Prove there's a god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567978 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Arguing with yourself? Dude...
I thought that I was in a conversation with you. Apparently, the two aren't much different.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567980 Dec 1, 2012
scaritual wrote:
Correction, lets try that again...
<quoted text> Nothing I supplied came from a "blog". You didn't understand what you read that I supplied.
I don't think you understand much of what you read.
<quoted text>
Now we're getting somewhere.
<quoted text>
I supplied source, not a "blog". I verified the source(S) in various ways.
<quoted text>
We know this, the earliest known example of the biblical Genesis dates to 300-200 BCE.
"The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary). The oldest record of the complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE (Codex Sinaiticus). The oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic text, which modern editions are based upon, date to the 9th century CE." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible...
"The Aleppo Codex (c. 920 CE) and Leningrad Codex (c. 1008 CE) were the oldest Hebrew language manuscripts of the Tanakh. The 1947 find at Qumran of the Dead Sea scrolls pushed the manuscript history of the Tanakh back a millennium from the two earliest complete codices" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscr...
That's what we know. To speak of Genesis as being older than that is pure speculation.
<quoted text> For you, thanks for admitting it, you example your lack of reading comprehension quite often on the PTAG thread and others.
<quoted text>
Tell that to my teachers, they would disagree.
Funny, that.
I understood what you supplied, I just disagree with it.

You do know there's a difference, right?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567981 Dec 1, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, Canaanite origins.
You said there was no proof of Moses.

Now you saw "right"?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567982 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Then your question is answered. Of course that is EXACTLY what I meant by, "As I said earlier, I've already described for you at least twice the harm the church does. I don't recall any response to the first except a complaint that I used quotations in my reply. The second time, you just dismissed the entire answer unread and said as much. That's enough of that for me. There's no reward for me to answer your questions again. What I will do is link you various posts that address that."
<quoted text>
Why would you post that? How bizarre. You seem to be saying that answers to your questions can only come from threads that you have personally participated in at one time.
What is bizarre is that you think whatever you type I can somehow read it without you showing it to me.

I never saw your supposed first response.

The supposed second response was ignored because it wasn't what you wrote.

I asked you an honest question & just wanted an honest answer - from you.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567983 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you fail to indicate what yuo mean.You have asked many questions - how I know that your god didn't use evolution, what cruelty the church committed against me, and others.
Plus, whatever your question, I can't answer it without your cooperation. I need you to read it. It's rather clear that you have no interest in those opinions and are just being a passive-aggressive troll.
<quoted text>
That wasn't necessary. I realize that, and have for a while. I told you myself recently. It would have been more honest to admit that up front, but at this point, it was redundant.
<quoted text>
Then you should have asked me that instead in those words. I don't fear Christianity, and my contempt for religion is not limited to Christianity.
<quoted text>
Apparently.
<quoted text>
That's better. But tomy recollection, you've never asked that question before this post, have you? I don't fear Christianity at all. I consider it mortally wounded and dying. My chief emotion is contempt.
<quoted text>
That's a different question, and not really relevant to why I oppose the church. What difference does it make what Christianity did to me personally?
ugh.....

You're exhausting.

You get a gold star in the "beating around the bush" category.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567984 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Your rambling is getting tiresome
My ranting? I answered your question.

RiversideRedneck wrote:
but I'll stick to this comment (that you didn't write).
Point? It's a better answer to your question than I could give you alone.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Whoever wrote that said "slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating..." Is it that easy? Just say archaeologists didn't find anything?
No. You have to look in earnest first before you say that. We call that empiricism.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
[In that case, a]rchaeologists have found mountains if evidence that corroberates the account of Exodus & Moses. Where's my Staples button?
And that's wishful thinking at best, lying at worst.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567985 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why won't you just answer a simple damn question?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
As usual, you fail to indicate what yuo mean.
lol

um...

How can I make that question any clearer?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567986 Dec 1, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, this is how origin myths are. They are believed in by the culture that originates them. Other cultures have their myths, too.
You're starting to get it.
I get it.

I get that your culture started this whole "Genesis is a plagiary" scandal.

I do t understand why, though.....

I have spent ZERO minutes of my life trying to debunk Buddhism.

I don't believe in Buddha.

You say you don't believe in God.

Why spend so much time trying to disprove Him?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567987 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That's what you should have written several posts ago.
And I've told you already that my conclusion that your god did not use evolution is not just an opinion. First, it never existed, which has been demonstrated to you, even if you refuse to read or assimilate the words.
And even if your god existed, your bible's creation account says that he made the animals in one day, meaning that even whether actual or mythological, that god didn't use evolution. And he fashioned man on another day. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation... :
"In Genesis 2:4–24 Yahweh, the personal name of God, forms the first man from dust, places him in the Garden of Eden, and creates the first woman, Eve, from the man's body. The word used when God forms the first man is yatsar, meaning "fashioned", a verb used in contexts such as a potter forming a pot from clay"
That's not evolution, is it? That's creation by magic. That's how I know. And that's why my conclusion is much more than an opinion. It's Christian doctrine.
Are you senile? Or just stuck in a rut? An endless loop of lost thought? hmm

"my conclusion that your god did not use evolution is not just an opinion"

then...

"First, it never existed, which has been demonstrated"

For you to say that God (it) never existed is your opinion. You don't understand that?

As for the "days" in Genesis, I've already told you what you need to know. Your rut won't let you hear it.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567988 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought that I was in a conversation with you. Apparently, the two aren't much different.
Eh? How did you mix up the names "RiversideRedneck" & "It aint necessarily so"?!?

Maybe your gettin a little senile, muchacho.....

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567989 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Your rambling is getting tiresome
It aint necessarily so wrote:
My ranting? I answered your question.
lol

um....

I didn't say you were ranting did I?

And no, YOU did not answer my question.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567990 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The Christian church, especially the American Christian church. Do you know what that means? It's not a building with a steeple.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, I don't. Please elaborate.

Church - a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chu...

[QUOTE who="It aint necessarily so"] This is hysterical, especially coming from you. Plus, it is nonresponsive. I didn't criticize the beauty or elegance of the prose. I asked you if you realized that you were opening Pandora's Box by allowing scripture to be interpreted as metaphor.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Typical. Can't understand it, call it hysterical. Laugh it off.
I understood you. You didn't understand me. You didn't even address my words,let alone answer my question.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Metaphors. You say that bible has none & is meant to be read as a literal book.
Not exactly, no, that's not what I said. I said that the accounts given as historical facts are to be interpreted as literal truth. The bible also contains a few similes and parables here and there, such as this:

"for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." - 1 Thessalonians 5:2

That's a simile, a type of metaphor.

I think that the account of the Good Samaritan at Luke 10:29-37 is presented as a parable, and not as literally true.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Genesis 1:2, it's right in the beginning of the book so I'm sure you've read it. "... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Water has no face. It's not literal. Next.
Next what? You're arguing with yourself. Why don't you address what I actually posted? I'm guessing you haven't read it.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#567991 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I understood what you supplied, I just disagree with it.
You do know there's a difference, right?
I doubt you understood it, else you wouldn't have mentioned I shouldn't take information from - "blogs".

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567992 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The Christian church, especially the American Christian church. Do you know what that means? It's not a building with a steeple.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, I don't. Please elaborate.
Church - a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chu...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567993 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This is hysterical, especially coming from you. Plus, it is nonresponsive. I didn't criticize the beauty or elegance of the prose. I asked you if you realized that you were opening Pandora's Box by allowing scripture to be interpreted as metaphor.

[QUOTE who="It aint necessarily so"]
I understood you. You didn't understand me. You didn't even address my words,let alone answer my question.


What question?
Next what? You're arguing with yourself. Why don't you address what I actually posted? I'm guessing you haven't read it.
I hope you see your reasoning here...

You make comments, then accuse me of not answering a question.

Is that you booooots?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567994 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, I think that teaching an unproven scientific theory is a bad choice.
But you would teach religion no doubt.

Whatever you would do, there are no proven scientific theories. You still don't really have the basics of the philosophy of science down to engage in a discussion of science or teaching it.

Although no theory can be proved, evolutionary theory comes as close as you can. It can't be upturned without discovering something as dramatic as a Matrix reality or Last Thursdayism being the case, or uncovering a trickster god that wanted us to believe that life had evolved.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567995 Dec 1, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt you understood it, else you wouldn't have mentioned I shouldn't take information from - "blogs".
It was an example.

I did read what you posted. I see it as nonsense, probably just as what you read when I supply something...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567996 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Church - a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chu...
Ok, that's what you mean.

I've always seen "church" as a building used for public Christian worship.

When you say "the church", I'm assuming you mean a particular church, ie; building, place of worship.

Is it "a church" that has treated you wrong?

Or is it "the church" that has?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#567997 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I get it.
I get that your culture started this whole "Genesis is a plagiary" scandal.
My culture? I think you mean anyone who doesn't believe your deity myth, which is roughly around two thirds of the population of the earth.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I do t understand why, though.....
Because they don't have your theistic belief, that's why.

I also don't think you understand that, while I'm atheist, I share something in common with every other person on the earth that believes in a different deity than you do.

I don't have the theistic belief your deity exists, nor do they.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I have spent ZERO minutes of my life trying to debunk Buddhism.
I don't believe in Buddha.
I never said you did.

You probably would, however, had you been raised in that culture.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You say you don't believe in God.
No, that's not accurate, I am atheist, I don't have a theistic faith supported belief there are deities.

It bothers you that your personally believed in deity falls into that category.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why spend so much time trying to disprove Him?
Your deity disproves itself, I just happen to be able to recognize that, and it isn't just me that understands this, billions of others do, too.

Also...

When other religions attempt to have their creation myths and religious myths taught in our schools and attempt to instill that same mythology as a literal and incontrovertible fact, historically, then ensconce that mythology in our commonly shared public govt. buildings and lands, and on our money, etc..., as if it is true beyond doubt based on nothing but belief, I will.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567998 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
But you would teach religion no doubt.


Wrong. You are so wrong. If anything, I'd teach the *possibility* of God, let people decide for themselves. That what faith is.
Whatever you would do, there are no proven scientific theories.
Of what?
You still don't really have the basics of the philosophy of science down to engage in a discussion of science or teaching it.


The fact that people like you still debate it with me is proof otherwise.
Although no theory can be proved, evolutionary theory comes as close as you can.
I disagree. I'd say the theory of gravity is much easier to prove.
It can't be upturned without discovering something as dramatic as a Matrix reality or Last Thursdayism being the case, or uncovering a trickster god that wanted us to believe that life had evolved.
It can be upturned very easily. We do it all the time.

There are plenty of examples of evolutionary flaws.

The idea of natural selection sounds great if you're talking about a deer. A deer that can sense danger and move more nimbly & quickly than most if its predators. And do it consistently, makes perfect sense, right? To have it evolve & adapt to better suit its life & to live longer.

What about a bird? Why would a creature begin to evolve a wing? A wing stub wouldn't make a bird better adapted to its environment. The wing stub would be much too small for it to fly. Why would a bird evolve a completely useless "winglet"?

A bird with even a half size wing is at a disadvantage to its environment. Why would a bird continue evolving a useless "wing" for millions of years?

Answer: Accirding to natural selection, it wouldn't.

If evolution happened the way Darwin first suggested, the earth would have no birds.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 28 min Freebird USA 30,843
I LOVE my new LG V20 smartphone!!! 52 min Doctor REALITY 5
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 52 min Seentheotherside 687,215
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Seentheotherside 619,790
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 2 hr Classic 4,313
ex wives of PTSD veterans (Mar '12) 3 hr Sandy 40
News Mitt Romney surges, leads Obama in polls (Oct '12) 4 hr Oneryders Daughter 13
More from around the web