the origins of life is a puzzle. But 'as an atheist' he ought to have known that there was an alternative explanation that means that Goddunnit is not the only answer.
Since then there has been a mechanism or two suggested, plus some circumstantial evidence with RNA, amino acids and the fossil records traced back to at least the cell.
For God - there is nothing but the claim.
And of course, even if one could feasibly make a case for a divine origin for life, that does not get you to the particular god of a particular religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
