Angra Mainyu

I disagree.

There is no proof that the aliens I mentioned do not exist (other than the lack of evidence of their existence), yet, it’s apparent that they do not.

In other words, there’s proof of my position – namely, that there’s no Heaven or Hell – to the same extent to which there is proof of my position that the planted I mentioned does not exist. That proof would consist in the fact that both (Heaven and Hell, and the planet) are simply claims with no evidence to back them.

If that is not considered proof (but I explained the odds in my previous post ), then one would have to accept that the planet and aliens I mentioned could exist as well, and that a person who claims otherwise, is a man of great faith. That position seems untenable to me.


I’m not sure I understand.
Are you saying that the NT has changed the Law with regard to blasphemers?
If so, I’d like to know what evidence you base your claim on, what punishment would apply, and whether that change extends to gay people.

There are theories about how life originated, but again, that’s not the point. If we don’t know how life originated, from our lack of knowledge it certainly does not follow that there must be a Creator.

In the past, God or Gods were used as an explanation for a myriad of natural phenomena, whose causes are well known today. Surprisingly (or not), theists can keep trying to derive the existence of a Creator (and further, that of their particular Creator), simply from the fact that our knowledge of the Universe is incomplete. In my view, the God of the Gaps doesn’t make sense, either.

Ok, but I thought that the OT Law should apply, in your view. If that’s not the case, I will ask: what punishment do you think gay people (and blasphemers) should receive, and why (i.e., on which passages do you base your argument)?

Incidentally, I think that the confusion may be caused by the ambiguity in some of your arguments. For example:

In the first quote, you clearly state that the punishment is the death penalty, while you don’t say that in the second, and in fact you seem to suggest that you're not taking that position (am I reading this right?)

How would you expect me not to be confused?

What punishment to you advocate for?

But do you think that that Jewish society should do that?
Anyway, I still want to know about the punishment you’d prefer.


Your original argument seemed to be that lack of evidence that the writers of the Bible were not speaking for God implied we couldn’t argue that they weren’t. My argument was a rebuttal of that.

Regarding what you just mentioned, religious writing are usually not consistent – in particular, Christianity is not -, so if I identified the documents, etc., that would lead to rule out Christianity. Proof: just take a look at what people identifying themselves as Christians say. Clearly, there’s no consistency.

That aside, the number of documents or claims in favor of a religion is not proof. Through history, people have claimed that supernatural events have occurred, in different contexts, and supporting different religions. It’s not clear how many claims were made, and by how many religions (many of them extinct). Also, current religions can have more followers than past ones, just because of the greater number of people on the planet.

But in any case, claims that a God exist made by many people – who were educated to believe in that God – don’t mean anything in terms of proof: given that these are claims that are against what we know about the Universe – what we’ve learned from observations of it -, we’d need some hard evidence – i.e., miracles – just to begin considering it.

In addition to that, given that you’re the one making the claim that Christianity is somehow different from the infinite possibilities I mentioned, I’d be up to you to present evidence of Christianity – which you haven’t.


But you haven’t presented evidence, because you’re replacing an unsubstantiated claim made by you by an unsubstantiated claim made by the writers of the Bible.

In other words, their claim is as groundless as yours. They’re simply saying there’s a soul, etc. Muslims make different claims, Hindus make different claims, and religious people have made many claims, over time.

There’s no available evidence of any of them, though.

Of course, I can make the claim that I’ve had an experience with these aliens, and I could ask some other people to post here and make the same claim. And of course, all that would be bogus and would not be evidence of my claim.

Incidentally, people have made claims of abductions and so on. Some have some alien-based religion of sorts. Others (e.g., Pentecostals) have made the claim that they speak in tongues – would you believe them?

Also, if it’s about number of claims, your version of Christianity loses to other religions, such as Catholicism, Islam and Hinduism. Of course, there’s no evidence to back their claims, as there is no evidence to back yours.


My argument was in case we didn’t know what happens after death, but anyway, you again seem to back the adherence to brutal rules, even without knowledge. Could you clarify that, please?

I can tell beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution will not be abandoned, even though theories will be refined constantly.
Science changes because it becomes more accurate, and when it makes mistakes, it tends to correct them eventually, but when something is as well grounded as evolution is, doubts about its existence would go beyond reasonability.

That aside, and as pointed out, the Flood would make no sense for many reasons, even if evolution were not true – but it is.

As for the Bible, it’s not evidence, but just claims against evidence. Science analyzes evidence that refutes the Flood account, and if you’re going to dismiss science, then you don’t have standards of evidence applicable to anything.

For example, would you deny DNA evidence to solve a murder case, because “science could change”. Would you deny video evidence, just because science can change and it might turn out that videos actually don’t record events?

My point is, sometimes science has enough evidence to make its denial ludicrous. Evolution is one such case.

The claim that there’s no possible natural explanation for the origin of life is baseless. We’ve seen, time and again, that things for which “there could be no possible natural explanation”, in fact have one, from the movement of planets to the complexity of life today.

If the theories about the origin of life aren’t convincing, that would mean we’d have to keep looking, but it would not follow that no natural explanation is possible. History shows that phenomena tend to become explicable by natural means, eventually, and those who used those phenomena to base their religious views, just pick another one, in their worshipping of the God of the Gaps.

Again, that aside, my point is that if a creator were necessary, you’d have no way of knowing anything about said entity, based on the existence of life – and the Bible, Quran, etc., only allege things, as you or I can make allegations. But if you have proof in support of the Bible, I’d like to see it.

That’s an excellent point that I’d repeat just in case that increases the odd chances it will be addressed. For some reason, whenever the point that we don’t choose what to believe is made, theists tend to ignore the point and post about something else (in my experience, anyway).

As rhutchin heard before, I cannot choose to believe in Juno, Ra, the Christian God, or Santa Claus. Based on the evidence available to me, I conclude that no such being exists. If there are choices, then my choice is whether to lie and claim that I believe in one or more of those beings, or to tell the truth and say I don’t, but I cannot actually believe.

On that note, I’d ask rhutchin whether he could choose to not believe in the Bible God anymore, and believe in Zeus instead – and if he doesn’t make that choice, why does he not?

aa5874

What amazes me is that some who were sexually immoral and blasphemers and have claimed to have found God, are now advocating the death penalty for those they consider to be as they were.

Their message to the world is: Kill everyone who is doing what I did, now.

Johnny Skeptic

Rhutchin's first post in this thread was as follows:

Ok, rhutchin's first sentence is "The basic position taken by the Bible on all sexual relationships is that any sex other than that which occurs between a man and a women in marriage is wrong." First of all, assuming that a God inspired the writing of the Bible, rhutchin has not produced any credible evidence at all that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves. Second of all, there is good evidence that the Bible contains errors and contradictions. Third of all, regarding rhutchin's frequent claim at this forum, and at the EofG Forum, that when in doubt, it is best to believe what the Bible says because of the risks (Pascal's Wager) that are involved, I have told him dozens of times that risk assessment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a person is able to become a Christian. Jesus said that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. It is not possible to convince someone to love you based upon threats. Since rhutchin would not be able to love a God who told lies, his risk assessment argument is not consistent, and is therefore not valid. The God of the Bible has committed numerous atrocities against mankind that are much worse than lying is, and yet rhutchin tries to use risk assessment to get decent people to force themselves to abandon their principles and morals.

If rhutchin's buddy Pascal were at this forum, he would tell rhutchin that since he is not a Roman Catholic, he will go to hell. It would be quite amusing to see rhutchin argue with Pascal. It would also be quite amusing to see rhutchin argue with his buddy John Calvin if Calvin showed up at this forum. Calvin endorsed the murder of Christians who disagreed with his religious views. I do not doubt that if as a baby rhutchin had been transported back in time to Calvin's time, and knew Calvin, that he would have endorsed Calvin's murderous ways. Historically, followers of the God of the Bible have been guilty of all sorts of atrocities. Who told them to commit those atrocities? The correct answer is, the Bible. The God of the Bible is the most dangerous and ruthless being in the world. What rational, loving God would have stood idly by and allowed Christians to conquer the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion, an empire that was conquered by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property, and allowed Christians to endorse slavery for about 1800 years? Is it not proper for loving human parents to exercise oversight over their children and not let them run wild without adequate supervision? Of course, the best conclusion is that God does not exist, but even if he does exist, decent people cannot force themselves to accept him.

Can rhutchin ask God for any tangible benefit such as food, shelter, clothing, or medical needs and be assured that he will receive it? Well of course he can't. If a bear was chasing rhutchin, would he ask God to protect him or run? Of course, he would run, or try to kill the bear. The simple truth is that rhutchin does not have any credible evidence at all that all tangible benefits are not distributed entirely at random according the laws of physics. This is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist. Love is partly about caring about peoples' tangible needs. James at least got that right. James 2:14-22 say "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" The problem for Christians is that even though James got that right, God didn't. He allowed one million people to die of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine alone, most of whom were Christians, and most of whom surely asked God to provide them with food, but to no avail.

Matthew 15:32-38 say "Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude? And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children."

It is a virtual certainty that that story is a lie.

rhutchin

The evidence is the Bible. The reader is free to assign it any credibility they want. Nonetheless, the basic position taken by the Bible on all sexual relationships is that any sex other than that which occurs between a man and a women in marriage is wrong. This is true regardless what credibility a person assigns to the Bible. The Bible says what it says.

Johnny Skeptic has presented a non-argument with regard to the subject of the thread. He is not disagreeing with that which the Bible says.

Such allegations do not affect that which the Bible says about sexual immorality. Johnny Skeptic is not disagreeing with that which the Bible says.

This has nothing to do with the thread. Johnny Skeptic could start a new thread to discuss this in depth. I think he realizes that his argument lacks substance.

Lack of substance in an argument often leads to the ad hominem appraoch as is used here.

The Bible states clearly that which a perosn should do to gain food, shelter, clothing, or medical needs and be assured that he will receive it. A person can read about it in Matthew 6.

If a person is faster than the bear, he should run. If the bear is faster, he should pray.

It is vitually certain that Johnny Skeptic is an opinated man but a man of great faith.

rhutchin

There is more to the story but a person can look it up on the internet.

I will only add that the Aristolians were advocates of geocentricity (the prevailing position in science and the church) and Galileo was advocating heliocentricity. Whether the Aristolians deserve the designation "scientist" probably depends on one's personal opinion.

JPD

This is evidently for the lurkers. I see - in your posts rhutchin - a degree of wishful thinking and a repetition of themes:

The Bible is the evidence.
One assumes risks.
Such and such a person has faith.
The Bible is true because it says it is.

Your claim that Johnny Skeptic's arguments lack substance is most amusing given your approach in these conversations.

JPD

....and while the bear is praying hoof him in the gonads?

....okayyyyyyyyyy - the first scenario is the scientific one and the second is the religious one. Should the bear be faster one is advised to:

Quote from Survive a bear attack
"If you see a bear, talk to the bear. Make sure he sees you. Hold your arms high above your head. This will make you look like a much bigger animal to him. Continue to talk and slowly back away. If you run he will chase you.

If the bear comes for you, climb a tree or drop to a fetal position. Cover your head and neck with your hands. Keep on your pack to protect your back. Even if the bear bites you continue to play dead. Once he realizes that you are not a threat he may leave. If he does not stop, fight back and make as much noise as possible

The best protection from bears is to carry a firearm, where permitted in bear country. But, still avoid a confrontation, because bears rarely go down with a single shot and can cover some distance while wounded."

If you were to adopt the prayer position you would be lunch. If you prayed (without adopting the kneeling with hands together position) while adopting the positions above, how would you know that the prayer was the reason that you survived? We need an experiment. Without witnesses we aren't to know how effective praying might or might not be - the religious whimpering might encourage the bear or it might freak it out. It might completely ignore it.
But, as I say, an experiment is needed - rhutchin, as you have suggested prayer as a technique to evade death perhaps you would like to be the first to put your theory to the test. Arm yourself with some Pepper Spray and remember to take a Bible to convert him.

Johnny Skeptic

Why should anyone pay attention to the Bible? If a man rejects the Bible, no credible evidence exists that there are risks in doing so. Even if there are risks in doing so, no decent man can will himself to accept a God who has committed numerous atrocities against humanity. If God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and yet you ask people to love a God who has committed numerous atrocities against mankind.

Why do you think that God deliberately withholds information from some people what would cause them to accept it if they were aware of it? What, if any benefits do God and mankind derive from this questionable behavior?

There is not sufficient evidence that God is not evil. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but there is no credible evidence that Paul could have known whether or not Satan is an angel of light, or whether or not God is an angel of light. The odds are no better than even that God is who the Bible says he is. Jesus said in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. Logically, a commitment like that is not possible based upon no better than even odds.

You said that people can ask God for help. Does that include asking him to stop creating hurricanes and killing people with them? Does that include asking him to stop people from being injured or killed in automobile accidents that are not their fault?

There is not any credible evidence that asking God for tangible benefits ever works. It appears that the odds are at least even that today, all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics? If God distributes tangible benefits, for some strange reason he frequently distributes them without any regard for a person's needs or worldview. In such a case, that is not rational behavior for a loving God. In fact, it would mean that God is evil, or mentally incompetent. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own faithful followers.

Genetically, or by some other means, God has ensured that everyone must sin at least some of the time, so you can't claim that if no one sinned, God would never hurt anyone, or allow them to be hurt.

Jon Barleycorn

Rutchin (post 284) : "The evidence is the Bible. The reader is free to assign it any credibility they want. The Bible says what it says."

You keep saying this - please go back & read post 277 posted by The Evil One to see why you should stop!

rhutchin

Such are the problem with historical accounts. The Eqyptian dynasties of record are said to be unreliable because of the penchant for revision of historical documents by later kings. Who really knows whether a man named Shakespeare actually wrote the plays that are attributed to him.

We have information. Whether from the Bible or some other historical document, we have a body of information available to us. It may be your opinion that the word of a human being, taken alone, does not count for much, but so what? Some people who wrote historical documents were conscientious and some were not. The same goes for that information printed in newspapers today. Some is accurate; some is not.

You cannot personally investigate and verify the information that you receive today from from whatever sources. A person determines the credibility he will ascribe to historical documents, whether the Bible or something else. That just the way the system operates. You may not like it, but there is not much that you can do about the situation. There is no reason for me to stop expressing this.