Upload
Login or register

Vandeekree

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:9/28/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#6561
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 6378 total,  8674 ,  2296
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 23% (23/100)
Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 256 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:2414
FJ Points:5391

latest user's comments

#93 - Muslim is an ideology. It's ok to discriminate against somethi…  [+] (1 reply) 14 hours ago on Unpopular Opinion +1
User avatar
#163 - putindispencerhere (7 hours ago) [-]
>You choose to be gay
#24 - I'd love a fallout game where it turns out Russia or some othe…  [+] (1 reply) 09/25/2016 on [Hell March intensifies] +9
User avatar
#29 - unluckyingrimm (09/25/2016) [-]
Literally homefront revolution aside from the fallout creatures, better shooter too
#3575 - While I do feel that a certain politeness is necessary when ha…  [+] (1 reply) 09/24/2016 on platinumaltaria's profile 0
User avatar
#3577 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
Oh that's nice, at least you're civil.

Yes there has, in fact there are several I can think of off the top of my head:
1) The universe has a divine creator
2) The universe has a material creator
3) The universe was born spontaneously
4) The universe has always existed in some state

I'll say what countless atheists have before me; God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, there is nothing that I can say that will disprove it. What I can do is debunk the evidence you present, which is what I am doing.
I don't refuse to believe god exists, in fact like most atheists I'd be delighted to discover some divine afterlife post-mortem. But I can't just believe because I want to, I need evidence.

I'm not creating a strawman, I'm directly responding to what you say. If I misinterpret what you said then that's on me, but it's not a strawman, it's a mistake.

Yes, however what we can assess is that your thought process went thusly:
1) I think there is a god
2) I will find evidence for god
3) I believe there is a god
4) Which god is right
5) This god is right
You went seeking god and you found him... that's not surprising.

Please read this, especially the first line. It shows how accepting the church was.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Scepticism doesn't mean disbelief. Scepticism is to question the evidence, not to deny it.

No evolution is the most stable theory in biology... The only reason anyone questions it is, like the heliocentrism argument, they want an alternative model.
Carbon dating isn't used anymore, we use radiometric dating, which is extremely accurate.
There is clear evidence, in fact wikipedia outlines it very well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

If you had read the bible you would know that the commandments were specifically exempt from this new ruling.

Yes there is, the fact that animals do not give birth to animals of other species. It just doesn't happen.
The first life form on earth was not a cell, it was a replicating molecule. Cells are incredibly complex, and could never form naturally without the intervention of a creator, material or otherwise.

No.
Yes I know, this is called cognitive dissonance.

Actually that's not a required belief, that's just specific to your brand of christianity. Some sects believe that good deeds are all that is required, and knowledge of the faith is unimportant.

Maybe stop trying to be a good christian and be a good person?
#3574 - (Continued, ran out of room again.) The bible is true and …  [+] (1 reply) 09/24/2016 on platinumaltaria's profile 0
User avatar
#3576 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
The entire first and second book.

I don't think christians are stupid; some are taught from a young age to believe, some are sent that way by bad circumstances. Religion is a coping mechanism for some when reality becomes to difficult; there's no shame in that.

Science is the opposite of dogma, so it's not surprising that religious people are less interested in science and more interested in dogma.
I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you.

No, morality is derived from evolution. No god is required.
There is everything wrong with murder and rape; it's very harmful to our species to go around killing and hurting each other. That's what morality is.
The premise that without absolute morality nothing can be right or wrong is nonsense. Just because right and wrong are subjective doesn't mean they don't exist.

I studied the roman empire for a year or so, and I can assure you that it did not go the way you think it did.

Yeah except for those laws...
No they can't, because laws.
I am a liberal, I believe individual freedom should be preserved where it can.
Christianity also calls for you to kill the gays, so I'm going to say no to that one. You can have rules without them coming out of a fairy tale.
Religion has done nothing to me specifically, it's what it's done to other people that concerns me. People who might otherwise be great thinkers have been tied down to ancient superstitions. Children have been pressured by their parents into faith. It's not right.
Sins don't exist.

No it isn't, we observe it directly in the cheetah, who has severe issues due to it.
I've no idea how the genetic clock relates to the topic at hand.
I assume you're referring to the fact that we all have a common mitochondrial ancestor, nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve, however she lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in east africa, rather than 6000 years ago in the middle east. However, this is only our most recent common ancestor, it's not the first human.
No, I will present the evidence which explains why you are wrong.

Do you see the paragraphs here explaining the evidence? I do.

I apologise, that is merely how I converse. If terms of endearment insult you I can start calling you impolite names instead.
#3570 - Indeed, that's why I switched my argument. When I presented yo…  [+] (5 replies) 09/21/2016 on platinumaltaria's profile 0
User avatar
#3572 - platinumaltaria (09/22/2016) [-]
No I wouldn't, because that's impossible. Science is about the evidence, not the answer.
I'm not belittling your beliefs, I'm pointing out how ridiculous they are. God is magic, the fact that you think he's real doesn't change the fact that he isn't, and he's just another supernatural explanation like santa.
A lot of theists try and use the "please be nice or I won't discuss it", which boils down to "agree with everything I say or I'll have to hide from reality". Don't resort to it.

There's your problem; you start with "god exists" and move on to "how can I prove it". That's not scientific, that's crazy. You always start with a hypothesis, not a statement of certainty.
I'll cite Eric Hovind as an excellent example of not viewing science unbiasedly, or reality itself for that matter. Your entire argument is predicated on the presumption of a god, which you then use to prove there's a god. That's circular reasoning.

No, science is a study of the material world; what can be shown to exist. If there is a god, then said god is not interacting with this universe in any measurable way, otherwise the deity would be material. If you can't detect something, what reason do you have to believe that it exists?

No. Just no.
Here's the church denying heliocentrism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_attitudes_to_Heliocentrism

The catholic church didn't even accept evolution until this decade, and most Christians still haven't. Religion cannot accept science, because science contradicts it at every turn. But totally this stuff never happened, it's "historically false".

No, Christians follow the ten commandments and the laws in deuteronomy. None of these are the golden rule.
The golden rule is inherent to our biological programming, so yes, it was around before christianity. And before humans.
No dear, you aren't descended from one man and one woman, you're descended from one replicating molecule.

I know that your religion has a narrative of "Sodom and Gomorrah" where everything has to go to shit before the end, but that's factually inaccurate, ask any historian.
The Olympic Games were greek, not roman... The greeks had a culture of artists and philosophers, the romans were more interested in shows of physical strength and skill, pertaining to their more military lifestyle. Neither of these is inherently superior to the other; both had a huge impact on the world after them. Open a book please.

If you actually listened to what you think jesus said, you'd sell everything you own and wander the earth preaching god's word. But you won't, because that would be too hard.
Mormons are Christians, they believe that Christ is the son of god... the fact that they believe more crazy shit than you is irrelevant.

The bible isn't even true, let alone flawless...

>>3571
I have some advice for you, consider the EVIDENCE that you have for your god, and whether or not you believe because you want to, or because the evidence indicates it.

www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
And that's just what people call themselves, how many of those people are religious in name only? And what about the people who follow a different god to you?

There are no moral absolutes, I am more than content living my life by my own moral code, rather than someone else's.
That's because philosophy and religion have nothing to do with science.

Do you have evidence of this conspiracy?
Yes, we're in a society where people can choose to live how they want, not how you dictate. That's a good thing.

You have a very poor understanding of how evolution works.
No, if humans descended from two people they would have NO genetic diversity, this is called a genetic bottleneck, and it is extremely harmful.
User avatar
#3575 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
While I do feel that a certain politeness is necessary when having a talk like this, I wouldn't try to threaten not to talk with you over it. Though if it were to come to cursing and anger then I would end the argument simply because I'm clearly provoking rather than discussing.

But you really can't say that it's a fact that God doesn't exist, especially when so much evidence points to the contrary. In fact, it make no logical sense that there isn't a creator and a first causeless cause as no other explanation has been proposed. If you study the arguments of the prominent atheists they simply don't address this. It can be argued if God is perhaps evil or what an all powerful being thinks and feels, there's just no argument presented that God doesn't exist besides deferring to refusing to believe he could exist and saying that something else yet unknown or unable to be understood was the cause, that's just illogical in all ways, scientific or otherwise.

And no, I did not start with "God exists" in fact I started with the opposite. No reason to believe in him and an expectation that it would turn out there was no reason to think a god existed. But through years of study the opposite has become apparent. You seem to assume a lot about how I think. But that tends to be how atheists I argue with go. They want to tell me what my argument is without realizing they are creating a straw man.

And I'm not using circular logic, that can be seen with how I begin with the arguments for the existence of God without ever deferring to his nature or anything to do with Christianity.

As for the church denying heliocentrism, did you even read that? How it was a Bishop that encouraged him to publish that theory and how he was given an audience before the Pope and clergy who listened with great interest? Do you know why? It was because academia, including astronomy, was controlled by the church. Of course the new idea met with some skepticism but so do scientific ideas of today.

And of course it didn't accept evolution. Evolution is a half theory with explanations that fit well but leave tons of room for doubt. Now if it had been more solid sure, but with the dubious nature of carbon dating and the less than important idea that God could have either made everything in a flash or does it slowly over time through natural process as he does everything else mattered little. Are you not aware of how politically wrapped up evolution was? Why would the church jump right on board without clear evidence?

Christians do not follow the ten commandments. They are part of the old covenant and no longer valid. They are simply kept as a history of the law and a hint at what to do now. But they are old. I'm afraid you don't understand biblical law very well if you think anything from the old covenant is still valid.

And there's no reason to think that single replicating cell(a molecule is a group of bonded atoms) couldn't have slowly evolved into the proto-humans that gave birth to Adam and Eve.

Do you think all Christians reject evolution? You know it doesn't contradict anything but maybe fundamental creationism but even that one accepts it in some sects.

The first Roman Olympics were in 776 BC, copying the Greeks as they did often.

But Mormons don't believe that Jesus is the only way into heaven which is the definition of Christianity, they are not a Christian sect.

And yes, if I listened to Jesus I would sell everything and preach. I try to do that online as much as possible but I'm not a saint. I'm still learning and growing and maybe someday I will get there but certainly not now. Please do not look at me as a model Christian, I fall very short.

(More below)
User avatar
#3577 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
Oh that's nice, at least you're civil.

Yes there has, in fact there are several I can think of off the top of my head:
1) The universe has a divine creator
2) The universe has a material creator
3) The universe was born spontaneously
4) The universe has always existed in some state

I'll say what countless atheists have before me; God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, there is nothing that I can say that will disprove it. What I can do is debunk the evidence you present, which is what I am doing.
I don't refuse to believe god exists, in fact like most atheists I'd be delighted to discover some divine afterlife post-mortem. But I can't just believe because I want to, I need evidence.

I'm not creating a strawman, I'm directly responding to what you say. If I misinterpret what you said then that's on me, but it's not a strawman, it's a mistake.

Yes, however what we can assess is that your thought process went thusly:
1) I think there is a god
2) I will find evidence for god
3) I believe there is a god
4) Which god is right
5) This god is right
You went seeking god and you found him... that's not surprising.

Please read this, especially the first line. It shows how accepting the church was.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Scepticism doesn't mean disbelief. Scepticism is to question the evidence, not to deny it.

No evolution is the most stable theory in biology... The only reason anyone questions it is, like the heliocentrism argument, they want an alternative model.
Carbon dating isn't used anymore, we use radiometric dating, which is extremely accurate.
There is clear evidence, in fact wikipedia outlines it very well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

If you had read the bible you would know that the commandments were specifically exempt from this new ruling.

Yes there is, the fact that animals do not give birth to animals of other species. It just doesn't happen.
The first life form on earth was not a cell, it was a replicating molecule. Cells are incredibly complex, and could never form naturally without the intervention of a creator, material or otherwise.

No.
Yes I know, this is called cognitive dissonance.

Actually that's not a required belief, that's just specific to your brand of christianity. Some sects believe that good deeds are all that is required, and knowledge of the faith is unimportant.

Maybe stop trying to be a good christian and be a good person?
User avatar
#3574 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
(Continued, ran out of room again.)
The bible is true and flawless but just saying that means little. As I said, point out some flaws, I will clear them up for you. I can show the bible is flawless if you will take the time.

I do my best to only believe because of the evidence. But I will admit I often find myself believing just because it feels good and right and brings me contentment. Those feelings are fine but should I find proof that the bible is wrong I would stop believing and even strong evidence would make me pause to do some deep study and research. I know you think all Christians are dumb emotionally driven and illogical but I can assure you this isn't true of me at the least.

And yes, I have read about what that article is talking about. It's sad that someone has to worry about their career being at risk just because they are religious. Being questioned if they are fit for the job just because they believe. The odd culture that smart people aren't religious driving the educated to strive to appear smart and thus not believe in things that might cause them to be mocked. Don't fear being mocked. Often it is from the insecurities of those who mock that the mockery comes.

But surely you have researched into absolute verses relative morality and know that your moral code is relative and thus made up and can change at the drop of a hat? You are aware that most educate atheist will submit that without God there can be more real morality and thus no morality at all. That such things are only there to keep social structure and thus there is nothing wrong with murder or rape. But there in lies the self defeating nature of such a belief. Without absolute morality, then it can't be said there is anything wrong with believing in a God or absolute morality. So someone who follows an absolute moral system is either right or at the least, not wrong.

Are you calling the Roman comment a conspiracy? Because that's just history, you can read it anywhere really.

And of course we have a society where we can live however we want. We always have. Men can dominate who they please, hurt who they want, do anything they please and try to stop one another from doing anything they please. The question is what actions are right or wrong. You seem to have an idea that freedom is what is right. But Christianity isn't calling for us to restrict the freedoms of each other. It calls for us to restrict our own freedoms. To restrain ourselves from doing bad things. From hurting each other, from lusting for flesh or wealth, from gluttony and self serving. You seem to think religion is oppressing you and yet what is the worst you have experienced? Being condescendingly talked to? Being made to feel uncomfortable about something you were doing that might be a sin?

And the lack of genetic diversity is only a theory, contested by other scientific genetic theories such as the genetic clock and mitochondrial DNA. But you will likely say that anything supporting the Adam and Eve pairing is simply silly Christians skewing science to try and prove something so it doesn't matter how much evidence is brought to you. You will continue to deny it is evidence at all and simply say I lack understanding on the subject.

I honestly don't feel like you are being very open to this discussion when you don't give any more of a explanation or evidence than "No. Just no." and "The bible isn't true, let along flawless..." They are statements for sure, but don't really add much of anything to the discussion.

Your cutting remarks and jabs make it very tedious to argue with you and while I am happy to explain things, I would request we keep things civil. Saying I am wrong is one thing. But calling me "dear" really comes off as provocative. So again, just a request.
User avatar
#3576 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
The entire first and second book.

I don't think christians are stupid; some are taught from a young age to believe, some are sent that way by bad circumstances. Religion is a coping mechanism for some when reality becomes to difficult; there's no shame in that.

Science is the opposite of dogma, so it's not surprising that religious people are less interested in science and more interested in dogma.
I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you.

No, morality is derived from evolution. No god is required.
There is everything wrong with murder and rape; it's very harmful to our species to go around killing and hurting each other. That's what morality is.
The premise that without absolute morality nothing can be right or wrong is nonsense. Just because right and wrong are subjective doesn't mean they don't exist.

I studied the roman empire for a year or so, and I can assure you that it did not go the way you think it did.

Yeah except for those laws...
No they can't, because laws.
I am a liberal, I believe individual freedom should be preserved where it can.
Christianity also calls for you to kill the gays, so I'm going to say no to that one. You can have rules without them coming out of a fairy tale.
Religion has done nothing to me specifically, it's what it's done to other people that concerns me. People who might otherwise be great thinkers have been tied down to ancient superstitions. Children have been pressured by their parents into faith. It's not right.
Sins don't exist.

No it isn't, we observe it directly in the cheetah, who has severe issues due to it.
I've no idea how the genetic clock relates to the topic at hand.
I assume you're referring to the fact that we all have a common mitochondrial ancestor, nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve, however she lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in east africa, rather than 6000 years ago in the middle east. However, this is only our most recent common ancestor, it's not the first human.
No, I will present the evidence which explains why you are wrong.

Do you see the paragraphs here explaining the evidence? I do.

I apologise, that is merely how I converse. If terms of endearment insult you I can start calling you impolite names instead.
#3568 - Well, then I guess we are at an impasse. What I have shown you…  [+] (8 replies) 09/20/2016 on platinumaltaria's profile 0
User avatar
#3569 - platinumaltaria (09/21/2016) [-]
You still haven't shown me any evidence. You've recited the same tired arguments as every other apologist, and expected them to carry more weight than the hundred other times I've heard them.

Yes, you believe in magic. I do not, ergo the idea of talking wildlife and impossible weather are laughable. Snakes do not have vocal chords, so no amount of magic is ever going to allow them to speak. The fact that people in the modern world believe such ludicrous fairy tales is distressing.
No I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you of your own stupidity. What you choose to do with that information is none of my concern. Perhaps opening a book and learnign something with some semblance of fact?

By definition science does not rely on interpretation, empiricism is the opposite of interpretation.

Yes, and unlike you they are backing their claims with evidence...

No, he's doing what every apologist does; pretending that the past 200 years of scientific advancement didn't happen, and ascribing every thing to magic. That's silly, and you will never convince any rational person with that without EVIDENCE.

Yes. Have you heard the phrase "mutually assured destruction"? We can't have large scale wars anymore, because there would be no winners. Conflict is now resigned to small terror cells and militant factions.

It started when the first organism came into being...
Abiogenesis (the inception of life in the universe) has nothing to do with evolution. And no, if you read this Wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis you will what we currently understand of the subject. None of it is attributed to a deity.

No it didn't, western civilisation has risen in spite of religion. The church has always been the hand pushing people backwards into the dark ages, because religion cannot survive when people are educated. It needs minds full of unanswered questions so that it can provide made-up answers.

If you think that then you're an idiot. The golden rule, the foundation of morality, was not devised by Christians (it's not even followed by Christians), it is a part of our evolutionary programming that favours helping the group to survive. Every culture takes part of this to some extent, both long before christianity and far away from its influence.

No. The Roman empire fell because it couldn't keep up with the large number of barbarians on its borders. As an empire grows its border gets longer, meaning more to defend. Thus, every empire will collapse eventually. Their lifestyle didn't change at all, if anything their lives would have gotten worse in the impending doom, becoming more pious and less frivolous.

Really? Catholicism completely disagrees about the 2nd commandment (as evidenced by their giant gold palace), Mormons believe in a completely different creation story. Christian denominations really only agree on one thing; there was a guy called Jesus who was the son of god (and even that point is contested).

No, you interpret it, the same way the person who wrote the bible down had to interpret the story for themself.
So there are flaws? Not perfect then.
If the flaws are minor then it shouldn't matter which version you read, eh?

You're right on one account there, sins aren't real though.

Here's a question for you; why on earth did you decide that a thousand year old book of fairy tales was the most accurate description of reality? Why do you think that nearly every scientist on earth disagrees with that sentiment? Are they all lying? Is there a conspiracy to hide god? Why do you want to live in such a silly world anyway, you can't seriously think that we're all descended from 2 people.
User avatar
#3571 - Vandeekree (09/21/2016) [-]
To answer your very last question(Sorry, I ran of out characters)

The reason I decided upon the bible was after first studying philosophy to figure out if there was a God or not. Once I was certain then i moved on to study the nature of God to see if he was good or not. I could only determine that he has to be good out of necessity because if he is not good then there is nothing we can do about it. I then needed to determine which record of what he did and said was the correct one in order to know what to do. I settled, with great confidence, upon the bible.

And nearly every scientist doesn't disagree. There are a large part of the scientific population who are religious and even Christian. Greater still are the number who are diet or spiritual.

And of course the ones who don't believe aren't lying. They simply don't care enough. It's so very easy and tempting to live your life without every looking around you. You do your job, you work for a new car and for a bigger house. You have kids and they suck up huge parts of your life. There's so little energy left at the end of the day to study into what is morally right and wrong. And they are experts in science but naive about philosophy and religion. And will take it at face value if someone were to tell them all religion is made up magic. It's easier to accept than having to go into a long life long journey to find out for themselves. And it means you get to sleep in Sunday. Morality is a pain in the butt and gets in the way quite often.

And there is a conspiracy to hide God. God and morality get in the way of sin. So many people love their sin. They love being rich, they love having sex, they love expensive toys and being able to not help those in need. You can see it in modern society where people so often get offended and even angry if you try to judge them. Saying "How dare you say I shouldn't do this! How dare you say something I like is morally wrong!" You'll see it time and time again, the death of Christianity is the death of religion.

And it's not silly to me. In fact it;s the only heartening way of living. And I think there is a good chance we did descend from two people. Were they a metaphor for the early populations of humans that rose up from Africa/The Middle East? I lean towards no, that they very much were just the first two humans, born from protohuman parents, that both had the capacity for understanding high enough concepts to be considered a modern human. They may have even been brother and sister. It would explain the higher chance of passing on the traits that give them higher intelligence. And yes, ew incest and all that but incest is only bad when it's bad.
User avatar
#3570 - Vandeekree (09/21/2016) [-]
Indeed, that's why I switched my argument. When I presented you with those same arguments and their latest advancements, you repeated them back to me incorrectly. You didn't seem to understand them and, I'm sorry, but it seemed that the reason that you misunderstood is because you haven't actually taken the time to understand them. You argue against a modified version of them. One that you seem to have made up in your mind but not what the actual arguments state. So I changed my talk from pushing those arguments to trying to convince you to go back and study them again with (I'm sorry to say it this way but I don't know how else to put it) less bias.

And yet you would believe it without being shown if someone read that "scientist discover snake with mutated vocal cords." It's not magic. Magic has the connotation of being something suddenly happening without explanation. If I turned myself into a frog it would be magic, but if I told you I was going to do it because God gave me the power then it becomes a miracle. Why? Semantics. But you know exactly why you choose to use the word magic. Because it is belittling and flippant instead of the more respectable way of calling it an "act of God." Again, I'm sure mockery will push plenty of people away from religion for fear of being mocked. I'm not one of them and in a civil argument please don't resort to it.

And no one is ignoring any scientific advances. In fact, apologists expressly look at those advances and study them to help see if any proof for or against God can be made. I don't know how much work from Christian apologists you have studied but when I read their work I was impressed with the unbiased look at science they had. Often citing the counter arguments to what they say and making sure that anything that prevents their argument from being air tight is known. You seem to have gotten the opposite impression that apologists ignore all facts and reason and just blather about emotionally driven faith. I really have no idea what apologists you have been studying.

Of course not. None of science touches on if a deity is making these things happen or not. Why would you? Science is simple observation of phenomena around us, it doesn't and can't touch on what causes these things to happen. That was my intended point, that it can't touch on the existence of God and is in no way contradictory to God.

And that's just historically false. Religion made science and made academicia. There's a reason the bible calls men to seek knowledge. I'm not going to argue this because it really is just a fact that you can find with simple reading into the eras described. If you don't care to and would rather have your world view helping but wrong ideas that religion was just there while modern learning happened beside it then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it as bias again.

Again you speculate and profile. Christians do indeed follow the golden rule and you assume that it was around before Christianity. But before Christianity there was Judaism that spanned all the way back to the first man and woman.

And it was a Roman that took down the Romans, Not the barbarians, they simply came in and pillaged once it was weak and helpless. And their lifestyles did change. Did you notice how they began with Olympic games of running and wrestling, then slowly changed to violent chariot races where men would die and then went further to men fighting each other and animals to the death for sport? Over time the power corrupted their morals. To say otherwise isn't arguing against me, it's arguing against well established history.

While the Catholics do have some big differences, an idol is something you worship. They do not worship their statues or finery though I agree they would be better off taking it out of their museums and selling it for charity. And Mormons are not Christian at all.

The bible is flawless. You refuse to read those words so it's all I'll say.
User avatar
#3572 - platinumaltaria (09/22/2016) [-]
No I wouldn't, because that's impossible. Science is about the evidence, not the answer.
I'm not belittling your beliefs, I'm pointing out how ridiculous they are. God is magic, the fact that you think he's real doesn't change the fact that he isn't, and he's just another supernatural explanation like santa.
A lot of theists try and use the "please be nice or I won't discuss it", which boils down to "agree with everything I say or I'll have to hide from reality". Don't resort to it.

There's your problem; you start with "god exists" and move on to "how can I prove it". That's not scientific, that's crazy. You always start with a hypothesis, not a statement of certainty.
I'll cite Eric Hovind as an excellent example of not viewing science unbiasedly, or reality itself for that matter. Your entire argument is predicated on the presumption of a god, which you then use to prove there's a god. That's circular reasoning.

No, science is a study of the material world; what can be shown to exist. If there is a god, then said god is not interacting with this universe in any measurable way, otherwise the deity would be material. If you can't detect something, what reason do you have to believe that it exists?

No. Just no.
Here's the church denying heliocentrism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_attitudes_to_Heliocentrism

The catholic church didn't even accept evolution until this decade, and most Christians still haven't. Religion cannot accept science, because science contradicts it at every turn. But totally this stuff never happened, it's "historically false".

No, Christians follow the ten commandments and the laws in deuteronomy. None of these are the golden rule.
The golden rule is inherent to our biological programming, so yes, it was around before christianity. And before humans.
No dear, you aren't descended from one man and one woman, you're descended from one replicating molecule.

I know that your religion has a narrative of "Sodom and Gomorrah" where everything has to go to shit before the end, but that's factually inaccurate, ask any historian.
The Olympic Games were greek, not roman... The greeks had a culture of artists and philosophers, the romans were more interested in shows of physical strength and skill, pertaining to their more military lifestyle. Neither of these is inherently superior to the other; both had a huge impact on the world after them. Open a book please.

If you actually listened to what you think jesus said, you'd sell everything you own and wander the earth preaching god's word. But you won't, because that would be too hard.
Mormons are Christians, they believe that Christ is the son of god... the fact that they believe more crazy shit than you is irrelevant.

The bible isn't even true, let alone flawless...

>>3571
I have some advice for you, consider the EVIDENCE that you have for your god, and whether or not you believe because you want to, or because the evidence indicates it.

www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
And that's just what people call themselves, how many of those people are religious in name only? And what about the people who follow a different god to you?

There are no moral absolutes, I am more than content living my life by my own moral code, rather than someone else's.
That's because philosophy and religion have nothing to do with science.

Do you have evidence of this conspiracy?
Yes, we're in a society where people can choose to live how they want, not how you dictate. That's a good thing.

You have a very poor understanding of how evolution works.
No, if humans descended from two people they would have NO genetic diversity, this is called a genetic bottleneck, and it is extremely harmful.
User avatar
#3575 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
While I do feel that a certain politeness is necessary when having a talk like this, I wouldn't try to threaten not to talk with you over it. Though if it were to come to cursing and anger then I would end the argument simply because I'm clearly provoking rather than discussing.

But you really can't say that it's a fact that God doesn't exist, especially when so much evidence points to the contrary. In fact, it make no logical sense that there isn't a creator and a first causeless cause as no other explanation has been proposed. If you study the arguments of the prominent atheists they simply don't address this. It can be argued if God is perhaps evil or what an all powerful being thinks and feels, there's just no argument presented that God doesn't exist besides deferring to refusing to believe he could exist and saying that something else yet unknown or unable to be understood was the cause, that's just illogical in all ways, scientific or otherwise.

And no, I did not start with "God exists" in fact I started with the opposite. No reason to believe in him and an expectation that it would turn out there was no reason to think a god existed. But through years of study the opposite has become apparent. You seem to assume a lot about how I think. But that tends to be how atheists I argue with go. They want to tell me what my argument is without realizing they are creating a straw man.

And I'm not using circular logic, that can be seen with how I begin with the arguments for the existence of God without ever deferring to his nature or anything to do with Christianity.

As for the church denying heliocentrism, did you even read that? How it was a Bishop that encouraged him to publish that theory and how he was given an audience before the Pope and clergy who listened with great interest? Do you know why? It was because academia, including astronomy, was controlled by the church. Of course the new idea met with some skepticism but so do scientific ideas of today.

And of course it didn't accept evolution. Evolution is a half theory with explanations that fit well but leave tons of room for doubt. Now if it had been more solid sure, but with the dubious nature of carbon dating and the less than important idea that God could have either made everything in a flash or does it slowly over time through natural process as he does everything else mattered little. Are you not aware of how politically wrapped up evolution was? Why would the church jump right on board without clear evidence?

Christians do not follow the ten commandments. They are part of the old covenant and no longer valid. They are simply kept as a history of the law and a hint at what to do now. But they are old. I'm afraid you don't understand biblical law very well if you think anything from the old covenant is still valid.

And there's no reason to think that single replicating cell(a molecule is a group of bonded atoms) couldn't have slowly evolved into the proto-humans that gave birth to Adam and Eve.

Do you think all Christians reject evolution? You know it doesn't contradict anything but maybe fundamental creationism but even that one accepts it in some sects.

The first Roman Olympics were in 776 BC, copying the Greeks as they did often.

But Mormons don't believe that Jesus is the only way into heaven which is the definition of Christianity, they are not a Christian sect.

And yes, if I listened to Jesus I would sell everything and preach. I try to do that online as much as possible but I'm not a saint. I'm still learning and growing and maybe someday I will get there but certainly not now. Please do not look at me as a model Christian, I fall very short.

(More below)
User avatar
#3577 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
Oh that's nice, at least you're civil.

Yes there has, in fact there are several I can think of off the top of my head:
1) The universe has a divine creator
2) The universe has a material creator
3) The universe was born spontaneously
4) The universe has always existed in some state

I'll say what countless atheists have before me; God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, there is nothing that I can say that will disprove it. What I can do is debunk the evidence you present, which is what I am doing.
I don't refuse to believe god exists, in fact like most atheists I'd be delighted to discover some divine afterlife post-mortem. But I can't just believe because I want to, I need evidence.

I'm not creating a strawman, I'm directly responding to what you say. If I misinterpret what you said then that's on me, but it's not a strawman, it's a mistake.

Yes, however what we can assess is that your thought process went thusly:
1) I think there is a god
2) I will find evidence for god
3) I believe there is a god
4) Which god is right
5) This god is right
You went seeking god and you found him... that's not surprising.

Please read this, especially the first line. It shows how accepting the church was.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Scepticism doesn't mean disbelief. Scepticism is to question the evidence, not to deny it.

No evolution is the most stable theory in biology... The only reason anyone questions it is, like the heliocentrism argument, they want an alternative model.
Carbon dating isn't used anymore, we use radiometric dating, which is extremely accurate.
There is clear evidence, in fact wikipedia outlines it very well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

If you had read the bible you would know that the commandments were specifically exempt from this new ruling.

Yes there is, the fact that animals do not give birth to animals of other species. It just doesn't happen.
The first life form on earth was not a cell, it was a replicating molecule. Cells are incredibly complex, and could never form naturally without the intervention of a creator, material or otherwise.

No.
Yes I know, this is called cognitive dissonance.

Actually that's not a required belief, that's just specific to your brand of christianity. Some sects believe that good deeds are all that is required, and knowledge of the faith is unimportant.

Maybe stop trying to be a good christian and be a good person?
User avatar
#3574 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
(Continued, ran out of room again.)
The bible is true and flawless but just saying that means little. As I said, point out some flaws, I will clear them up for you. I can show the bible is flawless if you will take the time.

I do my best to only believe because of the evidence. But I will admit I often find myself believing just because it feels good and right and brings me contentment. Those feelings are fine but should I find proof that the bible is wrong I would stop believing and even strong evidence would make me pause to do some deep study and research. I know you think all Christians are dumb emotionally driven and illogical but I can assure you this isn't true of me at the least.

And yes, I have read about what that article is talking about. It's sad that someone has to worry about their career being at risk just because they are religious. Being questioned if they are fit for the job just because they believe. The odd culture that smart people aren't religious driving the educated to strive to appear smart and thus not believe in things that might cause them to be mocked. Don't fear being mocked. Often it is from the insecurities of those who mock that the mockery comes.

But surely you have researched into absolute verses relative morality and know that your moral code is relative and thus made up and can change at the drop of a hat? You are aware that most educate atheist will submit that without God there can be more real morality and thus no morality at all. That such things are only there to keep social structure and thus there is nothing wrong with murder or rape. But there in lies the self defeating nature of such a belief. Without absolute morality, then it can't be said there is anything wrong with believing in a God or absolute morality. So someone who follows an absolute moral system is either right or at the least, not wrong.

Are you calling the Roman comment a conspiracy? Because that's just history, you can read it anywhere really.

And of course we have a society where we can live however we want. We always have. Men can dominate who they please, hurt who they want, do anything they please and try to stop one another from doing anything they please. The question is what actions are right or wrong. You seem to have an idea that freedom is what is right. But Christianity isn't calling for us to restrict the freedoms of each other. It calls for us to restrict our own freedoms. To restrain ourselves from doing bad things. From hurting each other, from lusting for flesh or wealth, from gluttony and self serving. You seem to think religion is oppressing you and yet what is the worst you have experienced? Being condescendingly talked to? Being made to feel uncomfortable about something you were doing that might be a sin?

And the lack of genetic diversity is only a theory, contested by other scientific genetic theories such as the genetic clock and mitochondrial DNA. But you will likely say that anything supporting the Adam and Eve pairing is simply silly Christians skewing science to try and prove something so it doesn't matter how much evidence is brought to you. You will continue to deny it is evidence at all and simply say I lack understanding on the subject.

I honestly don't feel like you are being very open to this discussion when you don't give any more of a explanation or evidence than "No. Just no." and "The bible isn't true, let along flawless..." They are statements for sure, but don't really add much of anything to the discussion.

Your cutting remarks and jabs make it very tedious to argue with you and while I am happy to explain things, I would request we keep things civil. Saying I am wrong is one thing. But calling me "dear" really comes off as provocative. So again, just a request.
User avatar
#3576 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
The entire first and second book.

I don't think christians are stupid; some are taught from a young age to believe, some are sent that way by bad circumstances. Religion is a coping mechanism for some when reality becomes to difficult; there's no shame in that.

Science is the opposite of dogma, so it's not surprising that religious people are less interested in science and more interested in dogma.
I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you.

No, morality is derived from evolution. No god is required.
There is everything wrong with murder and rape; it's very harmful to our species to go around killing and hurting each other. That's what morality is.
The premise that without absolute morality nothing can be right or wrong is nonsense. Just because right and wrong are subjective doesn't mean they don't exist.

I studied the roman empire for a year or so, and I can assure you that it did not go the way you think it did.

Yeah except for those laws...
No they can't, because laws.
I am a liberal, I believe individual freedom should be preserved where it can.
Christianity also calls for you to kill the gays, so I'm going to say no to that one. You can have rules without them coming out of a fairy tale.
Religion has done nothing to me specifically, it's what it's done to other people that concerns me. People who might otherwise be great thinkers have been tied down to ancient superstitions. Children have been pressured by their parents into faith. It's not right.
Sins don't exist.

No it isn't, we observe it directly in the cheetah, who has severe issues due to it.
I've no idea how the genetic clock relates to the topic at hand.
I assume you're referring to the fact that we all have a common mitochondrial ancestor, nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve, however she lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in east africa, rather than 6000 years ago in the middle east. However, this is only our most recent common ancestor, it's not the first human.
No, I will present the evidence which explains why you are wrong.

Do you see the paragraphs here explaining the evidence? I do.

I apologise, that is merely how I converse. If terms of endearment insult you I can start calling you impolite names instead.
#3544 - I didn't say coerce. And you have to persuade with an argument…  [+] (10 replies) 09/20/2016 on platinumaltaria's profile 0
User avatar
#3546 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
Yes, and the release of shitty consumer products isn't science... Go to a physicist and try arguing that god exists, they will laugh you out of the building. Science doesn't play with arguments, it deals with evidence. If you want to convince me that your god is real, then you need evidence, not arguments.

Please do show me, I'll just be here with my talking snake and worldwide flood.

Yes, you can observe what remains, but you rely on interpretation, not empiricism.

There is no reason to believe that the universal constants can be anything other than what they are, so speculating is pointless.

WLC XD Really? Why is it that apologists always cite other apologists, and always the worst ones.
I've seen all his arguments, and they're terrible. Frankly it was insulting that you even mentioned them in the first place.

Yes. The world is safer and more pleasant than any time in history.
Evolution is a natural process, it does not require a creator.
Christianity is just a derelict faith from the middle east, it has no place in secular western civilisation.
Society was built on the golden rule, which has nothing to do with christianity.
No they didn't, they fell because they were conquered by someone else. And again, you're preaching "end times" nonsense.

Context is interpretation, there is no inherent context that is more correct than any other. The book stands on its own merits, not on what you have to say about it.

I can find no evidence of any law preventing translation, and apparently there was a 1383 translation into middle english, so you're talking nonsense.
The trouble arises from what I said before: everyone has a personal god. People disagree about what god says when they really disagree with each other.
Ok, well pick a translation and I'll dissect that one.

I didn't miss anything, as I said they are easily explained by the phenomena I listed. The fact that you want there to be magic is the only reason that you entertain the notion that someone predicted the future. But if predicting the future is so easy, then you should have no trouble making a prediction for me now.
User avatar
#3568 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Well, then I guess we are at an impasse. What I have shown you is solid evidence but you keep dismissing them and saying you have already heard of them and yet misquote and incorrectly repeat them back to me. I don't know how to have an argument with someone who refuses evidence and proof without even looking. It seems to me you believe you already know it all. To be honest, I can tell you don't, but you're certainly not going to take my word because you will just interpret it as me trying to insult you or perhaps accuse me of changing the argument. Either way, that's the impasse.

And what do you mean by this comment? Everyone agrees that a talking snake and world flood couldn't happen under normal circumstance. But with the help of God they of course could. So are you trying to say that they couldn't happen without God? Yeah, I agree. Isn't that obvious? God did them. I'm not sure that that statement is meant to imply. Mockery perhaps? Alright then. Mockery and jabbing jokes is often all an atheist has to argue with.

Perhaps you don't realize how much interpretation science relies on. It's scant few empirical figures supported by loads of interpretation of data and meta data.

And I find it interesting but it's not me that's believing it heavy. It's the mathematical physicists and astronomers who are making those claims.

Yes. He gets made fun of a lot. He's shaking up a lot of very old dusty schools of thought and the secular atheist schools don't like it very much. Make fun of him all you like. He's quite good at what he does.

The world is safer with the literal destruction of all human life a few minutes away from launch at all times?

But if it doesn't require a creator, when did it start? Evolution touches upon what happened after the first cell was created But created by what? Look back over the arguments I stated and you might figure out why it does indeed need a creator.

It built western civilization, just as the bible predicted it would.

Yeah. Christian morals didn't shape western civilization and the morality systems of the world or anything.

And why were they conquered? Because they were weak. And what made them weak? Hedonism.

I can tell you, as someone who has studied the bible extensively, that interpretation is harder to do the more you study. There is a reason that all of Christianity, all the sects, all the different denominations, they all believe just about the same thing and only argue about the small points. It's the every rare and small group that off shoots to believe anything radical. The bible has a single message, you just have to we wise enough to learn it.

And I wouldn't doubt if there were other translations. But it was against church law at the time. Martin Luther did it mostly to spite the church.

I use every translation as well as the original Hebrew and Greek texts to get the full message that was intended. You can kind little flaws with ever translation. But they are minor and only matter if you are really studying deeply.

Do I look like a prophet to you? I'm a sinner and a fool. I have no power through God I barely have the power to live a half moral life. And what you said means nothing. You can't just explain how it might be wrong and then it is. These prophesies have been around for thousands of years. You think you are the first to realize they might be wrong? It's not even a debate. Go read them yourself and learn. They are in any bible.
User avatar
#3569 - platinumaltaria (09/21/2016) [-]
You still haven't shown me any evidence. You've recited the same tired arguments as every other apologist, and expected them to carry more weight than the hundred other times I've heard them.

Yes, you believe in magic. I do not, ergo the idea of talking wildlife and impossible weather are laughable. Snakes do not have vocal chords, so no amount of magic is ever going to allow them to speak. The fact that people in the modern world believe such ludicrous fairy tales is distressing.
No I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you of your own stupidity. What you choose to do with that information is none of my concern. Perhaps opening a book and learnign something with some semblance of fact?

By definition science does not rely on interpretation, empiricism is the opposite of interpretation.

Yes, and unlike you they are backing their claims with evidence...

No, he's doing what every apologist does; pretending that the past 200 years of scientific advancement didn't happen, and ascribing every thing to magic. That's silly, and you will never convince any rational person with that without EVIDENCE.

Yes. Have you heard the phrase "mutually assured destruction"? We can't have large scale wars anymore, because there would be no winners. Conflict is now resigned to small terror cells and militant factions.

It started when the first organism came into being...
Abiogenesis (the inception of life in the universe) has nothing to do with evolution. And no, if you read this Wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis you will what we currently understand of the subject. None of it is attributed to a deity.

No it didn't, western civilisation has risen in spite of religion. The church has always been the hand pushing people backwards into the dark ages, because religion cannot survive when people are educated. It needs minds full of unanswered questions so that it can provide made-up answers.

If you think that then you're an idiot. The golden rule, the foundation of morality, was not devised by Christians (it's not even followed by Christians), it is a part of our evolutionary programming that favours helping the group to survive. Every culture takes part of this to some extent, both long before christianity and far away from its influence.

No. The Roman empire fell because it couldn't keep up with the large number of barbarians on its borders. As an empire grows its border gets longer, meaning more to defend. Thus, every empire will collapse eventually. Their lifestyle didn't change at all, if anything their lives would have gotten worse in the impending doom, becoming more pious and less frivolous.

Really? Catholicism completely disagrees about the 2nd commandment (as evidenced by their giant gold palace), Mormons believe in a completely different creation story. Christian denominations really only agree on one thing; there was a guy called Jesus who was the son of god (and even that point is contested).

No, you interpret it, the same way the person who wrote the bible down had to interpret the story for themself.
So there are flaws? Not perfect then.
If the flaws are minor then it shouldn't matter which version you read, eh?

You're right on one account there, sins aren't real though.

Here's a question for you; why on earth did you decide that a thousand year old book of fairy tales was the most accurate description of reality? Why do you think that nearly every scientist on earth disagrees with that sentiment? Are they all lying? Is there a conspiracy to hide god? Why do you want to live in such a silly world anyway, you can't seriously think that we're all descended from 2 people.
User avatar
#3571 - Vandeekree (09/21/2016) [-]
To answer your very last question(Sorry, I ran of out characters)

The reason I decided upon the bible was after first studying philosophy to figure out if there was a God or not. Once I was certain then i moved on to study the nature of God to see if he was good or not. I could only determine that he has to be good out of necessity because if he is not good then there is nothing we can do about it. I then needed to determine which record of what he did and said was the correct one in order to know what to do. I settled, with great confidence, upon the bible.

And nearly every scientist doesn't disagree. There are a large part of the scientific population who are religious and even Christian. Greater still are the number who are diet or spiritual.

And of course the ones who don't believe aren't lying. They simply don't care enough. It's so very easy and tempting to live your life without every looking around you. You do your job, you work for a new car and for a bigger house. You have kids and they suck up huge parts of your life. There's so little energy left at the end of the day to study into what is morally right and wrong. And they are experts in science but naive about philosophy and religion. And will take it at face value if someone were to tell them all religion is made up magic. It's easier to accept than having to go into a long life long journey to find out for themselves. And it means you get to sleep in Sunday. Morality is a pain in the butt and gets in the way quite often.

And there is a conspiracy to hide God. God and morality get in the way of sin. So many people love their sin. They love being rich, they love having sex, they love expensive toys and being able to not help those in need. You can see it in modern society where people so often get offended and even angry if you try to judge them. Saying "How dare you say I shouldn't do this! How dare you say something I like is morally wrong!" You'll see it time and time again, the death of Christianity is the death of religion.

And it's not silly to me. In fact it;s the only heartening way of living. And I think there is a good chance we did descend from two people. Were they a metaphor for the early populations of humans that rose up from Africa/The Middle East? I lean towards no, that they very much were just the first two humans, born from protohuman parents, that both had the capacity for understanding high enough concepts to be considered a modern human. They may have even been brother and sister. It would explain the higher chance of passing on the traits that give them higher intelligence. And yes, ew incest and all that but incest is only bad when it's bad.
User avatar
#3570 - Vandeekree (09/21/2016) [-]
Indeed, that's why I switched my argument. When I presented you with those same arguments and their latest advancements, you repeated them back to me incorrectly. You didn't seem to understand them and, I'm sorry, but it seemed that the reason that you misunderstood is because you haven't actually taken the time to understand them. You argue against a modified version of them. One that you seem to have made up in your mind but not what the actual arguments state. So I changed my talk from pushing those arguments to trying to convince you to go back and study them again with (I'm sorry to say it this way but I don't know how else to put it) less bias.

And yet you would believe it without being shown if someone read that "scientist discover snake with mutated vocal cords." It's not magic. Magic has the connotation of being something suddenly happening without explanation. If I turned myself into a frog it would be magic, but if I told you I was going to do it because God gave me the power then it becomes a miracle. Why? Semantics. But you know exactly why you choose to use the word magic. Because it is belittling and flippant instead of the more respectable way of calling it an "act of God." Again, I'm sure mockery will push plenty of people away from religion for fear of being mocked. I'm not one of them and in a civil argument please don't resort to it.

And no one is ignoring any scientific advances. In fact, apologists expressly look at those advances and study them to help see if any proof for or against God can be made. I don't know how much work from Christian apologists you have studied but when I read their work I was impressed with the unbiased look at science they had. Often citing the counter arguments to what they say and making sure that anything that prevents their argument from being air tight is known. You seem to have gotten the opposite impression that apologists ignore all facts and reason and just blather about emotionally driven faith. I really have no idea what apologists you have been studying.

Of course not. None of science touches on if a deity is making these things happen or not. Why would you? Science is simple observation of phenomena around us, it doesn't and can't touch on what causes these things to happen. That was my intended point, that it can't touch on the existence of God and is in no way contradictory to God.

And that's just historically false. Religion made science and made academicia. There's a reason the bible calls men to seek knowledge. I'm not going to argue this because it really is just a fact that you can find with simple reading into the eras described. If you don't care to and would rather have your world view helping but wrong ideas that religion was just there while modern learning happened beside it then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it as bias again.

Again you speculate and profile. Christians do indeed follow the golden rule and you assume that it was around before Christianity. But before Christianity there was Judaism that spanned all the way back to the first man and woman.

And it was a Roman that took down the Romans, Not the barbarians, they simply came in and pillaged once it was weak and helpless. And their lifestyles did change. Did you notice how they began with Olympic games of running and wrestling, then slowly changed to violent chariot races where men would die and then went further to men fighting each other and animals to the death for sport? Over time the power corrupted their morals. To say otherwise isn't arguing against me, it's arguing against well established history.

While the Catholics do have some big differences, an idol is something you worship. They do not worship their statues or finery though I agree they would be better off taking it out of their museums and selling it for charity. And Mormons are not Christian at all.

The bible is flawless. You refuse to read those words so it's all I'll say.
User avatar
#3572 - platinumaltaria (09/22/2016) [-]
No I wouldn't, because that's impossible. Science is about the evidence, not the answer.
I'm not belittling your beliefs, I'm pointing out how ridiculous they are. God is magic, the fact that you think he's real doesn't change the fact that he isn't, and he's just another supernatural explanation like santa.
A lot of theists try and use the "please be nice or I won't discuss it", which boils down to "agree with everything I say or I'll have to hide from reality". Don't resort to it.

There's your problem; you start with "god exists" and move on to "how can I prove it". That's not scientific, that's crazy. You always start with a hypothesis, not a statement of certainty.
I'll cite Eric Hovind as an excellent example of not viewing science unbiasedly, or reality itself for that matter. Your entire argument is predicated on the presumption of a god, which you then use to prove there's a god. That's circular reasoning.

No, science is a study of the material world; what can be shown to exist. If there is a god, then said god is not interacting with this universe in any measurable way, otherwise the deity would be material. If you can't detect something, what reason do you have to believe that it exists?

No. Just no.
Here's the church denying heliocentrism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_attitudes_to_Heliocentrism

The catholic church didn't even accept evolution until this decade, and most Christians still haven't. Religion cannot accept science, because science contradicts it at every turn. But totally this stuff never happened, it's "historically false".

No, Christians follow the ten commandments and the laws in deuteronomy. None of these are the golden rule.
The golden rule is inherent to our biological programming, so yes, it was around before christianity. And before humans.
No dear, you aren't descended from one man and one woman, you're descended from one replicating molecule.

I know that your religion has a narrative of "Sodom and Gomorrah" where everything has to go to shit before the end, but that's factually inaccurate, ask any historian.
The Olympic Games were greek, not roman... The greeks had a culture of artists and philosophers, the romans were more interested in shows of physical strength and skill, pertaining to their more military lifestyle. Neither of these is inherently superior to the other; both had a huge impact on the world after them. Open a book please.

If you actually listened to what you think jesus said, you'd sell everything you own and wander the earth preaching god's word. But you won't, because that would be too hard.
Mormons are Christians, they believe that Christ is the son of god... the fact that they believe more crazy shit than you is irrelevant.

The bible isn't even true, let alone flawless...

>>3571
I have some advice for you, consider the EVIDENCE that you have for your god, and whether or not you believe because you want to, or because the evidence indicates it.

www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
And that's just what people call themselves, how many of those people are religious in name only? And what about the people who follow a different god to you?

There are no moral absolutes, I am more than content living my life by my own moral code, rather than someone else's.
That's because philosophy and religion have nothing to do with science.

Do you have evidence of this conspiracy?
Yes, we're in a society where people can choose to live how they want, not how you dictate. That's a good thing.

You have a very poor understanding of how evolution works.
No, if humans descended from two people they would have NO genetic diversity, this is called a genetic bottleneck, and it is extremely harmful.
User avatar
#3575 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
While I do feel that a certain politeness is necessary when having a talk like this, I wouldn't try to threaten not to talk with you over it. Though if it were to come to cursing and anger then I would end the argument simply because I'm clearly provoking rather than discussing.

But you really can't say that it's a fact that God doesn't exist, especially when so much evidence points to the contrary. In fact, it make no logical sense that there isn't a creator and a first causeless cause as no other explanation has been proposed. If you study the arguments of the prominent atheists they simply don't address this. It can be argued if God is perhaps evil or what an all powerful being thinks and feels, there's just no argument presented that God doesn't exist besides deferring to refusing to believe he could exist and saying that something else yet unknown or unable to be understood was the cause, that's just illogical in all ways, scientific or otherwise.

And no, I did not start with "God exists" in fact I started with the opposite. No reason to believe in him and an expectation that it would turn out there was no reason to think a god existed. But through years of study the opposite has become apparent. You seem to assume a lot about how I think. But that tends to be how atheists I argue with go. They want to tell me what my argument is without realizing they are creating a straw man.

And I'm not using circular logic, that can be seen with how I begin with the arguments for the existence of God without ever deferring to his nature or anything to do with Christianity.

As for the church denying heliocentrism, did you even read that? How it was a Bishop that encouraged him to publish that theory and how he was given an audience before the Pope and clergy who listened with great interest? Do you know why? It was because academia, including astronomy, was controlled by the church. Of course the new idea met with some skepticism but so do scientific ideas of today.

And of course it didn't accept evolution. Evolution is a half theory with explanations that fit well but leave tons of room for doubt. Now if it had been more solid sure, but with the dubious nature of carbon dating and the less than important idea that God could have either made everything in a flash or does it slowly over time through natural process as he does everything else mattered little. Are you not aware of how politically wrapped up evolution was? Why would the church jump right on board without clear evidence?

Christians do not follow the ten commandments. They are part of the old covenant and no longer valid. They are simply kept as a history of the law and a hint at what to do now. But they are old. I'm afraid you don't understand biblical law very well if you think anything from the old covenant is still valid.

And there's no reason to think that single replicating cell(a molecule is a group of bonded atoms) couldn't have slowly evolved into the proto-humans that gave birth to Adam and Eve.

Do you think all Christians reject evolution? You know it doesn't contradict anything but maybe fundamental creationism but even that one accepts it in some sects.

The first Roman Olympics were in 776 BC, copying the Greeks as they did often.

But Mormons don't believe that Jesus is the only way into heaven which is the definition of Christianity, they are not a Christian sect.

And yes, if I listened to Jesus I would sell everything and preach. I try to do that online as much as possible but I'm not a saint. I'm still learning and growing and maybe someday I will get there but certainly not now. Please do not look at me as a model Christian, I fall very short.

(More below)
User avatar
#3577 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
Oh that's nice, at least you're civil.

Yes there has, in fact there are several I can think of off the top of my head:
1) The universe has a divine creator
2) The universe has a material creator
3) The universe was born spontaneously
4) The universe has always existed in some state

I'll say what countless atheists have before me; God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, there is nothing that I can say that will disprove it. What I can do is debunk the evidence you present, which is what I am doing.
I don't refuse to believe god exists, in fact like most atheists I'd be delighted to discover some divine afterlife post-mortem. But I can't just believe because I want to, I need evidence.

I'm not creating a strawman, I'm directly responding to what you say. If I misinterpret what you said then that's on me, but it's not a strawman, it's a mistake.

Yes, however what we can assess is that your thought process went thusly:
1) I think there is a god
2) I will find evidence for god
3) I believe there is a god
4) Which god is right
5) This god is right
You went seeking god and you found him... that's not surprising.

Please read this, especially the first line. It shows how accepting the church was.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Scepticism doesn't mean disbelief. Scepticism is to question the evidence, not to deny it.

No evolution is the most stable theory in biology... The only reason anyone questions it is, like the heliocentrism argument, they want an alternative model.
Carbon dating isn't used anymore, we use radiometric dating, which is extremely accurate.
There is clear evidence, in fact wikipedia outlines it very well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

If you had read the bible you would know that the commandments were specifically exempt from this new ruling.

Yes there is, the fact that animals do not give birth to animals of other species. It just doesn't happen.
The first life form on earth was not a cell, it was a replicating molecule. Cells are incredibly complex, and could never form naturally without the intervention of a creator, material or otherwise.

No.
Yes I know, this is called cognitive dissonance.

Actually that's not a required belief, that's just specific to your brand of christianity. Some sects believe that good deeds are all that is required, and knowledge of the faith is unimportant.

Maybe stop trying to be a good christian and be a good person?
User avatar
#3574 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
(Continued, ran out of room again.)
The bible is true and flawless but just saying that means little. As I said, point out some flaws, I will clear them up for you. I can show the bible is flawless if you will take the time.

I do my best to only believe because of the evidence. But I will admit I often find myself believing just because it feels good and right and brings me contentment. Those feelings are fine but should I find proof that the bible is wrong I would stop believing and even strong evidence would make me pause to do some deep study and research. I know you think all Christians are dumb emotionally driven and illogical but I can assure you this isn't true of me at the least.

And yes, I have read about what that article is talking about. It's sad that someone has to worry about their career being at risk just because they are religious. Being questioned if they are fit for the job just because they believe. The odd culture that smart people aren't religious driving the educated to strive to appear smart and thus not believe in things that might cause them to be mocked. Don't fear being mocked. Often it is from the insecurities of those who mock that the mockery comes.

But surely you have researched into absolute verses relative morality and know that your moral code is relative and thus made up and can change at the drop of a hat? You are aware that most educate atheist will submit that without God there can be more real morality and thus no morality at all. That such things are only there to keep social structure and thus there is nothing wrong with murder or rape. But there in lies the self defeating nature of such a belief. Without absolute morality, then it can't be said there is anything wrong with believing in a God or absolute morality. So someone who follows an absolute moral system is either right or at the least, not wrong.

Are you calling the Roman comment a conspiracy? Because that's just history, you can read it anywhere really.

And of course we have a society where we can live however we want. We always have. Men can dominate who they please, hurt who they want, do anything they please and try to stop one another from doing anything they please. The question is what actions are right or wrong. You seem to have an idea that freedom is what is right. But Christianity isn't calling for us to restrict the freedoms of each other. It calls for us to restrict our own freedoms. To restrain ourselves from doing bad things. From hurting each other, from lusting for flesh or wealth, from gluttony and self serving. You seem to think religion is oppressing you and yet what is the worst you have experienced? Being condescendingly talked to? Being made to feel uncomfortable about something you were doing that might be a sin?

And the lack of genetic diversity is only a theory, contested by other scientific genetic theories such as the genetic clock and mitochondrial DNA. But you will likely say that anything supporting the Adam and Eve pairing is simply silly Christians skewing science to try and prove something so it doesn't matter how much evidence is brought to you. You will continue to deny it is evidence at all and simply say I lack understanding on the subject.

I honestly don't feel like you are being very open to this discussion when you don't give any more of a explanation or evidence than "No. Just no." and "The bible isn't true, let along flawless..." They are statements for sure, but don't really add much of anything to the discussion.

Your cutting remarks and jabs make it very tedious to argue with you and while I am happy to explain things, I would request we keep things civil. Saying I am wrong is one thing. But calling me "dear" really comes off as provocative. So again, just a request.
User avatar
#3576 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
The entire first and second book.

I don't think christians are stupid; some are taught from a young age to believe, some are sent that way by bad circumstances. Religion is a coping mechanism for some when reality becomes to difficult; there's no shame in that.

Science is the opposite of dogma, so it's not surprising that religious people are less interested in science and more interested in dogma.
I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you.

No, morality is derived from evolution. No god is required.
There is everything wrong with murder and rape; it's very harmful to our species to go around killing and hurting each other. That's what morality is.
The premise that without absolute morality nothing can be right or wrong is nonsense. Just because right and wrong are subjective doesn't mean they don't exist.

I studied the roman empire for a year or so, and I can assure you that it did not go the way you think it did.

Yeah except for those laws...
No they can't, because laws.
I am a liberal, I believe individual freedom should be preserved where it can.
Christianity also calls for you to kill the gays, so I'm going to say no to that one. You can have rules without them coming out of a fairy tale.
Religion has done nothing to me specifically, it's what it's done to other people that concerns me. People who might otherwise be great thinkers have been tied down to ancient superstitions. Children have been pressured by their parents into faith. It's not right.
Sins don't exist.

No it isn't, we observe it directly in the cheetah, who has severe issues due to it.
I've no idea how the genetic clock relates to the topic at hand.
I assume you're referring to the fact that we all have a common mitochondrial ancestor, nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve, however she lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in east africa, rather than 6000 years ago in the middle east. However, this is only our most recent common ancestor, it's not the first human.
No, I will present the evidence which explains why you are wrong.

Do you see the paragraphs here explaining the evidence? I do.

I apologise, that is merely how I converse. If terms of endearment insult you I can start calling you impolite names instead.