Atheist diary at the GWT

[BobRyan]

I'm simply refuting your argument that evolution as a theory came out of necessity for atheists to explain the world without God. It's ludicrous and dishonest argument

[fccool]

Quote:

My "proof" that evolutionism IS contradictory to the Bible is two fold -

1. I show agreement BETWEEN OPPOSING sides on this glaringly obvious point.

You show INDIVIDUALS in agreement. You show no agreement. Just because these individuals are in agreement does not mean that atheists and christians are in agreement.

This graph is representation of CHRISTIAN BELIEF ON EVOLUTION (not mine). I don't understand what part of those 4 words don't you understand? These CHRISTIANS (not atheists) who would read the first two chapters of Genesis and say... there's no conflict.

What you are arguing that they are evolutionists. THEY ARE BOTH. THAT'S MY ENTIRE POINT. Of course there's going to be agreement on literal incompatibility. That's why they don't interpret it literally. In fact, they view the original creation point as big-bang, progressing to the final stage of evolution, which is men.

They would argue that your literal interpretation of literal 6 days is merely your opinion. Even Jews in middle ages did not hold this view as they transitioned to Cabalistic teachings.

Quote:

I show clear examples of Bible statements that NOBODY is claiming to be "a form of evolutionism" - not even TE's!

Nobody? You are obviously unaware of the Christian Theistic Evolution interpretation of Genesis. Apparently half of the Christians in Europe are Nobody?

Quote:

The agreement you seem to imagine "does not exist" -- clearly exists.

And this is true with Southern Baptists, many other Baptist groups and Adventists when it comes to the atheist ability to admit that evolutionism is opposed to the Bible.

Agreement between who? The Southern Baptists, you and the names you give? If that so, then it exists . But that's not what you are trying to say, isn't it? You are trying to say and show, isn't it?

I'm showing you time after time that HALF OF CHRISTIANS in Europe interpret Genesis 1&2 in ways that accommodate evolution. You keep telling me that they are indeed in some agreement?

I begin to doubt that you approach your arguments with honesty, or perhaps you just don't understand the concept of agreement?

[Naomi]

Whatever you choose to believe is your choice.

The big difference is if I believe in God & the Bible completely and I die I have the Blessed Hope of eternal life.

If I choose to be an atheist and I die, game over.

Your choice. My choice is The Blessed Hope

Courage

[fccool]

Whatever you choose to believe is your choice.

The big difference is if I believe in God & the Bible completely and I die I have the Blessed Hope of eternal life.

If I choose to be an atheist and I die, game over.

Your choice. My choice is The Blessed Hope

Courage

Naomi,

1) I respect and understand the reasoning behind your belief. I've been there, and I've made similar arguments.

2) Believing something does not necessitate the outcome. Sure, you may have hope that your beliefs will be fulfilled as true, but so would a belief that if one believes hard enough, then against all odds one will not die at all. One may have hope of that not happening, but that hope is not justified if we go by certain established conventions, like ... people die, and none that we know managed to walk and talk among us for 1000s or even a couple hundred years.

Thus, if there is no life after death... whether you die with hope, or whether you die without one, makes little difference. There's a reason why people should fear death. Death should be avoided. That's a good part of what we do while we are alive - avoiding death.

3) Something is not true or not true bases on promises given. One may promise you 10 million dollars and life of bliss, if you sell your house and give the money to a certain person. The benefits of that belief does not necessitate the validity of it. It's only valid when it's proven to be valid.

Sure, you may have a blessed hope that ironically revolves around how this belief benefits you, in the end it's no different than believing that there's a special place where all dead animals go when they are killed and eaten. There's no proof of such place not-existing, and we would have hope that all of that killing was not the end. But, if we look at it rationally, such people only choose to deny reality because they don't want to cope with the idea of finality of death.

So, the only viable alternative would be that death is not final.

Whether it is or not, we don't know. I don't think that any rational atheist would claim that they know with all certainty. But we can make plenty of argument from "not-knowing" that would make us feel better, but which were unlikely to be true.

In short. It's great that believe in God helps you cope with death by giving you hope that death is not the end. But, one does not have to have that belief to have that hope, neither one has to be afraid of death if one does not believe.

The right thing to do should be the right thing to do. If people are judged based on their beliefs, and not based on their actions... such justice system is a mockery of justice.

[Gerr]

Thus, if there is no life after death... whether you die with hope, or whether you die without one, makes little difference. There's a reason why people should fear death. Death should be avoided. That's a good part of what we do while we are alive - avoiding death.

True. If her belief in the existence of God turns out to be false, it makes little difference and loses nothing. Buuuuuuut, if her belief turns out to be true, she has everything to gain and you have lost everything. You can call it the "just in case" plan if you wish, but believing in a loving Creator is no less reasonable than the notion that there is no God.

Originally Posted By: fccool

... people die, and none that we know managed to walk and talk among us for 1000s or even a couple hundred years.

We have a historical record that someone DID come back from the dead, witnessed by many. So it boils down to your choice whether to believe the historical evidence or not.

Originally Posted By: fccool

The right thing to do should be the right thing to do. If people are judged based on their beliefs, and not based on their actions... such justice system is a mockery of justice.

And how do you know what is the right thing to do? Yeah, one can reason that such and such act is the right thing to do, but someone else may argue differently. So then, who is correct? In evolution, there is no right or wrong as I see it. An animal simply takes whatever it wants or needs to survive. The notion of right and wrong actually argues for the existence of a Lawgiver.

[fccool]

Quote:

True. If her belief in the existence of God turns out to be false, it makes little difference and loses nothing. Buuuuuuut, if her belief turns out to be true, she has everything to gain and you have lost everything.

This is a really silly argument. Based on that view, might as well pick the religion with the best heaven, and worst hell.

For example, Islam states that unbelievers will be forever burning their skin off, as Allah will come and repair it, until it burns off again.

But if you believe in Allah, and do what he says, then you will be pleasured in heaven by virgins set aside for you.

Why don't you "just in case" believe what Islam says? It has much worse hell. At least in Adventist hell people will suffer burning for a bit and then die, but in Islam or Baptist hell... they will burn forever and ever.

Seems to me that one would be better off believe in either of these two, "Just in case" these are right.

You seem to believe (or invite other to believe) in these based on the punishment you avoid, or rewards that you would receive.

Quote:

You can call it the "just in case" plan if you wish, but believing in a loving Creator is no less reasonable than the notion that there is no God.

Sure, it's not less reasonable to believe in loving creator who really wants you to understand and know him... and he wants it so much that the best he could do to reveal himself is in a form of compilation of myth-like tales of old full of rather questionable moral codes... and then tell all of the world that if they don't believe the writings of that book that said that one must accept a brutal punishment of innocent being for purpose of pacifying God's wrath, or they will be resurrected and burned to death.

Now, that's reasonable love!

Quote:

We have a historical record that someone DID come back from the dead, witnessed by many. So it boils down to your choice whether to believe the historical evidence or not.

Sure, we have many "historical records" of people coming back from death. We have those historical records in virtually every culture.

Yet, you seem to reject every one of these but one, and ironically you ignore the same reasoning when it comes to the one that you accept.

Quote:

And how do you know what is the right thing to do? Yeah, one can reason that such and such act is the right thing to do, but someone else may argue differently.

It's very simple, and we've done it for a while now. We talk about it, and we come to some consensus based on predominant idea of avoiding harm. That's the way we've done it since humanity could organize as a society.

All of our laws revolve around meaningful harm to both human beings and society as a whole, and these laws are punishable with appropriate (and minimal) punishment necessary to prevent other from doing the same.

Biblical morality is a non-morality at all. It says don't kill(or murder) then it turns around and commands it for the silliest reasons, like a person picking up sticks on the wrong day.

Quote:

So then, who is correct? In evolution, there is no right or wrong as I see it. An animal simply takes whatever it wants or needs to survive. The notion of right and wrong actually argues for the existence of a Lawgiver.

Correctness is not an objective black and white in moral view. If someone knocks on my door with a gun in their hand and asks me if my neighbor is in my house, because they want to kill him, you bet I'm going to lie! And that lie would be a very good and right thing to do.

If there's a tyrant who oppresses people and hoards the food, while the helpless children around are starving... stealing from this tyrant would be a very good thing to do.

If someone picking up sticks on a day he was supposed to stay home and do nothing, killing that person would be a TERRIBLE thing to do.

All of morality is geared towards minimizing harm. That's what separates us from animals. We have different means of survival than they do. We don't have to kill to eat. They have to, they have no other means because their instincts drive them to.

[BobRyan]

So in this case - Darwin' date=' Dawkins, Provine, Meyers in agreement with Southern Baptist Convention, the SDA denomination (see the GC2010 vote) and others. All saying that evolution and the Bible are not in harmony with each other on the subject of origins of the species.

And even you have been hard put to find a bunch of atheist claiming that the Bible is compatible with evolution.

The point remains.

Originally Posted By: fccool

You show INDIVIDUALS in agreement. You show no agreement. Just because these individuals are in agreement does not mean that atheists and christians are in agreement.[/quote']

You keep clinging to that idea without showing atheists claiming that the Bible is in harmony with evolution.

Were we "not supposed to notice" ?

you keep arguing that TEs that "exist" within some nations are operating from inside the Christian church.

I agree with you on that point.

I fully agree that "TE's" exist.

I am simply pointing out that the self-conflicted nature of their claims is not only seen by Christians - but also by atheists. Thus the opposing sides both see the flaw in the TE self-conflicted claim.

And even you - find no argument at all for a wild claim that Ex 20:11 is some kind of way to say "evolution did it".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

This graph is representation of CHRISTIAN BELIEF ON EVOLUTION (not mine). I don't understand what part of those 4 words don't you understand? These CHRISTIANS (not atheists) who would read the first two chapters of Genesis and say... there's no conflict.

What you are arguing that they are evolutionists. THEY ARE BOTH. THAT'S MY ENTIRE POINT. Of course there's going to be agreement on literal incompatibility. That's why they don't interpret it literally. In fact, they view the original creation point as big-bang, progressing to the final stage of evolution, which is men.

They would argue that your literal interpretation of literal 6 days is merely your opinion. Even Jews in middle ages did not hold this view as they transitioned to Cabalistic teachings.

Quote:

I show clear examples of Bible statements that NOBODY is claiming to be "a form of evolutionism" - not even TE's!

Nobody? You are obviously unaware of the Christian Theistic Evolution interpretation of Genesis. Apparently half of the Christians in Europe are Nobody?

Hint "The Baptist Faith and Message" and the "28 Fundamental Beliefs" as a starter.

You might want to check out 3SG 90-91, as well as Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyer on this point about the Bible not being in agreement with evolution.

Also a quick read of Ex 20:11.

Yet in all this - I never claim "TE's do not exist". Just that the atheists point to the contradiction between the Bible and evolution -- and none of them are claiming that Ex 20:11 is some kind of odd way to say "evolution did it" and so also do we have these Christian examples cited above as holding to that same view.

[Gerr]

You may think the notion of the existence of God to be silly, but in your heart of hearts, you know there is a God. He left a witness, a voice speaking/convicting you that He is, unless you have ignored it for so long that you no longer hear that voice.

As for the stoning of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath and other Bible stories you find silly, it is a truism that people often ridicule things they don't understand. Paul also said it well when he wrote:

ESV | ‎1 Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

[Igakusei]

...it is a truism that people often ridicule things they don't understand.

How ironic.

[fccool]

Quote:

You may think the notion of the existence of God to be silly, but in your heart of hearts, you know there is a God. He left a witness, a voice speaking/convicting you that He is, unless you have ignored it for so long that you no longer hear that voice.

Sorry, no voice, just thoughts. When I hear that voice, perhaps we can talk.

But, even when there's a "voice", what kind of god would it tell me to follow? It says virtually nothing about who that god is. God himself apparently is playing hide and seek. Why is that? Why would he hide from humanity?

Quote:

As for the stoning of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath and other Bible stories you find silly, it is a truism that people often ridicule things they don't understand. Paul also said it well when he wrote:

ESV | ‎1 Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Sure... more of the "stupid people can't see king's clothing" type of argument. Well, the other option is that he has no clothing.

On top of that, do I hear you defending stoning of people for picking up sticks on Sabbath? Do you believe it is a right thing to do?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

...it is a truism that people often ridicule things they don't understand.

How ironic.

Yes, the truism goes both ways. But as ignorant as I am, I'm not so stupid not to see the futility of life arising from non-life, and the descent of man from apes.

[Gerr]

Friend,this is the last train leaving the station, just like the ark before the Flood came. I urge you, I appeal to you to get on it.

I have my yearly doc appt to go to, so I'll comment on the sticks later.

[Igakusei]

Yes, the truism goes both ways. But as ignorant as I am, I'm not so stupid not to see the futility of life arising from non-life, and the descent of man from apes.

That's because you're blissfully unaware of the incredible magnitude with which YEC is contradicted by the evidence. It's not that we've proven every single little detail of evolution and abiogenesis (why can't you separate those?), it's that everything we've discovered about biology, cosmology, geology, paleontology, etc. is completely consistent with evolution and completely INconsistent with a 6,000 year history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

If you disagree with any of the topics in the above video (he doesn't go into any of them in great detail), tell me exactly why, cite your response, and we can talk specifics. You still haven't managed to come up with a single example of how any of this is explained by Creation, short of "God did it that way, and I have no idea why."

[fccool]

Quote:

And worst of all for you argument - even you find no way to show an atheist or Christian arguing that the wording in Ex 20:11 is "just another way to say evolution did it". None of them use that wording when describing evolution as if that is a way to state the case for evolution.

I don't really understand your point...

1) Do you understand that there are Christians out there (in this case 50% of Europe) who believe that Bible and evolution are not in conflict?

2) Obviously they have to interpret these passages differently than you do. For example, God was not telling people exact age of the exact process, but was merely relaying useful information in a way they could understand and believe.

You make the same argument when God tells that incests have 4 legs, and that Bat is a bird.

3) If you want concrete arguments of such Theistic Evolution Christians... here's one for you.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bets/evolution_payne.pdf

And, for the last time, Evolution is not exclusively atheistic claim, and was not invented as means to explain world without God. It may lead you to that conclusion, but it would be your reason and belief... not the fault of evolutionary theory.

[fccool]

Quote:

Friend,this is the last train leaving the station, just like the ark before the Flood came. I urge you, I appeal to you to get on it.

Where is that train, and where is it going?

Or perhaps you are speaking metaphorically in a vague language that revolves around an emotional appeal, rather than making any reasonable arguments?

How many people have died since Christian promise that Christ will be coming back soon? How many pastors have died who were so sure and convinced that all of the current wars, starvation, and disasters are the signs of Christ coming in their lifetime?

Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE for the best points of Christian doctrine to be true. The loving God who forgives people and takes them to heaven.

But there's that other uncomfortable part that I simply would not be able to live with. I simply could not live with the fact that I was the one who would make it for simply believing, and people who are much better than I am as humans, who tirelessly labor for benefit of other, in spite of their disbelief... these people would be burned alive because they simply don't believe.

I could not live forever with that thought. If you could, how could you ever call yourself or your view of God as "compassionate" and "merciful"? What's so merciful about having a train that people would have to get on to survive, and people who can't... will be dying? You are talking about all-knowing, all-loving, all compassionate creator. Is the best he can do is to "urge" people through obscure writings of people 2000++ years ago, while playing hide and seek with us?

Do I really have to show you that atheists have more compassion for people than the God that you are painting?

Quote:

I have my yearly doc appt to go to, so I'll comment on the sticks later.

I'll look forward to your explanation.

[skyblue888]

How can an atheist have any compassion except through Him who is the source of that compassion?

"If there is anything good or noble or lovely in you, (believer or unbeliever) it is wholly attritutable to the mercy of a compassionate Saviour." E.G. White.

sky

[fccool]

Quote:

How can an atheist have any compassion except through Him who is the source of that compassion?

So, you are saying that you are not the source of your compassion?

Are you saying that you don't make your own choices on whether to have compassion or not?

If you don't, then you are merely controlled by god, and you are a robot. If you do, then you admit that you in fact can be the source of that compassion as any atheist can be a source of compassion.

[Igakusei]

I remember having that conversation with my mom, years ago. I don't think I ever got a straight answer. All good things come from God, but yes, we still have free will. Does not compute.

[Gerr]

I'll look forward to your explanation.

I have a talk I have to prepare for this weekend so I'll answer only the above for now. BTW, had normal labs and a good report from the doc today.

Anyway, the story of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath is found in Num 15:32-36. This took place after they left Sinai. While at Sinai they were given the formal Sabbath commandment. But even before Sinai, there must have been a reminder about it when the manna fell during six days, with a double portion on Friday. Three times it was recorded that:

"You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." Ex 31:14,15; 35:2. So this man was not ignorant of the command. This Num 15 incident was also preceded by people complaining about the food in chap 11. There was also the opposition of Miriam and Aaron against Moses in chap 12. Then we find the people's rebellion in Chap 14 after they heard the discouraging report of 10 out of the 12 spies.

Immediately preceding the Num 15:32-35 incident, verses 22-29 deal with unintentional sins.These kinds of sins, Paul says in ESV | ‎Ac 17:30 "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." But verses 30-31 have these to say:

ESV | ‎Nu 15:30 But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. ‎31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.”

"High hand" in the ESV is rendered "defiantly" in the NASB & NIV, AND "presumptuously" in KJV, "brazenly violate the Lord's will," NLT, "deliberately," GNT. Anyone who did that "reviled" (ESV), "blasphemed" (NASB,NIV) "affronts" (NRSV) the Lord.

God is love, but He also hates sin.

This act in Num 15:32-35 clearly appears to me to be open defiance of the highest order. He knew the statute and the penalty. He did it anyway. He did not even sneak to do it. He did it in broad daylight to show his comtempt. I do not pretend to understand all the ways of God, for ESV | ‎Is 55:8" For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. ‎9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." But this is how I see it. Had God not punished this rebellion, a much greater rebellion would have taken place. And much more lives would have been lost. So I see God dealing severely with one in order to save the many. Sacrifice one for the greater good. Surprised?

How would you have handled this rebellious person in front of all those restless slaves?

[fccool]

I'm glad that your tests turn out well. I hope that nothing else brings you anymore discomfort.

Quote:

Had God not punished this rebellion, a much greater rebellion would have taken place. And much more lives would have been lost. So I see God dealing severely with one in order to save the many. Sacrifice one for the greater good. Surprised?

Not really, as I've expected similar logic. I REALLY hope that you will understand the problem with this logic that I'll put forward, because this type of logic harmed and killed more people in the name of religion than any other. All sorts of people were stoned, killed, and burned alive because they were "infecting" and "corrupting" the society, thus purify society of such people is the only possible way.

Here's where such logic fails.

1) It's inconsistent. We have quite a bit of Biblical figures both "good" and "bad" who got away with intentional murder, intentional disobedience, and were spared. Ironically, other people were punished by God for their mistakes, but they lived and even prospered.

Adam and Eve intentionally disobeyed and were banished. Cain killed. Lamech bragged about killing. Moses murdered. Abraham lied and cared about himself more than his wife's honor. David murdered and fornicated, as did most of the kings before and after him. None of these people were punished with immediate death for their intentional sins against god.

This guy was picking up sticks on Sabbath. That was his crime. Nothing more, nothing less. He probably did it out of habit, who knows. So, you are saying that in spite of all of those "capital crimes" that God let go of, and perhaps that incited more rebellion and death... this particular one had more adverse potential to harm other?

2) God is not some human ruler. He's not a child. He should not act like one. But, Biblical god acts like both. He has infinite wisdom, but the best solution he could come up with is public stoning of that person? Is that really a fitting punishment? How is that supposed to suppress rebellion, instead of inciting one?

If that guys was my father or husband, or even relative... I would run from that society as far as I could. The society which sacrifices and makes examples of people without some sort of consistency is an immoral one. There was no moral dilemma there between death and rebellion.

Quote:

God is love, but He also hates sin.

This is really silly euphemism of religion to justify certain Biblical morality that does not even live up to its own standards.

If God hates sin, then he should deal with sin. I would not deal with disease that my child has by killing my child. That would be beyond insane. I would not say "I'm sorry son, I really love you, but you have this disease, and you refuse to take pills for it... I'll have to put you down". It's idiotic. I have more than several options before I come to such extreme solution. Killing my son in such case would not be Plan A. It would not be Plan Z for that matter. It's so extreme, that it's inconceivable in terms of situational morality, especially if I had the power to vanquish my son's disease in a second.

If the only thing that separates people from "righteousness" is following and understanding proper information, then perhaps God should emphasize and improve on how he informs people, and not punish them for lack of understanding? Even criminals do things because they don't fully understand, or aware of the implications... well, those that do I would argue are insane people, and are threat to society... but Bible throws every single person in that category.

3) If you have any hope of claiming absolute morality coming from God, He would have to be subject to it. He can't make up rules as he pleases. It would simply show that He is not moral being if He could. If there is other way of doing things, and he instead chooses the most extreme... and then inconsistant about such punishement throughout the entire history of humanity, then we can't have any type of absolute morality argument. Then all morality is situational.

For example, we have overpopulation in China that causes some food and starvation problems. So, what if we, to save China and solve that problem round up and kill 25% of it's population? Based on your view of morality, why would that be wrong? It would merely be a necessary sacrifice for good of everyone?

If it is wrong to do it today, what made it right then?

See the problem?

[BobRyan]

If God hates sin, then he should deal with sin. I would not deal with disease that my child has by killing my child. That would be beyond insane. I would not say "I'm sorry son, I really love you, but you have this disease, and you refuse to take pills for it... I'll have to put you down". It's idiotic.

The atheist argues that everyone is just fine and there is no lake of fire contrary to anything God's Word might say about that in Rev 20. Or anything Christ might say to the contrary in Matt 10:28.

hence:

http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbth...html#Post498195

The defense you offer above is a "complain all the way to the lake of fire / or electric chair" solution. As if that will change the chair "into smoke".

Your argument is of the form "I don't believe the Bible ... errr umm... because I don't like what I find there".

And of course - free will being what it is - each person gets to wrap themselves in that bit of fiction if they choose.

The question is - are you being objective?

God is the sovereign of the universe and has declared that the punishment for treason, for rebellion against the Law of the Universe is not merely death - it is the second death. The one we see described by God for us -- in Rev 14:10 and in Rev 20.

His description of it is pretty ugly.

Adam and Eve choose the serpent over God - and they eat what they are not hungry for - they merely eat because "evolution" was offered to them along with distrust of God.

They could have chosen "God has proven himself to be trustworthy so I trust him". That would have been easy - but they let that option fall by the wayside.

God could have chosen "I will now destroy you" and we would have NO cancer in mankind, no disease nor inhumanity of man against man. There would be NO mankind.

But of course - if He was willing to take that option - then killing all the rebel angels before they ever got to Adam and Eve would have been even better.

And if He was willing to go that route - then killing Lucifer before he could convince 1/3 of the Angels to join him would have been even BETTER.

And of course - if He was willing to do that - then "Tinkering" with Lucifer's thought process wayy before Lucifer himself even KNEW that he was thinking about rebellion would have been even BETTER

That would save God - Lucifer, 1/3 of the Angels, the majority of mankind AND the TORTURE and death of HIMSELF on the cross paying the second death TORTURE price for every sin of every sinner that has ever lived on the planet. Yet God chooses "free will" and the PRICE that goes with it -- instead.

God is in the business of making thinking - learning - free-will intelligent life forms. NOT just "calculators" and He is willing to pay a high price for that creative choice on his part.

in Christ,

Bob

[phkrause]

He is willing to pay a high price for that creative choice on his part.

in Christ,

Bob

He did pay a high price, he had to watch Jesus pay the ultimate price, without knowing if he would go through with it or not.