What if Eve had not eaten the apple?

[Nisus]

Well I didn't want to waste my time doing this, but I'm gonna have to break down and go toe to toe with you lad. Since you wanna break it down and have me expound everything.

Nisus,
Myth, fantasy, fairy story, whatever you like, but such stories possess two major properties that make them unbelievable – no evidence, no credibility.

Half the worlds population believes in a monotheistic God. Id est--3 billion plus people the regard the creation as credible. The words existing in the first place and having been written is both evidence of Prophets and ...people having already judged their credibility. So not only thousands of years later do people believe in it. But thousands of years ago people also believed in it. So that evidence is pretty solid...

Although I would dispute that, it is sufficient to say that simply because there might be an absence of an explanation that doesn’t automatically give credence to any fantasy you care to invent.

Hmm I didn't invent any of this it's written in the new testament and Old Testament both volumes being older than you and your entire family tree still currently alive and breathing on the planet earth... *yawn* Next....

Literary? Usually the argument revolves around logic.

Argument:
# A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
# A quarrel; a dispute.
Those were the first two definitions cited by Dictionary.com neither have any mention of logic...However since athiests have no basis on how they establish Truth, it really doesn't matter anyways.

But then those who foster false religious hopes and promises and commit to the irrationality of religious faith cannot be envied either.

Thousands of years of religious faith wove the government and constitution that now allows you freedom to speak and be heard, so hold your tongue again. The founding fathers established this country and left england with their bible in hand. America is the most envied of all nations, EVER, to have existed on this earth.

Well no, that sounds more like a description of religion. Science begins and ends with evidence, whereas religion has none.

.......the bible once again, written and preserved is evidence alone of peoples interactions, and lives lived through faith. There is just as much evidence that Jesus Christ lived as there is of Alexander the great and he proceeded jesus by 3 centuries. Wether you regard Him as Divine, that's your perogative. Nevertheless substantial evidence that the Savior was born in influenced this earth.

Which if did not exist you would likely never have existed, or have such a poor quality of life that you’d die in your twenties of a simple bacterial infection, and certainly you would not be able to debate across an internet. Science is knowledge, without it we would still likely be living in caves.

That's just absurd to even say since both science and religion have influenced eachother and evolved over the past few millenia into what we have today.

As opposed to the religionist who asserts that fantasies are true but does not demonstrate how.

Demonstrate for me how evolution is true....

Well no, what we are looking for is some factual basis for religionist ideas. Can you present any as opposed to unsupported assertions?

Now your looking for factual basis, on something you already have condemned as a myth and said there is no evidence of. Sounds about as logical as you trying to disprove the existance of a God--You already think doesn't exist in the first place...self defeating at best is your aspiration.

You have that backwards. It is religions that have dogmas and hold things sacred. Within science if someone shows an idea is false then it is discarded very rapidly.

That's just another of your baseless scientific assertions...

Try not to make long unsupported diatribes quoting your religious beliefs.

That's all you've done as well....

Effective debating usually requires supported statements if the author is to be respected. Simply and continually asserting what you believe without any support doesn’t conform to effective debate.

Okay so... what supports you? or anything that you've said. I'm sure you believe all of it, since you said it in the first place, but the only thing that you've use to support all your ideas thus far, into this LONGWINDED "debate" is do the same thing I do-- Say what you believe, and you've not cited any sources or used anything else to support your rebuttals. So your basically telling me

"Do as I say, not as I do"

Try not to make long unsupported diatribes quoting your religious beliefs.

Diatribe "A bitter, abusive denunciation."

hmmm
Tell that to Medicine woman the soul eater, who said
"mother fucker! Read the forum rules! My soul, should I have one, will never starve, because I eat swine (the other white meat)! You're just another run-of-the-mill Christians who doesn't know Jack Shit about anything.

BTW, welcome to sciforums, asshole, where atheists will thrive and devour your soul. Not even your bones will be found as fossils! Do you dare to test us?"

diatribe

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

… but I'm gonna have to break down and go toe to toe with you lad

Lad? Just how old do you think I am and how old are you?

Half the worlds population believes in a monotheistic God. Id est--3 billion plus people the regard the creation as credible.

And not so long ago nearly everyone on the planet believed the world was flat. Truth isn’t determined by a majority vote nor does truth have to be popular. Your argument here is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.

The words existing in the first place and having been written is both evidence of Prophets and ...people having already judged their credibility. So not only thousands of years later do people believe in it. But thousands of years ago people also believed in it. So that evidence is pretty solid...

Just like the earth being flat which was a belief held long before Christianity appeared. Belief alone does not represent evidence or proof. Your argument here is a classic logical fallacy.

Hmm I didn't invent any of this it's written in the new testament and Old Testament both volumes being older than you and your entire family tree still currently alive and breathing on the planet earth... *yawn* Next....

The same logical fallacy. Duration and popularity give no indication of truth.

Argument:
# A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
# A quarrel; a dispute.
Those were the first two definitions cited by Dictionary.com neither have any mention of logic...

Your original statement was “literary battle between science and the words of God.” The issue between theists and atheists isn’t about the definition the word argument or about a literary battle but about reason (logic) versus faith.

However since athiests have no basis on how they establish Truth, it really doesn't matter anyways.

The debate concerning reason versus faith has been raging for millennia. Atheists usually base their arguments on reason whereas theists depend on faith which simply means belief despite the absence of evidence, an irrational and illogical position.

Thousands of years of religious faith wove the government and constitution that now allows you freedom to speak and be heard, so hold your tongue again.

The USA was not founded on religious principles and the constitution is not a religious document and makes no reference to a god except to quote the date at the end.

The founding fathers established this country and left england with their bible in hand. America is the most envied of all nations, EVER, to have existed on this earth.

You must be joking, right? BTW I’m British.

.......the bible once again, written and preserved is evidence alone of peoples interactions, and lives lived through faith.

That is true but gives no indication that its stories and claims have any truth to them. Note that faith has no value – it simply means irrational belief.

There is just as much evidence that Jesus Christ lived as there is of Alexander the great and he proceeded jesus by 3 centuries.

Nonsense – there is zero independent or verifiable evidence that Jesus ever existed. The best is from Josephus and that has been shown to be fraudulent. Try reading the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty and the Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S, both books are the result of research into the claimed existence of Jesus.

Nevertheless substantial evidence that the Savior was born ….

Please quote any single piece of this alleged substantial evidence? There is none – he appears to be entirely mythical.

That's just absurd to even say since both science and religion have influenced eachother and evolved over the past few millenia into what we have today.

But only science has generated knowledge, religion has not produced anything worthwhile except to regress scientific progress, e.g. Galileo, etc.

Demonstrate for me how evolution is true....

Why? It is irrelevant whether evolution is true or not, the issue is about the alleged truth of theist claims that no theist can demonstrate.

Now your looking for factual basis, on something you already have condemned as a myth and said there is no evidence of.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be true or that evidence can’t be found. The challenge to you is show support for your claims which without support have no credibility.

Sounds about as logical as you trying to disprove the existance of a God—

Why? If you make a claim for something the onus is usually on the claimant to prove their case. You appear to be avoiding the issue presumably because you know there is no evidence for your claims.

You already think doesn't exist in the first place...self defeating at best is your aspiration.

Note that I have not claimed that a god does not exist. My position is entirely about theist claims being fantasies unless they can show otherwise. You apparently cannot and appear to be desperately trying to switch the argument onto me to prove something.

That's just another of your baseless scientific assertions...

The scientific method is entirely about evidence so how is my statement baseless, it is simple fact? Have you ever taken a science class since this is taught early?

“ Originally Posted by Cris
Try not to make long unsupported diatribes quoting your religious beliefs.
”

That's all you've done as well....

Clearly not since I have no religious beliefs.

Okay so... what supports you? or anything that you've said. I'm sure you believe all of it, since you said it in the first place, but the only thing that you've use to support all your ideas thus far, into this LONGWINDED "debate" is do the same thing I do-- Say what you believe, and you've not cited any sources or used anything else to support your rebuttals.

My primary arguments are that theism is based on fantasy and that there is no evidence to support theist claims. The support is that no theist has ever been able to show otherwise – that seems like considerable support. You can easily refute me by providing credible support for your claims.

Note also that I did say that arguments should usually be supported, there are of course many exceptions but not continuous as is often the case for religionists who never attempt support, as I believe is true in your case.

hmmm
Tell that to Medicine woman

Read spidergoat’s comment regarding MW.

 

[Marlin]

What in the world are you talking about? Of course I believe that there was no death in the world before the Fall. That is basic LDS doctrine. I don't know where you got that idea. Sheesh!

Moron. Fossils have been PROVEN to be millions, even billions of years old, depending on the fossil. Do you not understand that concept: proven fact. Not theory, proven fact.

Um, yes, I am aware of the fossil record, my young friend. There is one theory that I particularly like that says that God used parts of another planet which existed prior to the formation of the earth, to make this earth. The dinosaurs and other fossils, according to this theory, were there already when God organized the earth. They could have been there for billions of years, and yet with God's new creation there was no death in this new world.

Another theory states that there was indeed death on the earth before the Fall, but when God put A & E thereon, He changed things to the conditions of the Pre-Fall.

These are just theories, of course. But we can still have faith that the scriptures are true, even if we don't completely understand every little question they raise.

 

[Trilairian]

Um, yes, I am aware of the fossil record, my young friend. There is one theory that I particularly like that says that God used parts of another planet which existed prior to the formation of the earth, to make this earth. The dinosaurs and other fossils, according to this theory, were there already when God organized the earth. They could have been there for billions of years, and yet with God's new creation there was no death in this new world.

Another theory states that there was indeed death on the earth before the Fall, but when God put A & E thereon, He changed things to the conditions of the Pre-Fall.

These are just theories, of course. But we can still have faith that the scriptures are true, even if we don't completely understand every little question they raise.

Those aren't theories. Those are utterly unfounded wild speculations put forward by apologists in Mormonism.
Face it, your religion was proven wrong.

 

[Marlin]

Truth cannot be proven wrong. You're mistaken.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What are you talking about? ... Since when do Athiests believe in souls anyway.

*************
M*W: There are no such thing as "souls," there is only biological energy. Energy is readily consumed but not destroyed. Souls of Christians are very appetizing to Atheists. Therefore, for every professing Christian out there, there is one sated Atheist. Yum Yum

 

[Nisus]

Medicine woman, you came here acting like were going to shut people down, but you just shut yourself down again. Go back to your athiest circles you're not worth my time.

 

[Nisus]

Cris,

So what everything you say is right because you're the administrator? Or because you're athiest and you administrate the definition of your own truth. You weren't even worth replying to after the first --Point-- but you fail at 1 so you bring up 10 more which are all just shots in the air at your own conclusions.

Everything you still said is your unsupported opinion so quit finger pointing like a Pharisee. Your athiesm is the logical fallacy, and a destitute religion.

 

[Nisus]

Most importantly how are you going to demand evidence for something, you already before hand know, has little historical evidence besides the Old Testament??

Hi everyone come debate about Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (apples?), but just so you know, I'm ready to bash everything you say and exalt myself above you because there is "No Evidence" and "No credibility". Because your in the "Religion" forum but Athiests moderate the rules of what you can say, in the RELIGION forum.

I don't even have to argue with you for you to defeat yourself in EVERYTHING you're doing. I just have to point out how absurd it is to begin with. Like the thousands of posts you've dedicated to saying THIS or THAT does NOT EXIST. Your opinions are simple and have no backbone at all. Because this is your response to everything...

No Evidence, Not credible, Logical Fallacy. Sad thing is it takes you way too much time and toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many words to simply say that.

 

[Nisus]

You open up a discussion in a religious context and tell them they can't talk about religion...

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

So what everything you say is right because you're the administrator?

Of course not - this is a very open forum. If you think me wrong then try showing where I am wrong rather than simply asserting that I am wrong. This site has a heavy scientific bias and that discipline requires significant support before anything is accepted.

Or because you're athiest and you administrate the definition of your own truth.

Truth is independent of belief or unbelief.

You weren't even worth replying to after the first --Point-- but you fail at 1

How so? You began by using a well known logical fallacy, how then can you conclude that I failed?

so you bring up 10 more which are all just shots in the air at your own conclusions.

10?, whatever, can you refute them through debate and logic?

Everything you still said is your unsupported opinion so quit finger pointing like a Pharisee.

No unsupported opinions are involved. Belief in a god is fantasy – this is fact. You can show it otherwise by demonstrating credible evidence to support the concept, which to date no theist has been able to do, hence their reliance on faith, which in turn has no value.

Your athiesm is the logical fallacy,

How so? You are making an unsupported assertion again.

and a destitute religion.

Atheism isn’t a religion.

If you think you have a case then attempt to support it rather than simply asserting that I am wrong and you are right.

 

[Nisus]

Athiesm is the hugest OXY-MORON since the definition itself. And then M.W.

 

[Nisus]

Logic already owned you when you opened up this thread under your own self-destructive logical fallacies.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

You open up a discussion in a religious context and tell them they can't talk about religion...

Not so, but try not to preach, i.e. support your beliefs and perspectives rather than making blanket assertions.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Athiesm is the hugest OXY-MORON since the definition itself.

How so?

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Logic already owned you when you opened up this thread under your own self-destructive logical fallacies.

What logical fallacies?

 

[Nisus]

Nisus,

Not so, but try not to preach, i.e. support your beliefs and perspectives rather than making blanket assertions.

That is all you do.

 

[Nisus]

Nisus,

What logical fallacies?

Asking people to SUPPORT their opinions with evidence, inside a discussion that YOU opened in a religious context. Knowing beforehand that there isn't any evidence besides what's written in Genesis, that can be harmonious with YOUR definition of logic, and YOUR definition of evidence.

Just like YOUR definition of when someone is "preaching". If you support your athiest ideas, you're preaching.

Besides that when do people have to adhere to sound logic anyways to express themselves, especially on a subject opened in a religious context?

 

[okconor]

I think Nisus needs help. after I've staggered thru my daily routine I'll come back and enlighten him.

Preacher, God gave you eyes so you could see, use them not your tongue (or keyboard).

 

[Nisus]

All of it is wack to begin with, from your rules to the way that you lured people into this pit, and you use it to debase everyone else and glorify and exalt your own false intellectuality.