Lies Atheists Tell

[phlogistician]

I believe the Greeks were smarter and wiser than any atheist because they understood that there must be a God. That their "god" was a corrupted version of the true God is not surprising, they had wandered far from their monotheistic ancestry.

So do you believe in Zeus?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

As for the rules, when I make a post, I set the rules.

*************
M*W: Oh, really?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

it is testimony from a hostile witness, one you have supported with your links. No dictionary in the world defines atheism as you are defining it. You don't get to define words to your liking, sorry.

*************
M*W: And you don't get to make the rules.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Actually, the real fault of Atheists is that they go about their Arguments like Lawyers... they phrase their discussions in argument designed for them to win. They focus narrowly on a God based on primitive Hebrew and Greek Theological Premises. I have never met an Atheist yet who discussed any Theological Notion of God less than 1000 years old. They dredge up Old Theology and Flawed Religions. They beat up weak Enemies.

Well, it must be said to their credit that most atheists are only amateurs. Do we really expect that Atheists should have degrees in Comparative Religion. Well, if we were to give them any intellectual credit, yes... they should know something about what they insist they have made up their minds about.

As it is, they express all this bitterness and hatred toward God and Religion while not really having even begun any disciplined study in Religion, Spirituality, Psychology, Socialogy, History... everything that Religion impacts upon.

Indeed, Atheists all seem to meet about the same Profile... adolescent mentalities fresh rebelling against parental authority and eager to express their own individuality. They correlate 'God' with all the mores, customs and traditions taught to them by their parents and their parent's people. Their newly discovered Individualism rejects all that. Of course, they would not wish to undergo years of study to give the least chance for God or Religion. They already KNOW what they want to CONCLUDE.

I WANT TO BE FREE. I WANT TO BE ME. I WANT TO SIN AND HAVE DIRTY FUN. SO THERE IS NO GOD.

Atheism is not really that difficult to figure out. Toddlers in a tantrum fit. Thats Atheism.

*************
M*W: As usual, you're full of shit.

 

[mynameisDan]

yeah its easier to believe that magic Invisible man did it, huh?

magic involves tricks. It is much easier for me to conclude that complexity and design on the order of living things demands that "In the beginning, God", yes. It is simply following the evidence where it leads.

 

[mynameisDan]

*************
M*W: As usual, you're full of shit.

No, I don't think he is, at least not for a lot of atheists I have encountered, I think he hit the nail right on the head and I of course, am an unbiased observer here

 

[mynameisDan]

*************
M*W: And you don't get to make the rules.

I don't?

 

[mynameisDan]

spare us the BS
theres ZERO evidence for xian god,in fact the way its defined ,its Impossible to be real and you know it

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

as far as Deist god goes,it may exist but if it doesnt interfere in our lives WHATs it good for?

it is a good start for a recovering atheist such as Antony Flew.

 

[mynameisDan]

bible is wrong ...time always existed ,see

Draygombs paradox

Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God doesn't exist.

how can you know anything about before the beginning? Answer, you can't, unless you read the bible that is. Any rules you feel apply to God, don't.

 

[mynameisDan]

So do you believe in Zeus?

Yes and no. I believe in his attributes which are in agreement with the biblical God and reject those which are not. Zeus, thor etc are all corruptions of the true God.

Do you believe in Darwinism?

 

[Enmos]

how can you know anything about before the beginning? Answer, you can't, unless you read the bible that is. Any rules you feel apply to God, don't.

How did this unknowable knowledge end up in the bible anyway ?

 

[mynameisDan]

How did this unknowable knowledge end up in the bible anyway ?

it is unknowable to science. The only explanation I have been able to come up with is that God must have told them.

 

[Enmos]

it is unknowable to science. The only explanation I have been able to come up with is that God must have told them.

Does it say that in the bible ?
And besides, God must then either be a real idiot or a liar.

Bold part.. you are making vague assumptions again. Assuming something idiotic to satisfy your unquestionable faith does not make it so.

 

[mynameisDan]

Does it say that in the bible ?
And besides, God must then either be a real idiot or a liar.

Bold part.. you are making vague assumptions again. Assuming something idiotic to satisfy your unquestionable faith does not make it so.

I arrived at a reasonable conclusion given the assumption that God did inspire the writing of the Bible and Moses did pen the first 5 books. It was not an attempt to provide an apologetic, it was merely an honest attempt to answer your question. There is internal evidence to suggest that Genesis was not orally transmitted but rather it was a compilation of documents provided to Moses from preceding patriarchs. If this theory is correct, and my assumptions above correct, then it is reasonble that Adam received information pertaining to the creation directly from God himself as he walk with him in the Garden.

Now, as I stated in an earlier post, I have reasons which are convincing to me, that the bible is divinely inspired and acturate in its history, in its astronomy and in its biology and should be trusted. There is nothing idioctic about biblical faith at all. As I stated earlier, even former atheist Antony Flew admits that Christian faith is rational, it just isn't for him. Others, more intelligent than either you or I have also found it to be rational as well. So, while you have chosen to either remain ignorant of biblical apologetics or find them unconvincing, has no bearing upon the fact that atheism is irrational and idiotic to most of us.

 

[Enmos]

I arrived at a reasonable conclusion given the assumption that God did inspire the writing of the Bible and Moses did pen the first 5 books. It was not an attempt to provide an apologetic, it was merely an honest attempt to answer your question. There is internal evidence to suggest that Genesis was not orally transmitted but rather it was a compilation of documents provided to Moses from preceding patriarchs. If this theory is correct, and my assumptions above correct, then it is reasonble that Adam received information pertaining to the creation directly from God himself as he walk with him in the Garden.

So your "reasonable conclusion" based on whatever has somehow more bearing on reality than science ? How come ?

Now, as I stated in an earlier post, I have reasons which are convincing to me, that the bible is divinely inspired and acturate in its history, in its astronomy and in its biology and should be trusted.

Hold on there.. SHOULD be trusted ? Are you telling me I SHOULD trust the bible ? On what authority ?
Also, that it is convincing to you does not mean it is true.
Biblical biology.. ? Really

There is nothing idioctic about biblical faith at all. As I stated earlier, even former atheist Antony Flew admits that Christian faith is rational, it just isn't for him. Others, more intelligent than either you or I have also found it to be rational as well.

It is somewhat rational if you don't take it literally, but to take what's in the bible literally IS idiotic.

So, while you have chosen to either remain ignorant of biblical apologetics or find them unconvincing, has no bearing upon the fact that atheism is irrational and idiotic to most of us.

No, of course not..
But that it is irational and idiotic to you doesn't mean much.
Don't forget that YOU started stomping on atheists here.

 

[Thoreau]

Just thought this quote fit rather perfectly right now....

The Bible: Because all the works of science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animals species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah’s house.

 

[mynameisDan]

So your "reasonable conclusion" based on whatever has somehow more bearing on reality than science ? How come ?.

it has already been acknowledged that science cannot deal what happened before the beginning.

Hold on there.. SHOULD be trusted ? Are you telling me I SHOULD trust the bible ? On what authority ?
Also, that it is convincing to you does not mean it is true.
Biblical biology.. ? Really .

If after examining the evidence for its divine authorship and concluding that it is indeed convincing one should trust it. Sure

It is somewhat rational if you don't take it literally, but to take what's in the bible literally IS idiotic.

depends upon what you mean by "literal". Some parts are clearly not literal as noted by the context. When Jesus stated: "Whosoever drinketh of this water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14). Clearly Jesus isn't stating that a thirst quenching water well will spring forth from everyone who "drinks this water". Bible believing Christians use the same grammatical devices that everyone else uses when determining what is literal or figurative. But I disagree that to take the bible literally is idiotic.

No, of course not..
But that it is irational and idiotic to you doesn't mean much.
Don't forget that YOU started stomping on atheists here.

If I have "stomped on atheists here" it is because atheists foolishly believe that they are the guardians of rationality and science. They are neither. In my view, I don't even understand how an atheist can explain logic, since it is an immaterial universal truth and not part of the material world. I do understand how the Christian explains it, because the world was created by a conscious logical being we call "God".

 

[mynameisDan]

Just thought this quote fit rather perfectly right now....

The Bible: Because all the works of science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animals species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah’s house.

what do cattle sacrificing primitives have to do with anything here? Before the flood the world was likely a pangea, so these primitives may have been right and the arrogant author of this quote, wrong. Of course, it is not widely believed that there was a world wide flood (in spite of sufficient evidence in my view) so naturally this quote would garner some laughs. But educated people in all civilizations have been wrong about some pretty important things. My guess is that the eye witnessess of these events will one day be vindicated and the arm chair experts of 3 millenium later will be made the fool.

 

[spidergoat]

There were no humans when there was a Pangea.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

it has already been acknowledged that science cannot deal what happened before the beginning.

*************
M*W: That is your opinion.

If after examining the evidence for its divine authorship and concluding that it is indeed convincing one should trust it.

*************
M*W: That's just your opinion. Can you prove "divine authorship" without using the bible as your reference? No you can't.

Bible believing Christians use the same grammatical devices that everyone else uses when determining what is literal or figurative. But I disagree that to take the bible literally is idiotic.

*************
M*W: When you have not familiarized yourself with scientific and anthropological research on the bibl and its history, you are arguing from an ignorant standpoint. Had you researched the peer-reviewed literature regarding the various studies of the bible, you wouldn't bring up such a lame point.

If I have "stomped on atheists here" it is because atheists foolishly believe that they are the guardians of rationality and science. They are neither. In my view, I don't even understand how an atheist can explain logic, since it is an immaterial universal truth and not part of the material world. I do understand how the Christian explains it, because the world was created by a conscious logical being we call "God

".
*************
M*W: It is not your place to judge atheists or persons of any belief. If that's why you came here, you're in the wrong place. You don't know anything about atheists or how we came to our beliefs or lack thereof. Most atheists have studied christianity and other religions more than theists have studied their own religions. You're shooting blanks, and you're missing.