Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Apologies extended then if I incorrectly thought Jacky was talking about you."
"if" you say? Either you were correct or incorrect. Remember what Jesus about letting "yes" be "yes", "no" be "no". Hypocritical apologies not accepted, if it were ever extended.
You do take EVERY opportunity, don't you. I wouldn't take offense of what is said.
Why do you take offense that the apology was conditional upon whether Jacky was really talking about you or not? Even you were unsure since you said Jacky was "apparently" talking about Tcmc.
And you likewise do take EVERY opportunity too, don't you? In any case since you never took offense, then I suppose no apology was ever necessary at all in the first place.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why do you take offense that the apology was conditional upon whether Jacky was really talking about you or not? Even you were unsure since you said Jacky was "apparently" talking about Tcmc.
And you likewise do take EVERY opportunity too, don't you? In any case since you never took offense, then I suppose no apology was ever necessary at all in the first place.
Its apparent(clearly visible or understood; obvious.) that he was refering to Tcmc as seen in what he quoted prior. If it still seemed conditional regarding who Jacky was refering, I'll tell you straight in your face: You are dumb and sucked at pretending to be dumb.
Go brush up your understanding by checking what's meant by "apparently":- (adv.) Plainly; clearly; manifestly; evidently.
- (adv.) Seemingly; in appearance; as, a man may be apparently friendly, yet malicious in heart.
- (adv.) Visibly.
And I feel obligated to teach English catering to special needs now...Yes, I'm obliged to point out hypocrisies and/or stupidity.
The apology wasn't necessary as it was hypocritical...
not because I maintain indifference to your words. -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"The question I asked was “Since when is belief defined as subjective truth?” and you changed the subject by asking me since when I became a Christian. A diversion, and an irrelevant one no less."
You don't read rhetorics well... Your belief changes with time. Just think of the time you accepted Christ, which also mean there is a time where you did not accept Christ.
"Subjective truth is simply another label for relativism, that you cannot understand this simple truth is enough to deem you dull. Even this atheist website apparently got it righthttp://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/Subjective.htm"
Do you still not see subjective truth does not opposes or contradicts objective truth... regardless of what you believe as relativism. Nothing affects objective truths.
The way you bring in relativism is a strawman just because the discussion has nothing to do with relativism and you attack it like it does.
By stating relativism(a concept) = subjective truth (a noun) is a fallacy of composition. By stating anyone who accepts subjective truth is following relativsm is a hasty generalization.
And using the exact same insult intended words back to me makes you appear hypocrital because you claim you are Christian. Or did you forget what Jesus said about being slapped?"You repeatedly failed to differentiate and distinguish between a self-defeating argument and a circular argument. According to The Philosopher’s Toolkit, a self-defeating argument is an argument that, if taken to be sound, shows itself to be unsound. The term is often used for positions or theses as well as arguments where, if you take the principle proposed to be true, it undermines itself by its own logic. Such cases are more accurately described as self-defeating positions."
If you insist... Strawman away.
"And pray tell how do you plant your feet in mid-air or are you being facetious? "
"...plant your feet in mid-air..."
If you are agreeable to define,
"plant"= Place or fix in a specified position
"mid-air"=The middle of the air, as while in flightI would be willing to show you a simple phenomenon."You missed my point about relativism being a worldview. Oh well, never mind."
Yes please. Let it go to save youself more humiliation.
"And you are still sorely confused about what is objective truth. The objective truth did not change at all. You mean you disagree with me that before there was a Singapore there were no Singaporeans? Or are you just trying to be funny?"
It changed, with time. Appeal to ridicule?
"Worst, you quoted the Bible but FAILED to understand what it means. That verse is not saying that objective truth about the previous creation became non-existent, it is saying that the former physical earth will cease to exist and will not be remembered anymore because of the new heavens and new earth. See, this again proves my point that atheists really fare pathetically when they try to play Bible exegete."
No... the keywords are "forgotten" where subjective truths are made non existent, and "new" where implying implicitly the old is time related. Strawman away.
"And so what if there were some people who believed that the earth was flat? You still missed the point that the objective truth is that the earth is not flat and that these people were wrong."
No one was arguing the earth is flat is objective truth. Strawman away.
"And one can only be wrong if objective truth exists.""
Objective truths exist regardless of what is right or wrong. Begging the question much?
"You can play the dishonest game for all I care. You said that an argument is a statement. I corrected you and even provided a third party to correct you when you asked for it, and then you go ad hominem because of a bruised ego. And it’s not that I am insisting that you are wrong, but you are refusing to admit that you are wrong. The evidence is plainly on my side."
where " something" = argument/s
I really don't get the relevance of the third party... What 3rd party?I can let you win every argument if it bothers you so much...."You mean being cruel is not something that is morally wrong? Why would that be just my assumption and not your problem? And then you go shooting off alleged strawman fallacies when you realised that you have been cornered."
This where you risk being hypocritical again. Being cruel(causing hurt and suffering) is neither right or wrong. Your assumption of it being moralistic does not change a thing about it.
Its your strawman to pick on arguing the morals of the one saying God being cruel. <-- Appeal to guilt."You can read English, right?"
Apeal to ridicule much?
"What does the Bible say in Genesis about what is food for Adam and the animals? Hint: they were vegetarian. So it still means no death before sin. And according to the Bible, plants and fruits are not called “nephesh chayah” which is Biblical life as distinct from biological life. If you wish to debate intelligently with me on Bible interpretation please at least brush up on your Bible knowledge herehttp://creation.com/no-death-before-the-fall"
Challenge accepted.
Gen 1:30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
What did the plant feed on if not the life(“nephesh chayah")? So the plant ingest the animals alive and they survive somehow?
"The issue is not whether the rock badger is really a ruminant or engages in refection, but that the phrase “chews the cud” (to bring up) is applied to it because what it does is similar to the cow or other animal that chews the cud. The point was not to teach animal anatomy or biology but to inform the Israelites that they can eat only those that “chew the cud” and have split hooves, but that from among this group of animals they are not supposed to eat the rabbit and the coney and some others."
So you don't know how identify what animal or what behaviour is "chew the cud" is referred in Lev11:5. Thats ignorance. Can one objectively hold something to be objective truth when there contents of the objective truth one is not clear about?
"And there’s no false dilemma because you were really being ignorant. Else you were simply playing daft."
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
You gave me only 2 options either not insulted or being petty and narrow minded. Which strawmans away from disputing the validity of the insult.
"And you still continue to play daft when I exposed your fallacious claim that creationists are not credible."
To help you remember, I quote thee "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Creationists by and large already know that."
You are shifting the burden of proof when I ask what are the credibilty of the creationists to support your views.
You should just prove their credibity, as a whole. Oh you didn't..."And I don’t see how you have been trying to bridge any reasonable communication standard. What standard are you talking about? Whose standards? What criteria? None that can be discerned.
By identifying the common illogical fallacies in arguments.
" All that I have seen are your attempts to undermine the Christian faith, just like the other atheists here."
What you, me, he, she thinks, have absolutely no effect on the objective truths. What have I done to deserve this prejudice...
"Again, spewing out the names of fallacies proves nothing beyond the fact that you can spew out these names. When it comes to actually spotting and discerning them you repeatedly failed. And the more you do this the more your pretence will be exposed."
Disputable... plus I don't need pretend to be anything but you need to uphold your beliefs.
"The example of Singaporean was a good example of what is objective truth. Your attempt to dismiss it failed. Again if the fact is that you were born in 1990 in Singapore, then that is the objective truth, even if 1000 years have passed. It cannot be that you are born in 1850 in China when it is the year 3000."
If you insist... lets pretend you are right.
"I wonder why there is a need to continue on when you have already conceded the whole argument to me when your very words are that you pursue “absolute truth”.
Concede? What do you mean? Please define.
Was anyone discussing my pursuits? Was anyone challenging my pursuits? Did I deny what I was pursuing?
And you thought my English was bad... Whatever...."What then is absolute truth? Isn’t that the objective truth I have been talking about all along?"
I'm still chasing after it. No.
"And please explain in detail your point about time making truths subjective."
<Its_a_trap.jpg> Rephrase so that I would bother to elaborate.
P.S: To me, its fun to name, list, draw parallels from others argument to illogical fallacies. Its an exercise to improve identifying such so as to avoid using them if possible.
To me, its easier for you to cry "Fallacious!" and pretend like anyone one gonna believe than to argue logically. At least so far from my observations....
You don’t communicate well. That beliefs change over time was already a point I made earlier. But that is not the same as saying truth changes. Assuming that I became a Christian in 2011, then it is TRUE that I was not a Christian in 2010. And it is TRUE that I was a Christian in 2011. My religious position changed but not the truth. To say that truth changes would be to change the earlier claim and say that I was a Christian in 2010. But that would not be true at all.
And since you also believe in objective truth, then I have no quarrel with you. My issue is with Tcmc who believes in relativism aka subjective truths. But then again she just admitted that there are objective truths too. At least she finally came round to changing her mind about the truth.
And by any-o-how labelling fallacies is still you showing off your confusion about what fallacies are. And why would filling in on your ignorance on what is a self-defeating argument be a strawman?
You failed to grasp the meaning of “feet firmly planted in mid-air” within the context of relativism. Your attempted demonstration of the simple phenomenon based on your own defining aside, I was referring to the absurdity of trying to stand on air. Planting something means to fix something securely down, as in planting a tree, you need a solid ground/base. You can’t plant your feet in midair because you cannot stand on air.
Truth does not change with time or over time. Beliefs can. Preferences can. Tastes can. And even if you like durians in 1990 but hate it in 2000, the truth did not change over time but your preferences did. The truth remains that you like durians in 1990 but not in 2000. And it is the same with the flat earth issue where beliefs changed to be in accordance to the truth.
Regarding the “argument” issue, you played word games by arbitrarily defining something = argument so that you can argue that a statement is a clear expression of “argument” in writing or speech. This holds no water at all. An argument is NOT a statement but you said it is. You said I have no evidence for my claim, though it is so obvious that you are wrong. I said that an argument is a connected SERIES OF STATEMENTS. Yet when a third party definition is given you teh-gong and asked what relevance? It is not about me wanting to win an argument, it’s about you not willing to admit you lost one.
And you beg the question, why is being cruel not considered right or wrong? Of course we all know that you are just trying to be funny. Do you teach your five kids that cruel is neither good or bad? That it can be good to be cruel? And you any-o-how accuse me of arguing a strawman when all I demanded from Tcmc was her justification for posing a moral judgement when her atheistic worldview does not supply such a basis, something which you obviously did not grasp.
Plants do not feed on nephesh chayah. Plants are primary producers and grow in an environment where there is sunshine, water, air, and soil. Didn't pay attention in primary school much?
Regarding “chewing the cud” your ignorance shows again. The issue isn’t about not knowing which animal chews the cud, the issue is that the text has clearly identified the rock badger and the rabbit as two animals that are not to be eaten.
Unless you can give me a third alternative, it is not necessarily a false dilemma that you are either ignorant or playing daft.
You are shifting goalposts here. You made the claim “since when are creationists credible?” The onus is not on me to prove their credibility but that you should first provide evidence that they are not credible if you do not wish to be guilty of the genetic fallacy.
As to bridging reasonable communicating standards, I think you failed here since you are so guilty of committing many fallacies, and some more still have the cheek to say that I failed to spot more that you committed. It’s only fun for you to spot fallacies because when exposed you just act blur and throw up more alleged spotting of fallacies but the truth is that you can’t even properly identify them. To me, it’s easier for you to keep spewing names of informal fallacies and pretend that you know what you are talking about when you actually don't.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Its apparent(clearly visible or understood; obvious.) that he was refering to Tcmc as seen in what he quoted prior. If it still seemed conditional regarding who Jacky was refering, I'll tell you straight in your face: You are dumb and sucked at pretending to be dumb.
Go brush up your understanding by checking what's meant by "apparently":- (adv.) Plainly; clearly; manifestly; evidently.
- (adv.) Seemingly; in appearance; as, a man may be apparently friendly, yet malicious in heart.
- (adv.) Visibly.
And I feel obligated to teach English catering to special needs now...Yes, I'm obliged to point out hypocrisies and/or stupidity.
The apology wasn't necessary as it was hypocritical...
not because I maintain indifference to your words.Ah, now your true colours are showing. Must have been itching to let it all go with your insults and mockery ya? Then again, that's just business as usual for atheists.
-
"Ah, now your true colours are showing. Must have been itching to let it all go with your insults and mockery ya?"
Its true. I'm insulting you, your stupidity, your excuses, your morals which you held high regard. Which you are unable to defend, just because it became apparently true.
Oh you conveniently forget about plant food... shall reply to your previous post after you do.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Ah, now your true colours are showing. Must have been itching to let it all go with your insults and mockery ya?"
Its true. I'm insulting you, your stupidity, your excuses, your morals which you held high regard. Which you are unable to defend, just because it became apparently true.
Oh you conveniently forget about plant food... shall reply to your previous post after you do.
Didn't read much? I replied on the plant food.
Yes, it is obvious that you are not here to communicate reasonable standards, that's just your euphemism for blasting the Christian and the Christian faith.
To say that I am unable to defend my beliefs is a blatant falsehood. But then again, an atheist has no qualms about that since atheism does not supply any basis for truth or error.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Didn't read much? I replied on the plant food.
Yes, it is obvious that you are not here to communicate reasonable standards, that's just your euphemism for blasting the Christian and the Christian faith.
To say that I am unable to defend my beliefs is a blatant falsehood. But then again, an atheist has no qualms about that since atheism does not supply any basis for truth or error.
"Didn't read much? I replied on the plant food."
Oops... you did. My apologies. No wait, you are explaining like a science text when I had quoted the bible Gen1:30 prior.... Are you even trying to be funny?
"Yes, it is obvious that you are not here to communicate reasonable standards, that's just your euphemism for blasting the Christian and the Christian faith."
You are confusing the Christian faith with your reactions. I was attacking you, not maintaining Christian values that you ought to have by now.
"To say that I am unable to defend my beliefs is a blatant falsehood. But then again, an atheist has no qualms about that since atheism does not supply any basis for truth or error."
You are confusing your beliefs with your reactions. You are unable to defend your reactions as I have rebutted, with no regards to your beliefs.
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.~Mathew7:2Strawman away!
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Didn't read much? I replied on the plant food."
Oops... you did. My apologies. No wait, you are explaining like a science text when I had quoted the bible Gen1:30 prior.... Are you even trying to be funny?
"Yes, it is obvious that you are not here to communicate reasonable standards, that's just your euphemism for blasting the Christian and the Christian faith."
You are confusing the Christian faith with your reactions. I was attacking you, not maintaining Christian values that you ought to have by now.
"To say that I am unable to defend my beliefs is a blatant falsehood. But then again, an atheist has no qualms about that since atheism does not supply any basis for truth or error."
You are confusing your beliefs with your reactions. You are unable to defend your reactions as I have rebutted, with no regards to your beliefs.
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.~Mathew7:2Strawman away!
The one trying to be funny ain't me. Why did you mention about plants living on nephesh chayah? Did you even bother to know what that Hebrew term meant? Oh wait, you couldn't be bothered.
Attacking the Christian is always business as usual for the atheist, for the simple reason that he fails to successfully assail the Christian faith. Slay the messenger ya?
I see that you wish to turn this thread into a slugfest instead of dealing with the arguments raised. I do not doubt your ability to mock and insult and ridicule your opponent, but that is no substitute for proper argumentation.
Or is that a cover up for intellectual incompetence?
-
very hilarious and well conceived on the myth of god.
Christianity is a Self-Contradictory Proposition - ( The Atheist Experience )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtY4wWNZ7-Y&feature=related
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
What's So Great About God?: Atheism vs Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJvoFbA0qcs&feature=relmfu
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
very hilarious and well conceived on the myth of god.
Christianity is a Self-Contradictory Proposition - ( The Atheist Experience )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtY4wWNZ7-Y&feature=related
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
What's So Great About God?: Atheism vs Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJvoFbA0qcs&feature=relmfu
To allege that Christianity is full of self-contradiction would be to affirm the existence of the laws of logic. But exactly how does atheism account for the laws of logic? Can Jack the atheist answer it? Or will he deflect and dismiss it?
Exactly what kind of moral questions can science answer? Is-Ought Fallacy anyone?
God created the universe, that's what so great about God. But what's so great about atheism?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
To allege that Christianity is full of self-contradiction would be to affirm the existence of the laws of logic. But exactly how does atheism account for the laws of logic? Can Jack the atheist answer it? Or will he deflect and dismiss it?
Exactly what kind of moral questions can science answer? Is-Ought Fallacy anyone?
God created the universe, that's what so great about God. But what's so great about atheism?
why are you so up tight about it? let people decide. but what they said make more sense than the nonsense sprouted by you and your like minded brethrens.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
why are you so up tight about it? let people decide. but what they said make more sense than the nonsense sprouted by you and your like minded brethrens.
Why are you so upset anyway? I am not forcing you or anyone here. It is your opinion that my beliefs are nonsense, an opinion that you merely assert but are incompetent to support or defend. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why are you so upset anyway? I am not forcing you or anyone here. It is your opinion that my beliefs are nonsense, an opinion that you merely assert but are incompetent to support or defend.just watch the link I posted earlier. the speakers there utterly destroyed the myth and inconsistencies and paradox of the bible.
Christianity is a Self-Contradictory Proposition - ( The Atheist Experience )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtY4wWNZ7-Y&feature=related
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
What's So Great About God?: Atheism vs Religion
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
just watch the link I posted earlier. the speakers there utterly destroyed the myth and inconsistencies and paradox of the bible.
Christianity is a Self-Contradictory Proposition - ( The Atheist Experience )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtY4wWNZ7-Y&feature=related
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
What's So Great About God?: Atheism vs Religion
You just try to respond to the following and see how in doing so it destroys atheism. To allege that Christianity is full of self-contradiction would be to affirm the existence of the laws of logic. But exactly how does atheism account for the laws of logic? Exactly what kind of moral questions can science answer? Is-Ought Fallacy anyone? God created the universe, that's what so great about God. But what's so great about atheism? -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Not a strawman at all when you look at books like this
See review here http://www.icr.org/article/6600/
Consider also these words below and the irrationality of it:
"If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours."
See http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
-
"The one trying to be funny ain't me. Why did you mention about plants living on nephesh chayah? Did you even bother to know what that Hebrew term meant? Oh wait, you couldn't be bothered."
Gen 1:30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
What did the plants take in for its food according to the above verse Gen1:30?
Why did it bother you so much to answer a simply direct biblical question? To think you exerted the bible is not a science text... and then tried explaining my biblical question in science terms is ironic if not hypocritical.
FYI, animals die and become plant nutrients according to my primary science textbooks(also checked the current editions). If I take your attendence in science class reply as an answer, it would contradict to your claim that animals didn't die before sin. Made me wonder if you were even trying..."Attacking the Christian is always business as usual for the atheist, for the simple reason that he fails to successfully assail the Christian faith. Slay the messenger ya?"
Its attacking the hypocrasies of the said Christian... unless such values are accepted by Christian faith, I would keep on pointing that particularity out where possible.
"I see that you wish to turn this thread into a slugfest instead of dealing with the arguments raised. I do not doubt your ability to mock and insult and ridicule your opponent, but that is no substitute for proper argumentation."
Unless the participants of the discussions would engage in a open manner, preferably without ad hominems, it will not yield much benefits further. I do have basis for what I post/ed. I can back up my statements if obligated. What's the point of discussion if its not truthful, logical and meant for further understanding.
"Or is that a cover up for intellectual incompetence?"
And you were implying I was turning this thread into a slugfest... Perhaps you fail to see you own tendency to take EVERY opportunity to insult without basis. Whatever...
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not a strawman at all when you look at books like this
See review here http://www.icr.org/article/6600/
Consider also these words below and the irrationality of it:
"If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours."
See http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
And your above quoted reply just proven my point, not limited to the referenced scarecrow, together with all its lacking. Thank you :)
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"The one trying to be funny ain't me. Why did you mention about plants living on nephesh chayah? Did you even bother to know what that Hebrew term meant? Oh wait, you couldn't be bothered."
Gen 1:30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
What did the plants take in for its food according to the above verse Gen1:30?
Why did it bother you so much to answer a simply direct biblical question? To think you exerted the bible is not a science text... and then tried explaining my biblical question in science terms is ironic if not hypocritical.
FYI, animals die and become plant nutrients according to my primary science textbooks. If I take your attendence in science class reply as an answer, it would contradict to your claim that animals didn't die before sin. Made me wonder if you were even trying..."Attacking the Christian is always business as usual for the atheist, for the simple reason that he fails to successfully assail the Christian faith. Slay the messenger ya?"
Its attacking the hypocrasies of the said Christian... unless such values are accepted by Christian faith, I would keep on pointing that particularity out where possible.
"I see that you wish to turn this thread into a slugfest instead of dealing with the arguments raised. I do not doubt your ability to mock and insult and ridicule your opponent, but that is no substitute for proper argumentation."
Unless the participants of the discussions would engage in a open manner, preferably without ad hominems, it will not yield much benefits further. I do have basis for what I post/ed. I can back up my statements if obligated. What's the point of discussion if its not truthful, logical and meant for further understanding.
"Or is that a cover up for intellectual incompetence?"
And you were implying I was turning this thread into a slugfest... Perhaps you fail to see you own tendency to take EVERY opportunity to insult without basis. Whatever...
Now I know why you asked what the plants lived on. Please read the text carefully, if unsure always check another translation. The New Living Translation (my fav) says:
Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.”
Note how it is the complete opposite of what you thought it meant.
Every farmer can tell you that plants need air, water, sunlight, space, soil to grow. It's basic knowledge, not hard science! You do not NEED dead animals as nutrients to grow plants. You can do a science experiment on this with each of your five kids and you will be proven wrong by them five times.
I also have a basis for what I say about my opponents and can likewise back up my statements and claims. If you wanna a real cordial discussion then let's call a truce from now on and talk nicely, no slugfest, deal or no deal?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
And your above quoted reply just proven my point, not limited to the referenced scarecrow, together with all its lacking. Thank you :)
Atheism is not just a rejection of belief, it is the claim that there is no God.
And I know what a strawman is, thank you. The onus is on you to explain why you think there is a strawman argument.
-
"Now I know why you asked what the plants lived on. Please read the text carefully, if unsure always check another translation. The New Living Translation (my fav) says:
Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.”
Note how it is the complete opposite of what you thought it meant."
Ah... I stand corrected on misreading the verse. Thank you.
"Every farmer can tell you that plants need air, water, sunlight, space, soil to grow. It's basic knowledge, not hard science! You do not NEED dead animals as nutrients to grow plants. You can do a science experiment on this with each of your five kids and you will be proven wrong by them five times."
And science has different definition of life... things need to be dead to be decomposed... I see you are trying hard not to be offensive this time.
"I also have a basis for what I say about my opponents and can likewise back up my statements and claims. If you wanna a real cordial discussion then let's call a truce from now on and talk nicely, no slugfest, deal or no deal?"
All I can say here is I don't wanna become the hypocrite I hate.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not a strawman at all when you look at books like this
See review here http://www.icr.org/article/6600/
Consider also these words below and the irrationality of it:
"If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours."
See http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
Did you bother listening to these youtube links I provided?
Nvm I bet you dun, cos they utterly reduce the fallacy of the bible, god etc, to shreds.
Another Completely Irrational Justification For God - Atheist Experience 439
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUyfaZz3w&feature=related
What kind of evidence would prove God? - The Atheist Experience #638
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5L1X3g4wRQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWsH6GO6PIA&feature=related
-
I few more case in points.
A case for Intelligent Design?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP-ENz2Lr7M&feature=related
Why Children Deserve Eternal Hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxJFE1FdEM&feature=related
Why ask "who" created the universe
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
God created the universe, that's what so great about God. But what's so great about atheism?there is nothing great about god cos it doesnt exists. atheism is merely the anti thesis of god.
anyway we have been thru this before. if god exists, prove it. if god exists, surely it is not written in the bible and in science journals, documentaries in discovery channel, textbooks, articles etc
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Now I know why you asked what the plants lived on. Please read the text carefully, if unsure always check another translation. The New Living Translation (my fav) says:
Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.”
Note how it is the complete opposite of what you thought it meant."
Ah... I stand corrected on misreading the verse. Thank you.
"Every farmer can tell you that plants need air, water, sunlight, space, soil to grow. It's basic knowledge, not hard science! You do not NEED dead animals as nutrients to grow plants. You can do a science experiment on this with each of your five kids and you will be proven wrong by them five times."
And science has different definition of life... things need to be dead to be decomposed... I see you are trying hard not to be offensive this time.
"I also have a basis for what I say about my opponents and can likewise back up my statements and claims. If you wanna a real cordial discussion then let's call a truce from now on and talk nicely, no slugfest, deal or no deal?"
All I can say here is I don't wanna become the hypocrite I hate.
The Biblical definition of is not necessarily the same as the biological/scientific definition of life. Yes, living things need to die in order to decompose, but this does not contradict a pre-Fall world where there was no death of nephesh chayah. For a detailed theological explanation and clarification see http://creation.com/the-fall-a-cosmic-catastrophe
And it is not hard not to be offensive at all, believe me. Like I said before, it is different strokes for different folks.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
Did you bother listening to these youtube links I provided?
Nvm I bet you dun, cos they utterly reduce the fallacy of the bible, god etc, to shreds.
Another Completely Irrational Justification For God - Atheist Experience 439
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUyfaZz3w&feature=related
What kind of evidence would prove God? - The Atheist Experience #638
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5L1X3g4wRQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWsH6GO6PIA&feature=related
No I didn't bother to click and listen to them, since there is no assurance that you are going to defend them from past experience. Say, how about I also throw you links with videos lasting 2 hours each and expect you to sit through them or else concede defeat?
Thesaurus entry for this meaning of concede