Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[Blake]

lol

referring to "god" as "him"


as if "god" were something "separate" from you, from me, from the earth, from the universe", and as if you reached this conclusion and were arrogant enough to believe you were even close...


what a blind arrogant fool you are and I gave you truth in my last post to you and you could not even respond to it because it was irrefutable.

I don't think they are going to "get" this, since they are already having problems understanding what I am saying.
And we know he isn't interested in truth.
Like you said, trolls and truth don't go together.

We're talking about the Bible, geniuses.

[RandomGuy]

as for the bible or other holy books? i'm really not a fan. i was raised christian, attended private school with weekly religion classes, etc. i grew up believing the tales. but as i grew, learned, and tried making sense of the tales, they no longer made any sort of sense to me. i see the bible as allegory as well. it is meant to teach us lessons, give us hope, etc. but i doubt its based on true, historical events. it was also written and used as a method of control. its also a moneygrab, which religious ins utions take advantage of

Pretty much how I view it.

The bible was a cheap copy of the mythology of the times. The Jesus story was probably based loosely on an actual figure, that borrowed a LOT of elements of the story from other prevalent myths, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

Yahweh as a god was one of a pantheon, likely canaanite, likely a war god. Moses was a made up story, as was a lot of the rest of it.

The war god took prominence, as the peoples were pressed militarily. Not unsurprising.

[RD2191]

Pretty much how I view it.

The bible was a cheap copy of the mythology of the times. The Jesus story was probably based loosely on an actual figure, that borrowed a LOT of elements of the story from other prevalent myths, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

Yahweh as a god was one of a pantheon, likely canaanite, likely a war god. Moses was a made up story, as was a lot of the rest of it.

The war god took prominence, as the peoples were pressed militarily. Not unsurprising.

[RD2191]

[spurraider21]

You might find this useful:



Short, concise, and a decided lack of vitriol.

One of the best explanations I have seen outside of nonstampcollector.

no. posting 10+ minute videos during a debate is not useful tbh. nobody will watch it

[Blake]

RG is doing him a favor, tbh.

There's no debate here, only dancing around simple questions like "do you believe in the resurrection story"

[RD2191]

RG try not getting your beliefs from evilbible.com and you just might be able to clear your mind and think with an open mind without bias.

[xmas1997]

yeah, the flying spaghetti monster concept was basically made up to highlight the "burden of proof"... when people say "you can't prove that god DOESN'T exist" they are misunderstanding where the burden of proof lies. if you are making the claim that god exists, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why god exists. much like if i actually claimed the flying spaghetti monster exists, the burden of proof should be on me to prove it.

When it comes to religious matters, as well as other people's statements in general these days, I tend to take Poe's idiom to heart, "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see."
I have learned that just when I think that I have the answer, and something pinned and locked down, it goes and changes on me, and I have go back and start from scratch.
My metaphysical studies over the years have only strengthened this at ude.
And then as science tends to make things clearer, it also is a double edged sword in that it gives me a false sense of security, because the more I know, then the more I realize that there is even more to know, and that I really don't know very much at all.
This is why I love Pop's pla ude, of "not taking yourself so seriously", because the moment you do, you either end up getting pissed off or of making a fool of yourself.
So I try to take that to heart as well.

[xmas1997]

no. posting 10+ minute videos during a debate is not useful tbh. nobody will watch it

Actually I do.

[spurraider21]

And then as science tends to make things clearer, it also is a double edged sword in that it gives me a false sense of security, because the more I know, then the more I realize that there is even more to know, and that I really don't know very much at all.

that is the beauty of it. it makes us feel small

[RD2191]

So tell me where Jesus said slavery is a bad thing.

He didn't. I don't think he commented on it. As far as I know most slaves were captives of wars and such. Even the Israelites were slaves at one point.

[xmas1997]

I have only one other thing to add:

San Antonio Raiders!

[spurraider21]

He didn't. I don't think he commented on it. As far as I know most slaves were captives of wars and such. Even the Israelites were slaves at one point.

yes according to holy books they were slaves in egypt that built the pyramid. but you will pretty much never find actual historical or archeological evidence to support that. Egyptians scoff at that notion

[RD2191]

yes according to holy books they were slaves in egypt that built the pyramid. but you will pretty much never find actual historical or archeological evidence to support that. Egyptians scoff at that notion

Never is a strong word. It is possible that maybe the evidence has never been found or it was destroyed. Why would they keep a record of people who served another (true) God who kicked the crap out of them and led his people out of a "mighty" kingdom?

[RD2191]

*Just hasn't been found

[xmas1997]

Burden of proof has been debated on here before too.
When I was an atheist, and I made the claim that God does not exist, then it became impossible for me to prove it.
And conversely the opposite is true.
The burden of proof falls upon the one making the claim.
But how do you prove something that is the result of a subjective experience?
I don't think you can.
You can only prove those things that are "objective" IMHO.
Anyone care to weigh in on this?

[Chinook]

Burden of proof has been debated on here before too.
When I was an atheist, and I made the claim that God does not exist, then it became impossible for me to prove it.
And conversely the opposite is true.
The burden of proof falls upon the one making the claim.
But how do you prove something that is the result of a subjective experience?
I don't think you can.
You can only prove those things that are "objective" IMHO.
Anyone care to weigh in on this?

The null is indeed flexible, but not to that extent. You can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. Nulls almost always are negative claims while alternates are positive.

Meaning someone who says god doesn't exist with certainty is a fool, since that's improvable. A person who says with certainty that god does exist is being disingenuous, but he may eventually be able to prove his point.

[xmas1997]

The null is indeed flexible, but not to that extent. You can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. Nulls almost always are negative claims while alternates are positive.

Meaning someone who says god doesn't exist with certainty is a fool, since that's improvable. A person who says with certainty that god does exist is being disingenuous, but he may eventually be able to prove his point.

Thanks for some clarification.
I have been on both sides of the God debate, and neither side seems able to prove anything.
While I am no stranger to making a fool of myself, or of being disingenuous in the past, I try to be more cir spect these days.

[phyzik]

Thanks for some clarification.
I have been on both sides of the God debate, and neither side seems able to prove anything.
While I am no stranger to making a fool of myself, or of being disingenuous in the past, I try to be more cir spect these days.

The thing I don't get is that you cant "claim" to be on both sides.... One side that is making extraordinary claims needs to provide proof... The skeptic does not.

How hard is this to understand with "believers"? Is it some kind of mental block that is enacted as a defense mechanism so they can defend their beliefs?

Do you flip flop because you "WANT" to believe? Or do you have some empirical evidence that supports a sky fairy? (Hint: There is none.... If you provided some, you would win a Nobel prize and all Atheist would shut up once and for all).

You say both sides "seem" to be unable to prove anything, and I think that is where you are tripping up.... It is NOT on the skeptic to prove anything, this goes for ANY scientific theory or ideology. That is the whole basis of science! You make a claim, you must support it with evidence in a peer review of skeptics.... If your evidence holds up, it is then accepted.... Anecdotes don't count as they cannot be verified, quantified or replicated.

Example: Let's say I have a Fat ass ... let's say 350lbs.... I tell you she is a fitness expert. You would at the very least (I hope) doubt me and ask for some evidence.... or would you just take my word for it? At least I would think you would ing think I'm full of until I provided proof.

So far, Religion has provided more proof against itself than it has to support itself.

There are more than 1000 religions in recorded human history (lets not even take into account the unrecorded beliefs)... Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me Yours is the correct one? Because you want to "believe" it is? seriously.... do you even understand how mental that sounds?

[xmas1997]

The thing I don't get is that you cant "claim" to be on both sides.... One side that is making extraordinary claims needs to provide proof... The skeptic does not.

How hard is this to understand with "believers"? Is it some kind of mental block that is enacted as a defense mechanism so they can defend their beliefs?

Do you flip flop because you "WANT" to believe? Or do you have some empirical evidence that supports a sky fairy?

You say both sides "seem" to be unable to prove anything, and I think that is where you are tripping up.... It is NOT on the skeptic to prove anything, this goes for ANY scientific theory or ideology. That is the whole basis of science! You make a claim, you must support it with evidence in a peer review of skeptics.... If your evidence holds up, it is then accepted.... Anecdotes don't count as they cannot be verified, quantified or replicated.

So far, Religion has provided more proof against itself than it has to support itself.

There are more than 1000 religions in recorded human history (lets not even take into account the unrecorded beliefs)... Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me Yours is the correct one? Because you want to "believe" it is? seriously.... do you even understand how re ed that sounds?

No, what I was saying was that those years when I was an atheist, I could not support my contention that when I was asked if I believed in God, I said, no, I believe that God does not exist.
Since I was the one making as chinook says is a negative or null claim it seemed to me at the time that it was up to me to provide the burden of proof of my claim. And as expected, I couldn't do it.
Now that I have come full circle, I cannot prove that either.
So I finally came to the conclusion that neither claim can be proved, at least in this point in time.
But I never said I was both at the same time.
Now, you are saying that the skeptic has no burden of proof ever, right? I guess because he is not claiming anything.
But if the skeptic does make a claim whether negative or positive, doesn't it fall to him to provide proof of his claim?
No offense meant to either side by the way.

[phyzik]

No, what I was saying was that those years when I was an atheist, I could not support my contention that when I was asked if I believed in God, I said, no, I believe that God does not exist.
Since I was the one making as chinook says is a negative or null claim it seemed to me at the time that it was up to me to provide the burden of proof of my claim. And as expected, I couldn't do it.
Now that I have come full circle, I cannot prove that either.
So I finally came to the conclusion that neither claim can be proved, at least in this point in time.
But I never said I was both at the same time.
Now, you are saying that the skeptic has no burden of proof ever, right? I guess because he is not claiming anything.
But if the skeptic does make a claim whether negative or positive, doesn't it fall to him to provide proof of his claim?

You obviously were not an Atheist and do not understand the ideology behind it. If you felt that you had to come up with the burden of proof of "non-belief" you did not understand the concept at all. You just fell into the trap of "Wanting" to believe. Again, if you "were" an atheist, the burden of proof was not on you... you were not the one making extraordinary claims.

To make it blunt... There is NO CLAIM that an atheist is making. It is merely the lack of evidence of the extraordinary.

When I say "there is no God" I am not denouncing the POSSIBILITY of one, I (and almost every Atheist) is simply saying based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely and until there is QUANTIFIABLE evidence, we simply wont believe it.... just like we dont believe in unicorns, leprechauns and Santa Claus as any sane person should.

If "God" where to post a message in the sky or some form of irrefutable evidence claiming himself as such... do you know what I (and most Atheist) would do?

We would say " , I was wrong!"

That is all it would take. We are not asking much from an all powerful omnipotent being that controls the universe that somehow requires our adulation to stroke his ego.

Until that happens, take your sky fairy bull and shove it.

[RD2191]

phyzik being a got per usual. You have some deeply rooted issues bro, take care of it.

[xmas1997]

You obviously were not an Atheist and do not understand the ideology behind it. If you felt that you had to come up with the burden of proof of "non-belief" you did not understand the concept at all. You just fell into the trap of "Wanting" to believe. Again, if you "were" an atheist, the burden of proof was not on you... you were not the one making extraordinary claims.

To make it blunt... There is NO CLAIM that an atheist is making. It is merely the lack of evidence of the extraordinary.

When I say "there is no God" I am not denouncing the POSSIBILITY of one, I (and almost every Atheist) is simply saying based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely and until there is QUANTIFIABLE evidence, we simply wont believe it.... just like we dont believe in unicorns, leprechauns and Santa Claus as any sane person should.

If "God" where to post a message in the sky or some form of irrefutable evidence claiming himself as such... do you know what I (and most Atheist) would do?

We would say " , I was wrong!"

That is all it would take. We are not asking much from an all powerful omnipotent being that controls the universe that somehow requires our adulation to stroke his ego.

Until that happens, take your sky fairy bull and shove it.

Hey, I was asking a question, not telling what to believe and not believe.
That last part in bold was uncalled for.
Who do you think you are?
Only an unreasonable bas would say something like that when it was unnecessary.
Is that what you are?

[phyzik]

phyzik being a got per usual. You have some deeply rooted issues bro, take care of it.

What issues?

That I don't believe in a sky Daddy?

OK... I guess....

Someone with issues of reality claiming someone without issues of reality has issues....

I bet none of you Sky daddy worshipers even bothered to watch the videos in my original posts.... Fingers in ears, la la la la...

[RD2191]

What issues?

That I don't believe in a sky Daddy?

OK... I guess....

Someone with issues of reality claiming someone without issues of reality has issues....

You believe you came from a fish.