Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Question is: Why are you staying in a Christian forum anyway? You are neither discussing any topic or making any constructive postings, but just venting your anger at me and feeling sore that you lost the earlier arguments.
he who thinks he is right will never be open to any discussion for discussion involves a possibility of he himself having errors. If thats the case, i believe Mr BIC is also here to vent the anger at atheist for atheist, according to him rejects all religions. Are you feeling sore that as a theist there's the presence of atheist? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Question is: Why are you staying in a Christian forum anyway? You are neither discussing any topic or making any constructive postings, but just venting your anger at me and feeling sore that you lost the earlier arguments.Speak for yourself
None of the people here think you make constructive postings
From my perspective, you are turning people away from christ
Why are you even here?
-
Didnt know the truth of the matter revolves around a couple of people deciding otherwise to be the truth. Does praising each other's intelligence mean u are intelligent ? lol. Please.
-
thats true
so why BIC always insist he is right when people refute his points?
ego? blind? satan's servant?
the truth is out there.....*plays x file theme music*
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
he who thinks he is right will never be open to any discussion for discussion involves a possibility of he himself having errors. If thats the case, i believe Mr BIC is also here to vent the anger at atheist for atheist, according to him rejects all religions. Are you feeling sore that as a theist there's the presence of atheist?
You are confused between being right about something and being infallible. While I claim to be right about there being a God I am not claiming to be infallible i.e. Incapable of errors. Only God is infallible. And IMO atheists should feel sore that God calls them fools for denying His existence. -
Lets be fair, perhaps BIC needs to frame his answers properly. Equally, people who participate in this discussion should not take everything as a personal attack or have an egg-shell personality. There are a few forumners that can actually make more reasoned and sound discourse. For example u got Alize, Fugazzi, AEN and a very minority few. And I am sure all of them can go on and on about who is right and why. I am sure they can spew out master pieces of forensic oratory, full of great perspicacity and considerable dialectic adriotness. But really.. I mean, it's like arguing who has the best seat during a live performance. In a civil discourse, if you are going to criticise a school of thought, look to its highest expression and criticise it. If you take Christian claims as propositions that have a comic book ring to it(See Susanteo topics and Jacky Woo posts as examples), how are u supposed to then have your answer if any answer at all that comes out your mouth be taken any seriously right ? In order to refute something, you must interpret it first because the claims you make in your refutation will only be as nuanced as your interpretation. And as for BIC's psychology, I cannot comment. Becasue even if I say he is satan's servant,it does not ascertain to any truth at all of his psychological makeup. And I will just be feeding this train of hate that is out of control and running out of tracks. Unfortunately there is nobody to chair and regulate the debates. And topics like these always spiral out of control and becoming a debate on the existence and non-existence of God. Which in my honest personal opinion is just... unintelligent. I just think that not many people here apply critical thinking, and many just have not reached the intellectual maturity to accept certain propositions to be true. Some are going to get offended by this but I would be lying if I were to say that all of us here have equal standing not just in intelligence, but also in experience. So perhaps more readings and understanding would help in an overall endeavour to participate in this kind of debate. Because in the real world in real life, your credentials will be at stake, your honour and your integrity. And if you cannot measure up online, you will not make if far offline. Everyone should just sit back and chill for a while now.
-
he is judas and he turn all our eyes away from christ
-
Perhaps it is true for you and the few in this thread, but silent readers may think otherwise. Only but a few vocal ones that actually do post. We only have to look deep into ourselves to know whether or not regardless of BIC's post, would we not have taken the story of Christ any seriously at all.
-
perhaps perhaps perhaps
tsk tsk
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are confused between being right about something and being infallible. While I claim to be right about there being a God I am not claiming to be infallible i.e. Incapable of errors. Only God is infallible. And IMO atheists should feel sore that God calls them fools for denying His existence.
and imo theist should feel sore for the occurance of atheist who are able to look and think past beyond a supernatural being. and from what you said, god is definitely not appealing at all. Since anyone who does not believe in him are "fools" and "burns in hell" -
Originally posted by laurence82:
Speak for yourself
None of the people here think you make constructive postings
From my perspective, you are turning people away from christ
Why are you even here?
Well, as a Christian I have a good reason to be here. Can't say the same for you though. You aren't here to learn, discuss or debate, just trolling and nursing your personal vendetta.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
thats true
so why BIC always insist he is right when people refute his points?
ego? blind? satan's servant?
the truth is out there.....*plays x file theme music*
Specifics please. What exactly have been refuted?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Well, as a Christian I have a good reason to be here. Can't say the same for you though. You aren't here to learn, discuss or debate, just trolling and nursing your personal vendetta.
You are not a christian, you are judas, christ betrayer, hence your points are moot
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Specifics please. What exactly have been refuted?
Specifics please. What exactly have been not refuted and who here who have argued with you can confirm this?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Lets be fair, perhaps BIC needs to frame his answers properly. Equally, people who participate in this discussion should not take everything as a personal attack or have an egg-shell personality.
There are a few forumners that can actually make more reasoned and sound discourse. For example u got Alize, Fugazzi, AEN and a very minority few.
And I am sure all of them can go on and on about who is right and why. I am sure they can spew out master pieces of forensic oratory, full of great perspicacity and considerable dialectic adriotness. But really.. I mean, it’s like arguing who has the best seat during a live performance.
In a civil discourse, if you are going to criticise a school of thought, look to its highest expression and criticise it. If you take Christian claims as propositions that have a comic book ring to it(See Susanteo topics and Jacky Woo posts as examples), how are u supposed to then have your answer if any answer at all that comes out your mouth be taken any seriously right ? In order to refute something, you must interpret it first because the claims you make in your refutation will only be as nuanced as your interpretation.
And as for BIC’s psychology, I cannot comment. Becasue even if I say he is satan’s servant,it does not ascertain to any truth at all of his psychological makeup. And I will just be feeding this train of hate that is out of control and running out of tracks.
Unfortunately there is nobody to chair and regulate the debates. And topics like these always spiral out of control and becoming a debate on the existence and non-existence of God. Which in my honest personal opinion is just… unintelligent.
I just think that not many people here apply critical thinking, and many just have not reached the intellectual maturity to accept certain propositions to be true. Some are going to get offended by this but I would be lying if I were to say that all of us here have equal standing not just in intelligence, but also in experience. So perhaps more readings and understanding would help in an overall endeavour to participate in this kind of debate. Because in the real world in real life, your credentials will be at stake, your honour and your integrity. And if you cannot measure up online, you will not make if far offline.
Everyone should just sit back and chill for a while now.
1. If any of my answers are not framed properly, it would be appreciated if such can be pointed out and maybe I can review and reframe them.
2. I have my strong reservations concerning Fugazzi being more reasoned and sound in his discourse though, but that's a side issue.
3. You are spot on concerning the failure to interact with the right interpretations. So often it can be shown that atheists are simply knocking down strawmen or waxing lyrical about their own caricatured ideas of Christian beliefs.
4. It is unfortunate that often discussions on such topics spiral out of control, mostly due to trollish behaviour of some people. But to be sure, debate on the existence of God is anything but unintelligent. In all philosophy text books this topic often get addressed. Numerous books and public debates have taken place on just this topic alone. But you are right, what may be required is someone who is mature enough to moderate discussions of such topics.
5. I completely agree with you on the lack of critical thinking in the forum. I suppose this is a reflection of our education system that teaches more rote learning (to pass exams) than really equipping people with the mental tools and logical skills to deal with life's issues.
7. And I can't agree more that those who are emotionally attached or affected by this discussion take some chill time off.
-
Hey BIC aka Mr Judas, take time off dude
Or you will turn into Pontius Pilates, crucifier of christ
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Specifics please. What exactly have been not refuted and who here who have argued with you can confirm this?
In short, you can only say my arguments have been refuted but cannot give any specifics. Yada yada yada....shouldn't waste more time on such bantering with you to refrain from feeding the troll.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
In short, you can only say my arguments have been refuted but cannot give any specifics. Yada yada yada....shouldn't waste more time on such bantering with you to refrain from feeding the troll.
Slowly slowly
ICA is where you can change your name, Mr Pilates
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Please see http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4chew94.html
The Hebrew Language: Now here is the clincher! According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, "cud" [gerah] in Leviticus 11:6 means, "the cud [as scraping the throat]: --cud" (word 1625). The American Heritage Dictionary defines cud as, "Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and chewed again." Strong doesn't help the refection theory since his translation is the same as the English definition, and its root meaning in Hebrew was "scraping the throat." So cud is cud, not rabbit pellets. In what sense could rabbit pellets be considered a scraping of the throat?
The word chews in Leviticus 11:6 , translated from the Hebrew word `alah, more accurately means, "[cause to] ascend up" (Strong's, word 5927). Thus, the Hebrew phrase for "chews the cud" translated literally means, "brings up the cud." This conclusively proves that Leviticus 11:6gives a description of regurgitation, characteristic of true rumination but in no sense characteristic of refection. Refection does not involve regurgitation; thus, the phrase "brings up the cud" cannot refer to the eating of excrement. To claim this would distort the writer's intended meaning. It would be very inaccurate to say of an animal, e.g., a dog, seen frequently eating its feces, "Fido has been bringing up his food." This would sound ridiculous and would even be misleading, because it suggests that "Fido has been vomiting." When the inerrantists use the refection argument, they assume they need to prove that the rabbit chews, redigests, or forms cud, but this distracts from the real issue. They need to prove that the rabbit brings up the cud! The refection argument fails to prove this. Until it does, we may consider it erroneous, and that is not all!What inerrantists also need to prove is that gerah in this verse means something other than regurgitated cud and that `alah means something other than regurgitation. All of this needs to be proven with verifiable evidence. Refection has a few characteristics similar to rumination but not the most important one: regurgitation, the same characteristic the Bible refers to! The best the inerrantist can claim is that the phrase "chews the cud" can apply to refection in some forced, nonsensical, strained, ludicrous, and unnatural sense. The inerrantist cannot prove it is even unlikely that "brings up the cud" refers to regurgitation of cud! So one wonders why the writer of Leviticus did not use the Hebrew word for "dung" if he meant refection!
You can do better than just a link that vague... amibiguous explanation of a simple sentence , BIC...
-
http://www.rogermwilcox.com/square_earth.html
It is a well-established Biblical fact that the Earth is flat and immobile. Every good Biblical literalist knows the Scriptural passages which demonstrate that the Earth does not move and that its surface is not curved: Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Joshua 10:12, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1 & 96:10 & 104:5, Isaiah 45:18; the list goes on and on.
But far too many lazy Biblical literalists today ignore the plain fact that the Bible also tells us that the flat Earth does not have curved edges. Even the late, great Charles K. Johnson, the valiant fighter for the Truth who carried the message of the earlier Zetetic Astronomers forward into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries by founding the International Flat Earth Society, made the grievous error of assuming that the Earth was shaped like a circular disk. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
Frequently Asked Questions
"Can I believe in the round Earth and still get into heaven?"
No. As you know, if you do not accept every word in the bible as literally true, you are not really accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and are doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity. God won't let any half-assed believers into heaven.
"What about all those pictures from space, showing that the Earth is round?"
Just more proof that Hollywood is in league with the devil.
"How come no airline pilots have ever reported seeing the edges of the Earth?"
Airline pilots are also in league with the devil. This is for your protection. If True Believers were allowed to pilot airliners, many planes would instantly become unmanned during the pre-Tribulation Rapture, thus crashing and killing everybody on board. When crossing the Equator or the Prime Meridian, airline pilots have to make sharp 90-degree turns to follow the square contours of the Earth. They hide this fact by blaming it on "turbulence."
"Couldn't the phrase 'four corners of the Earth' in Revelation 7:1 merely be a commonly-used metaphor for the farthest reaches of the Earth?"
Beware the slippery slope of interpreting a Biblical passage as "metaphor," for that way surely leads to Death.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Please see http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4chew94.html
The Hebrew Language: Now here is the clincher! According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, "cud" [gerah] in Leviticus 11:6 means, "the cud [as scraping the throat]: --cud" (word 1625). The American Heritage Dictionary defines cud as, "Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and chewed again." Strong doesn't help the refection theory since his translation is the same as the English definition, and its root meaning in Hebrew was "scraping the throat." So cud is cud, not rabbit pellets. In what sense could rabbit pellets be considered a scraping of the throat?
The word chews in Leviticus 11:6 , translated from the Hebrew word `alah, more accurately means, "[cause to] ascend up" (Strong's, word 5927). Thus, the Hebrew phrase for "chews the cud" translated literally means, "brings up the cud." This conclusively proves that Leviticus 11:6gives a description of regurgitation, characteristic of true rumination but in no sense characteristic of refection. Refection does not involve regurgitation; thus, the phrase "brings up the cud" cannot refer to the eating of excrement. To claim this would distort the writer's intended meaning. It would be very inaccurate to say of an animal, e.g., a dog, seen frequently eating its feces, "Fido has been bringing up his food." This would sound ridiculous and would even be misleading, because it suggests that "Fido has been vomiting." When the inerrantists use the refection argument, they assume they need to prove that the rabbit chews, redigests, or forms cud, but this distracts from the real issue. They need to prove that the rabbit brings up the cud! The refection argument fails to prove this. Until it does, we may consider it erroneous, and that is not all!What inerrantists also need to prove is that gerah in this verse means something other than regurgitated cud and that `alah means something other than regurgitation. All of this needs to be proven with verifiable evidence. Refection has a few characteristics similar to rumination but not the most important one: regurgitation, the same characteristic the Bible refers to! The best the inerrantist can claim is that the phrase "chews the cud" can apply to refection in some forced, nonsensical, strained, ludicrous, and unnatural sense. The inerrantist cannot prove it is even unlikely that "brings up the cud" refers to regurgitation of cud! So one wonders why the writer of Leviticus did not use the Hebrew word for "dung" if he meant refection!
You can do better than just a link that vague... amibiguous explanation of a simple sentence , BIC...
How is my link http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud vague and ambiguous in its explanation? Don't just make assertions, back it up.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense. Obviously, rabbits do not share the digestive anatomy of modern ruminants. However, to describe rabbits chewing the cud is not incorrect. Simply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested. Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”
So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
-
Originally posted by alize:
http://www.rogermwilcox.com/square_earth.html
It is a well-established Biblical fact that the Earth is flat and immobile. Every good Biblical literalist knows the Scriptural passages which demonstrate that the Earth does not move and that its surface is not curved: Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Joshua 10:12, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1 & 96:10 & 104:5, Isaiah 45:18; the list goes on and on.
But far too many lazy Biblical literalists today ignore the plain fact that the Bible also tells us that the flat Earth does not have curved edges. Even the late, great Charles K. Johnson, the valiant fighter for the Truth who carried the message of the earlier Zetetic Astronomers forward into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries by founding the International Flat Earth Society, made the grievous error of assuming that the Earth was shaped like a circular disk. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
Frequently Asked Questions
"Can I believe in the round Earth and still get into heaven?"
No. As you know, if you do not accept every word in the bible as literally true, you are not really accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and are doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity. God won't let any half-assed believers into heaven.
"What about all those pictures from space, showing that the Earth is round?"
Just more proof that Hollywood is in league with the devil.
"How come no airline pilots have ever reported seeing the edges of the Earth?"
Airline pilots are also in league with the devil. This is for your protection. If True Believers were allowed to pilot airliners, many planes would instantly become unmanned during the pre-Tribulation Rapture, thus crashing and killing everybody on board. When crossing the Equator or the Prime Meridian, airline pilots have to make sharp 90-degree turns to follow the square contours of the Earth. They hide this fact by blaming it on "turbulence."
"Couldn't the phrase 'four corners of the Earth' in Revelation 7:1 merely be a commonly-used metaphor for the farthest reaches of the Earth?"
Beware the slippery slope of interpreting a Biblical passage as "metaphor," for that way surely leads to Death.
Why are the atheists here shying away from answering the SIX QUESTIONS but are instead harping about specific Bible verses? Just trying to shift the spotlight away? Trying to keep the Christian busy answering questions so that they get off the hook of having to provide answers that would not hold up to sound reasoning? Seems like it to me.
-
Why are the atheists here shying away from answering the SIX QUESTIONS but are instead harping about specific Bible verses? Just trying to shift the spotlight away? Trying to keep the Christian busy answering questions so that they get off the hook of having to provide answers that would not hold up to sound reasoning? Seems like it to me.
Because you are the who "wins" your arguments with things like "only your god can provide objective morality."
You can be the last to reply. Readers will not be fooled just by that.
We don't give a shit. You have the religious zeal, we don't have.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Why are the atheists here shying away from answering the SIX QUESTIONS but are instead harping about specific Bible verses? Just trying to shift the spotlight away? Trying to keep the Christian busy answering questions so that they get off the hook of having to provide answers that would not hold up to sound reasoning? Seems like it to me.
Because you are the who "wins" your arguments with things like "only your god can provide objective morality."
You can be the last to reply. Readers will not be fooled just by that.
We don't give a shit. You have the religious zeal, we don't have.
Well that's the problem isn't it? Atheists are unable to account for the existence of objective moral values from within their atheism worldview. And make no mistake about it, atheists can be every bit as religious as those they rail against. -
Still trolling?
You are a deprived teenager seeking attention.