-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
God vs Science
- Thread starter Fuzznip
- Start date
I already did, I posted a huge list of Bible passages that conflict each other in every language on the last page. Here is another list, just in case you thought the first source was lying. You continue to assert that the Bible is factually accurate, how do you explain those passages that mention directly contradictory "facts".
You still haven't explained how both Jacob (MAT 1:16) AND Heli (LUK 3:23) are Joseph's father. If the Bible is truly accurate, then Joseph must have two fathers!
Yeah, Pascal's Wager...if you had bothered to actually read this thread you would know that Brain already demolished this line of thinking in this thread.
Perhaps you should think long and hard about what happens when said book is copied by scribes for hundreds of years and we do not have the original manuscripts. (Although I am sure you are trolling.)
That's exactly what I was thinking. For a guy who "knows more about the bible than any one of us" you have managed to show a great lack of knowledge about it. You have made a fool of yourself, so I suggest that you stop bitching about everything that proves you wrong making up excuses and take a look at the facts so many people presented, instead of downright rejecting them.
Sorry for coming back here, just here to make one more post. Probably my last, since I am leaving tomorrow for 3 weeks, and the thread will probably be less active then.
The 5% was not to show the majority of the world is not atheist. That is given because only a fraction of the population was not stuffed with preachings of God as a kid, and throughout the years. Most of the 5% are converts; people who used to believe in God, like me.
My 5% was to show that the population of atheism is growing, since the past 30 to 35 years or so. That means that with the increase of knowledge, we decrease the belief. We are discovering new and new things. Hell, they even have a germ-killing vacuum cleaner. The 5% in 2009 could turn into 10% in 2014, and 12.5% in 2019, and it could keep increasing, just like it has for years.
The reason this is increasing is because more people are being enlightened with the statement "Proof, not belief, developes knowledge." More and more people cannot prove God's existance, therefore they are turning atheistic.
Before the Great Depression (2 years before, not a week before), not even a fraction of the people expected such an economy collapse. Everyone was booming with money, and luxuries were being bought by the dozen. Just because a fraction of the people believed something doesn't mean they are wrong. Hell, the bulk of those people were wrong, and were the ones ended up losing all their money because of the depression.
Saying that 5% compared to 95% automatically proves us wrong just increases the idiocy coming from your posts.
So, how was that? ;D
You seem to misunderstand my reasearch. The 5% who are atheists are mainly composed of scientists (mainly meaning 70% of the 5%, for example). You can believe without a certain evidence, but you cannot know without a certain evidence.
The 5% was not to show the majority of the world is not atheist. That is given because only a fraction of the population was not stuffed with preachings of God as a kid, and throughout the years. Most of the 5% are converts; people who used to believe in God, like me.
My 5% was to show that the population of atheism is growing, since the past 30 to 35 years or so. That means that with the increase of knowledge, we decrease the belief. We are discovering new and new things. Hell, they even have a germ-killing vacuum cleaner. The 5% in 2009 could turn into 10% in 2014, and 12.5% in 2019, and it could keep increasing, just like it has for years.
The reason this is increasing is because more people are being enlightened with the statement "Proof, not belief, developes knowledge." More and more people cannot prove God's existance, therefore they are turning atheistic.
Before the Great Depression (2 years before, not a week before), not even a fraction of the people expected such an economy collapse. Everyone was booming with money, and luxuries were being bought by the dozen. Just because a fraction of the people believed something doesn't mean they are wrong. Hell, the bulk of those people were wrong, and were the ones ended up losing all their money because of the depression.
Saying that 5% compared to 95% automatically proves us wrong just increases the idiocy coming from your posts.
So, how was that? ;D
'Twas a biased tale.
Long answer:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/02/contradictions-whats-in-a-fathers-name
Short answer: Joseph had a father called Jacob. When Joseph married Mary (whose father was Heli - the genealogy in Luke is Mary's), he became Heli's "son", due to inheritance issues, for Heli had no sons of his own. The man who married Heli's daughter Mary (Joseph), was Heli's son-in-law - quite literally.
Luke's genealogy lists only male descendants of Adam, therefore Mary cannot be listed. So, Luke's genealogy lists Mary's father's son - Joseph.
Conclusion: Joseph had a father called Jacob and a father-in-law called Heli.
I honestly suggest you to read the book Hero mentioned, or to try searching Christian websites for answers.
To the discussion about quantum mechanics/Big Bang: Please clarify how quantum mechanics counter creationism, and how did the quantum mechanics come to be (remember - everyhing has a cause in rationalist thinking).
To the argument about God not revealing Himself enough (Beams of Light/Magic Tricks): Find a charismatic Christian who has knowledge of the Holy Spirit (depending on your region, most Pentecostals should do - howewer a growing number of other churches of Christians has a growing knowledge of Him...), and ask him to take you to a "charismatic" youth meeting/other gathering, for the Holy Spirit is the answer to your need of evidence. You won't believe me if I start telling you about "freak" stuff that we [(charismatic) christians] do. So go and see it yourself - it has convinced me.
I've read many of those, they happen. (I liked it)
<sarcasm>Hey, Agape brings up a great point! Using Christian sources is obviously the best way to discover the truth. Why look for information about the Bible somewhere else, when you can find information about the Bible in the Bible? And when the Bible can't provide answers, speculate! Who needs the scientific process when you have faith?</sarcasm>
Honestly, every site you have shown us is about as fair and balanced as Fox News, and much like Fox News, they can only provide speculation instead of proof. It seems like getting your information from God, or God's word (the Bible), would be the best way. However, instead of following the word of God, you're following the word of men! If "God" wanted to show how his father did not have two fathers, it seems like God would have been smart enough to remove the logical fallacies. Omnipotent much? Either follow the Bible completely or admit it's flawed, because your links are pitiful. If you can speculate on one part of the Bible, then you can speculate on all of it, and speculations are not a reliable source. Find me the verse saying the same thing as your link and I'll gladly concede.
I went to "charismatic" youth meetings when I was a kid. I noticed that I didn't feel a thing, while everyone else just seemed to be showing off to their parents/youth minister going "Hey, Jesus loves me more! That's why I'm screaming and writhing and you aren't!" If your argument lies is the supernatural, Christian websites, and the Bible, perhaps thinking a little bit might solve your God problem? Right now, you're just having other people do the thinking for you.
@HeroMasaki; I'm convinced you're a troll, and your arguments aren't even worth debating with. Refusing to look at proof doesn't mean it isn't there. (Feel free to twist this into a pro-God sentiment) Feel free to debate with my strawman though.
@.//Enigma;
Much better post! However, you're using made up statistics again and your point about the Great Depression is totally incorrect.
Start with this point
and expand, as I really liked this part..//enigma said:
This makes no sense. (To me)
Evolution, or, on a larger scale, the Big Bang Theory/String theory would counter creationism, because they describe how we evolved/how the universe was created.
Quantum mechanics describes how the world works at a subatomic level (Electrons, Neutrons, Bosons, Leptons, etc.). It incorporates electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces into one theory. And the actual "force" that it exerts is represented by extremely small particles.
It came to be when the universe was created, just like all the other matter, energy, and forces in the universe.
Here's the problem with prophecies in general: they are usually vague. This is so people can read into them and apply them to situations or events and say "there it is just like the prophecy said!"
I'm no expert on Biblical prophecies so it is hard for me to really debate with you here but I'm sure a good chunk you are referring to are prophecies that came true in relation to Jesus Christ. Which really doesn't prove anything. The Bible predicts things about Jesus and then later on in the same book these things happen to Jesus. So essentially, a book predicts something and then later tells you it happened so it must be true and this is your validation for the the credibility of the Bible? In literary terms, that's just foreshadowing.
Look, nobody is trying to make you an atheist. You can believe in whatever you like, it makes no difference to me or anyone else on this forum. The only reason people are still bantering with you is because you make a point and then end it smugly with "good game guys I win." Which is funny because even other Christian believers in this thread are contradicting some of your posts. You seem to believe the Bible contains facts and can be taken literally while others have posted saying that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally and what's really important is the general moral teachings. And then you mention Pascal's Wager which is not a very good justification for having faith at all. If anything, it shows your lack of faith. So no, it's not "good game" and it never will be for this conversation. Humanity has wrestled with this for discussion for years and your posts will never be the end all winning argument.
I find the idea of a God who has human-like emotions to be nonsensical. People tend to point to the seeming intangibility of emotions as proof of the supernatural, but they really tell an opposite story. Our emotions are intrinsically tied to our mortality, there's no way around it. We fear because we might die, we love because others are protected by our affectionate attention, we covet because we (or those close to us) have mortal needs that need tending to. We lust because we need to reproduce, we desire to understand because it helps us live longer, and we feel guilt so that we don't cause harm again. Happiness and sadness spur us on to seek out or avoid certain situations, respectively. Empathy, which relates to all of these emotions, helps us stick together (although clearly not well enough) so that we may support and protect each other, extending our time on Earth and making better use of that time by working together.
Why would an immortal, all-powerful being feel any of these? There is no limit on its time, no possibility of dying. It can do an infinite amount in a finite time, so why bother feeling urgency, much less fear, love, hope, despair, hate, or any of the things that bring us to do finite things with our finite time. Emotions are our basis for action, and we need a basis for action because we are mortal. The God of the Bible who loves, hates, and covets for the hearts and minds of followers is merely a projection of our own emotional incentives upon the inanimate workings of the universe.
This argument says nothing about the existence of a creative force or even an intelligent (albeit non-emotional and therefore likely non-interactive) creator, so try to avoid quips along the lines of "well how could all of this have gotten here???".
Why would an immortal, all-powerful being feel any of these? There is no limit on its time, no possibility of dying. It can do an infinite amount in a finite time, so why bother feeling urgency, much less fear, love, hope, despair, hate, or any of the things that bring us to do finite things with our finite time. Emotions are our basis for action, and we need a basis for action because we are mortal. The God of the Bible who loves, hates, and covets for the hearts and minds of followers is merely a projection of our own emotional incentives upon the inanimate workings of the universe.
This argument says nothing about the existence of a creative force or even an intelligent (albeit non-emotional and therefore likely non-interactive) creator, so try to avoid quips along the lines of "well how could all of this have gotten here???".
That is all speculation, there is no evidence at all that what your source said it true. In fact, in your own source it says that they only posted one explanation of the event, which points to the fact that they don't actually KNOW what happened...it is entirely speculation.
They don't counter creationism, they counter the need for creationism to explain events. Instead of saying "god did it", we would be able to say that "this happened at this point in time, and this is what it caused". If we can explain how the universe was created, then suddenly god is no longer a "necessary" tool in creation.
Not everything happens for a reason, this has already been posted if you were paying attention to this thread. Sometimes, things just happen for no reason. Please keep your fairy tale beliefs out of a post that you're trying to discuss rationality and science in.
The Bible contains 66 books and was written by over 40 different authors, all of the inspired by God. Some books of the Bible are meant to be taken literally (Genesis, Numbers), while others are to be taken metaphorically (Psalms). It contains both facts, biographies, and poetry. Remember, the Bible isn't just one book.
Does it actually say "this section is figurative" or "this section is literal"? Having to decide what is literal and what is figurative is almost as bad as deciding for yourself what parts are right and wrong. If the you decide that certain things don't make any sense to you, so they must be figurative, then you're just selecting those beliefs you like as the ones that are literally true... you aren't even using the book you claim to be 100% accurate. If you want to claim that a book is 100% accurate, and that you know it's accurate because God made it directly or indirectly (and that you know God made it because it says so), then you have to stick with every little claim that it makes, no matter how stupid those claims are.
Totally agree. People can't pick and choose parts out of a religion and say that they follow it 100%. If you want to pick the parts that you like, do us a favor and don't say that's your religion, because it isn't [in all entirety].
I've got history with ppl who do this, so sorry if coming off a bit angry.
I've got history with ppl who do this, so sorry if coming off a bit angry.
Ew this sounds too much like an evil villain from a comic book!!
Honestly this is my opinion on "these people", that they're too stubborn to "stop a force that hasn't been stopped for thousands of years". The statement "you can't disprove the Bible" isn't a fair fight because all of "them" just hide behind "their" "faith" and the fact that it's nearly impossible to disapprove something that leaves no physical evidence at all and has to be relied on by "faith". yuck
can't disprove the bible..?
according to the bible, the world is only abot six thousand years old.
according to science, we (as in the modern evolution of humans) have been around more than ten thousand years.
those two simple facts don't match up.
random tangent @ diin- for some reason today i read your name as dylan dog...
according to the bible, the world is only abot six thousand years old.
according to science, we (as in the modern evolution of humans) have been around more than ten thousand years.
those two simple facts don't match up.
random tangent @ diin- for some reason today i read your name as dylan dog...
I'm kind of glad you mentioned this, as it's the only thing I like to add in religious debates. Essentially, you fear retribution in the afterlife enough to take Pascal's Wager. Basically it boils down to "believe in God, because you lose nothing in doing so."
I prefer to take the Atheist's Wager. I'll live my life happy, sane, and morally straight, while aiming for success in everything I do, trying to make the world a better place. And if there is a loving God, my actions in life should reflect upon myself as a good person with character, and I'll go to whatever positive afterlife he gives me. If God would really be so selfish and vain as to condemn me to eternal suffering after leading a very good life just because I did not cherry pick the correct old, dusty book and devote any of my limited time on Earth to hoping he exists and begging to him, then he's not a loving God and I would not like to have worshiped him anyway. In the likely event there is no God, then nothing happens.
Really, what does God have to gain by having us believe in him? Does he become more powerful when people take books with no evidence supporting them and decide to follow what they say? Does he really not trust humanity enough that he needs us to do good things only out of fear? Does he really punish morally straight people for basic skepticism?
I hate to say it, but you guys are being trolled. HeroMasaki is leading you around in circles. He challenges you to disprove the bible on a factual basis, then when you do he claims that the bible is mostly metaphor, then when you are busy arguing about that he restarts his "disproving" argument. Repeat ad nauseum.
I agree with the argument, that this discussion is in circles.
Atheists write a argument against- or "contradiction" in -the Bible.
Christians counter it, but fail to open a new attack against atheists.
Atheists use the Christians' slacking and deal another scientific blow to the Bible/Christians.
It goes round and round...
I ask all of you honestly: Has this arguing made you change a single thing about your thinking/made you to feel different about the other arguing side?
For me, I've seen that some of you are more honest and careful in your opinions than many people that I argue with irl. Though my thinking/faith has not changed a bit. (Though you made me read an article about quantum mechanics :P)
I think that this discussion should be moved to irl, to your Christian/atheist friends, unless they lack the knowledge we smogonites lack.
Also, you people from other religions than Christianity/Atheism, which side gains your sympathies?
Please read all pages before answering, please.
Atheists write a argument against- or "contradiction" in -the Bible.
Christians counter it, but fail to open a new attack against atheists.
Atheists use the Christians' slacking and deal another scientific blow to the Bible/Christians.
It goes round and round...
I ask all of you honestly: Has this arguing made you change a single thing about your thinking/made you to feel different about the other arguing side?
For me, I've seen that some of you are more honest and careful in your opinions than many people that I argue with irl. Though my thinking/faith has not changed a bit. (Though you made me read an article about quantum mechanics :P)
I think that this discussion should be moved to irl, to your Christian/atheist friends, unless they lack the knowledge we smogonites lack.
Also, you people from other religions than Christianity/Atheism, which side gains your sympathies?
Please read all pages before answering, please.