Debate thread (revived)

[DarkerLine]

Might I add that nobody ever responded to what I wrote earlier:

Now, not only did I prove that theism is true by virtue that the other possibilities are false, but Christianity is true because of Moses and the Prophets. I could give you around 65 prophecies that Christ fulfilled as being the Messiah--and thats only one subject.

I did, your "logic" was ridiculous and I said so.

[Homestar]

You might have proved it for yourself, but I must say you didn't really try hard to challenge yourself. If you start by making your being right (or if you prefer, evolution and nontheism being wrong) an axiom, there isn't much point in debating.

I see letters, but not sentences. Words but not meaning.

------------------

Dealing with Liberals is like juggling... Even though it's a perpetual cycle, I'm the one who's really in control.

@ 4sberg: Awesome signature I's a got's to change mine's to something cool soon.

[DarkerLine]

The funny thing about the Biblical prophecies is that they aren't vague. In fact, most of them have been fulfilled in precise detail. There are only a few that have yet to happen.

That's quite specific right there, lots of detail and examples.

[4sberg]

That's quite specific right there, lots of detail and examples.

You want it? You got it.
(Click on it twice to get full size after opening)

[DarkerLine]

It was hard reading because it was in an image. However, from what I read, please tell me if I'm wrong, the prophecies only referred to other biblical events. That kind of circular logic (you're saying that the Bible is true because the prophecies were fulfilled, and the only record of those prophecies ever being fulfilled is the bible) does not constitute proof in my opinion.

[lloydkirk1989]

It was hard reading because it was in an image. However, from what I read, please tell me if I'm wrong, the prophecies only referred to other biblical events. That kind of circular logic (you're saying that the Bible is true because the prophecies were fulfilled, and the only record of those prophecies ever being fulfilled is the bible) does not constitute proof in my opinion.

Ok, read this.

[dysfunction]

It's rather ridiculous for the Bible to claim it prophesied an event, when the only record of the event is also in- dum da dum- the Bible.

Might I add that nobody ever responded to what I wrote earlier:

Now, not only did I prove that theism is true by virtue that the other possibilities are false, but Christianity is true because of Moses and the Prophets. I could give you around 65 prophecies that Christ fulfilled as being the Messiah--and thats only one subject.

How did you disprove atheism? I for one would describe myself as a "critical atheist." This means I do not reject the possibility of a deity outright- simply that I find it unlikely in the extreme. Indeed, to say definitely that there is no god is a logical fallacy- you are correct there. But no atheists I know would say such a thing. It is completely possible that a god exists. Is it possible that the God of the Bible exists, exactly according to Christian doctrine? Not really, no. There are too many contradictions between what is described in the Bible and what the real world is like. How is the Christian God any more likely than the Hindu gods? He's not. When you have a thousand completely different sects all claiming to hold absolute truth, it becomes extremely difficult to take the word of any of them.

[Leumas]

why are programmers so religious?

Even the atheisits are religious so don't try arguing the point.

I personally can understand arguing over faith but you guys aren't arguing you are talking to the air.
If you are going to have a debate choice ONE (1) topic and have people on both sides. In fact, make it more intresting. If you believe in one thing (through personal discovery) argue the other side so you can get an understanding of it.

I am personally hard pressed to fight against catholics (But I was jesuit trained so I can't help it *Catholic joke*). But if the reason you guys are arguing is to justify yourselves or to convice others, I think it has gone a little too far for that.

@dysfunction (because you were the last poster and only for that reason *to keep things short*): Would you ever except information from only one source, even if it is the ONLY source? (this is NOT a trick question and is NOT limited to the bible).

Second thing: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO AGNOSTICS? I think atheism has spun so far off course that to compare modern-day atheism (agnostisim) to the original atheism would be like saying that Christianity is the same as Hindu. Atheism is the out and out disbelief in God (or any other higher power/ "supreme being"). Agnostisism is when you allow for the fact that there MIGHT be a God or there Might Not be a God.
Atheisism = Rejection
Agnostisism = Massive Doubt

Please stop acting as if they are the same thing, they aren't and no matter what your personal beliefs they will never be the same thing.
And in the end if you are agnostic or an atheist does it matter what humans call you, when you die you die and thats that.

Edit: On the note of disproving atheism (or anything else)... There is something very important that must exist to be able to disprove something, a Theory. That theory is whatever the person choses to believe. BUT they cannot chose a negative, ei. "I believe there is NO God". "NO" makes that a negative (I can't believe I have to explain this to programmers who work with boolean logic). The reason for this should be logical but If I need to explain I will. Please just ask and don't assume something that it is not.
That is something that makes arguing with atheist (and any other group) so anoying. If they don't choose to believe something positive, they just keep changing and so are Never wrong. *This is a logic leson, not an attack or a coaching or badgering.

[CoBB]

BUT they cannot chose a negative [...] The reason for this should be logical but If I need to explain I will.

I don't see anything logical about it. A negated statement is a statement too.

[KevinJB]

I have tried to avoid these threads. *sigh*

Now, not only did I prove that theism is true by virtue that the other possibilities are false, but Christianity is true because of Moses and the Prophets. I could give you around 65 prophecies that Christ fulfilled as being the Messiah--and thats only one subject.

Ok, one thing you said there rang a bell.

If you believe the old testament to be true,
Then you must believe the new testament, because quite frankly the Jesus (N.T) fulfills many of the prophecies in the old testament. I can give specifics, but I won't. Maybe later if I decide to make another post...

Of course, if you don't believe in the old testament then this argument doesn't apply to you at all .

[Arcane WIzard]

Atheisism = Rejection
Agnostisism = Massive Doubt

Rejection but admitting it's techncially possible is not doubt, hence I do not believe we have abused the term atheism.

[lloydkirk1989]

It's rather ridiculous for the Bible to claim it prophesied an event, when the only record of the event is also in- dum da dum- the Bible.

Didn't you even look at the link I provided in my last post? Its a whole article on how the Bible prophecied events in secular history.

[Ajaxhunter]

I think I should point out the obvious here; this entire discussion is about faith. In order to be a Christian you have to believe that the Bible is God's word, Jesus died on the cross for your sins, etc., without having seen proof of said events. Jesus says (in a paraphrase) blessed is he who believes in me but does not see proof. Science is also all about faith; it's the faith of the atheist, agnostic, Darwinist. You see the world in the light of the evolutionary theory and when you look at the world you interpret everything in that light.

Science relies on observational evidence to prove itself as right. Christianity doesn't. It doesn't need to. The entire point of being a Christian is that you believe without seeing, that you trust God in spite of doubt, in spite of people all around you that contradict you and try to prove you otherwise. That doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't try to defend themselves or should ignore history and science, it just means that you aren't going to convince a Christian to stop believing based on history and science. Or you shouldn't be able to.

There's an argument against Darwinian evolution that I haven't read in here so far that I find interesting and convincing. Michael Behe wrote a book entitled Darwin's Black Box that argues against Darwinian macroevolution (it's useless to argue about species-level evolution when it is observationally proven all the time) based on biology at the level of the cell. Basically, the argument says that there are particular structures and processes that could not have evoloved in a Darwinian fashion, such as the human eye (or any eye, for that matter), DNA replication, etc. Darwin argued that evolution goes from simple to complex, that biology works from the simple to the complex. This isn't true; for an action as simple as moving your finger there is a ridiculous amount of complexity involved in your cells. It's hard to really make a good point without going into all sorts of fun biological detail (the life of a bio major, sigh) but for people who are interested in learning about a possible flaw of evolution I'd recommend the book.

I'd post a link to a review or some blurb about the book, but strangely google turns up links to 'refutations' of behe's idea of intelligent design. It's funny, because in the introduction Behe takes great pains to say that he not an ID scientist, yet, almost all arguments against this book ignore the basic arguments of this book and instead label him as an ID scientist and attack that. Oh so funny.

actually, here's a good link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /behe.html

[Arcane WIzard]

I think I should point out the obvious here; this entire discussion is about faith. In order to be a Christian you have to believe that the Bible is God's word, Jesus died on the cross for your sins, etc., without having seen proof of said events. Jesus says (in a paraphrase) blessed is he who believes in me but does not see proof. Science is also all about faith; it's the faith of the atheist, agnostic, Darwinist. You see the world in the light of the evolutionary theory and when you look at the world you interpret everything in that light.

Science relies on observational evidence to prove itself as right. Christianity doesn't. It doesn't need to. The entire point of being a Christian is that you believe without seeing, that you trust God in spite of doubt, in spite of people all around you that contradict you and try to prove you otherwise. That doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't try to defend themselves or should ignore history and science, it just means that you aren't going to convince a Christian to stop believing based on history and science. Or you shouldn't be able to.

I see a contradiction, first you say science is all about faith too, then you say Christianity differs from science in that science requires proof.

And faith is "A belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." This excludes science.

There's an argument against Darwinian evolution that I haven't read in here so far that I find interesting and convincing. Michael Behe wrote a book entitled Darwin's Black Box that argues against Darwinian macroevolution (it's useless to argue about species-level evolution when it is observationally proven all the time) based on biology at the level of the cell. Basically, the argument says that there are particular structures and processes that could not have evoloved in a Darwinian fashion, such as the human eye (or any eye, for that matter), DNA replication, etc. Darwin argued that evolution goes from simple to complex, that biology works from the simple to the complex. This isn't true; for an action as simple as moving your finger there is a ridiculous amount of complexity involved in your cells. It's hard to really make a good point without going into all sorts of fun biological detail (the life of a bio major, sigh) but for people who are interested in learning about a possible flaw of evolution I'd recommend the book.

I'd post a link to a review or some blurb about the book, but strangely google turns up links to 'refutations' of behe's idea of intelligent design. It's funny, because in the introduction Behe takes great pains to say that he not an ID scientist, yet, almost all arguments against this book ignore the basic arguments of this book and instead label him as an ID scientist and attack that. Oh so funny.

actually, here's a good link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /behe.html

I've read his book a couple of years ago and I think he's confused about how evolution changes things through time, not instantaneously producing the present. Where Darwin saw numerous small steps each possibly introducing new elements or new uses for old elements into a working system, Behe sees the explicit intention to come to a certain system with no possible steps in between.

I think you can savely say his argument is moot because he does in fact confuse evolution with creation.

[Ajaxhunter]

from dictionary.com: (first definition, not second...)

Faith = Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Forgive me, I didn't clarify my meaning there. Faith can mean more than one thing; I'm using it in its most broad sense. You put faith in science, meaning you consider science trustworthy and powerful as an explanatory tool. You can do the same for Christianity. Science is a faith because you put trust in it, Christianity is a faith because you put trust in it. They can differ on their source of authority (God or observable evidence).

Behe's point in the book is not that small changes don't occur, it's that it comes to a point in evolution where it isn't small changes anymore that are required to take an evolutionary step, but big ones, big enough to be considered not viable. Again, it's hard to say without getting hugely technical, as you doubtless know from having read the book.