5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[AV1611VET]

How many times did Saul of Tarsus encountered Jesus?

If you said "once", you have a contradiction, if you say "twice", you call the stories in the new testimony erroneous.

Once -- and I'm familiar with the "contradiction."

(Someone doesn't have a Scofield Reference Bible, does he?)

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It is a bit mind boggling to me how someone can reason about religion in this way, but with decisions and beliefs hold in everyday ordinary life they would normally not do the same thing. How come this split personality occurs in matters of religious beliefs?

You're assuming that he something approaching an ordinary life.

 

[bhsmte]

So when the evidence start flies in your face you opt to bluntly deny them?

It is a bit mind boggling to me how someone can reason about religion in this way, but with decisions and beliefs hold in everyday ordinary life they would normally not do the same thing. How come this split personality occurs in matters of religious beliefs?

It is not that this phenomena is unheard of before; I read about a case in where a spouse was regular cheated on and the other spouse, to all evidence, knew this was the case but still kept on denying this was the case for many many years.

To me it seams to be a matter of a protective denial from emotions that may hurt the individual to much if certain facts are accepted to true... It is my beliefs that this is what underlies many YEC's denials of evidence when exposed to them; a fear to confront that all they believe in is a just a deception or a lie... One need to be a strong person to be able to handle such things overnight... most will need lost of time, years if not decades....

All comes down to personal psychological needs. We are capable of convincing ourselves of anything, if we have a strong enough psychological need to do so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you trying to find a way to justify your god's bloodlust?

I already got what I want: an example that justifies answering this question...

So if Craig is your man then would you agree it ever can be morally justified to slaughter children?

... YES.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your answer omits anything about evidence, so is just another one of your worthless opinions.

The question doesn't need evidence to answer.

Q: Is killing children ever justified?
A: Yes, in certain conditions.

If you insist on seeing evidence, maybe I can look up a Youtube video for your sick curiosity?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I already got what I want: an example that justifies answering this question...

... YES.

Then it would appear you have answered my question

Are you trying to find a way to justify your god's bloodlust?

with a yes too.

 

[AV1611VET]

So when the evidence start flies in your face you opt to bluntly deny them?

That's right ... it's called "faith."

Something you may choose not to exercise; but you'll certainly criticize those who do, won't you?

I can "faith your facts,"* can you?**

* Ignore them as necessary.

** That's a legitimate question.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The question doesn't need evidence to answer.

Q: Is killing children ever justified?
A: Yes, in certain conditions.

If you insist on seeing evidence, maybe I can look up a Youtube video for your sick curiosity?

Goodness, do you mean that good and evil are nebulous concepts that depend on whose interest you are rooting for? Now, where have we heard of that idea before?

Still, the bloodlust of your god goes rather beyond the limits of your attempts at justification.

 

[mathetes123]

Counting from Sunday then I guess... I count Monday as the first day of the week. Anyway...

...it does not stop with Thor:

Tuesday - Tyr's Day
Wednesday - Woden's (Odins) Day
Thursday - Thor's Day
Friday - Freyja's Day

And the meaning is also preserved in German, Dutch, Afrikaans, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic (besides some exceptions in German and Icelandic; for instance Wednesday is called "midweek" in German and Icelandic) and might very well be in other Germanic languages like Faroese and Frisian etc. Finish, which is not a Germanic language, has also these references to pagan gods in the weekdays.

Monday and Sunday are celebration to the Moon and the Sun which always been very important in almost any ancient religious systems... Saturday is in English the ancient roman god Saturn but in Scandinavian languages Saturday refers to the day of the week when you was washing (I find this deviation interesting as most Germanic people, with their pagan beliefs, never accepted the Roman occupation and their culture and in particular as the Gothic people of Scandinavia was never under any ancient Roman rule ...)

Then of course we have the reference to ancient Roman gods and culture in the moth names... and not to mention a lot of pagan symbols during x-mass with North Germanic people.

Jesus was for well over a thousand years just another god, seen by some as more powerful, to sacrifice to in order to gain victory in war and other conflicts. Christianity, I would say in my limited knowledge of this, was formed, shaped and merged into an already present deep rooted ancient pagan religions in European Roma occupied countries - just in the same way Christianity got it first grip of the Romans.

The 7 day week was instituted by God. You can read about it in Genesis.

 

[bhsmte]

Goodness, do you mean that good and evil are nebulous concepts that depend on whose interest you are rooting for? Now, where have we heard of that idea before?

Still, the bloodlust of your god goes rather beyond the limits of your attempts at justification.

This is the same "blind faith" principle many people placed upon Joe Paterno after evidence proved he tried to bury the issues of Sandusky. These same people had put him on a pedestal for so long and had so much invested in him, they rationalize it away by ignoring the same.

Having faith is one thing, but blind faith is another.

 

[AV1611VET]

Goodness, do you mean that good and evil are nebulous concepts that depend on whose interest you are rooting for? Now, where have we heard of that idea before?

Still, the bloodlust of your god goes rather beyond the limits of your attempts at justification.

I take it you're willing to back away from wanting evidence and are willing to recuse to ...

Your answer omits anything about evidence, so is just another one of your worthless opinions.

... one of my 'worthless opinions'?

Be careful what you ask for.

 

[mathetes123]

Goodness, do you mean that good and evil are nebulous concepts that depend on whose interest you are rooting for? Now, where have we heard of that idea before?

Still, the bloodlust of your god goes rather beyond the limits of your attempts at justification.

Where does this moral outrage toward God come from if He does not exist. On what basis do you make any moral judgements. If there is no absolute moral law giver, there can be no absolute moral laws, and your moral outrage is reduced to nothing but subjective opinion, of no more worth than the next guy's opinion. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I take it you're willing to back away from wanting evidence and are willing to recuse to ...

... one of my 'worthless opinions'?

Be careful what you ask for.

Oh please, present whatever evidence you like, and show exactly how you are using it as a comparison with your god's actions.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Where does this moral outrage toward God come from if He does not exist. On what basis do you make any moral judgements. If there is no absolute moral law giver, there can be no absolute moral laws, and your moral outrage is reduced to nothing but subjective opinion, of no more worth than the next guy's opinion. You cannot have it both ways.

Dawkins puts it quite well in his memorable passage that gives fundamentalists the willies:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh please, present whatever evidence you like, and show exactly how you are using it as a comparison with your god's actions.

No, thanks.

I'm not so demanding of evidence that I need to see the justifiable killing of children.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No, thanks.

I'm not so demanding of evidence that I need to see the justifiable killing of children.

I thought you were accusing me of backing away from wanting evidence...

Interesting climbdown.

 

[In situ]

You're the one that called It a myth.

All physical evidence point to the contrary of the accounts in the Genesis, therefore I call it a myth because it is factually a myth. Is there a problem with such standpoint in your opinion?

Why are you hiding behind a false accusation of "semantics," when I ask you a question?

Because it is a word game you play and your response indicates that you are unaware of this yourself. All these silly things about a young Earth and denial of scientific facts is part of a word game that goes on in your head. The effect of such word games becomes a manipulation of thought patterns. Part of the game includes moving goal posts, never to stay on the same subject to long or penetrate it to deeply if it get to hot but instead raising doubts whenever it is possible. That is exactly what your are doing right now; trying to change the subject and raise doubts.

I am sorry, because I do not have a polite way to say this and the real truth will always hurt; you have been deluded to believe in complete and utter nonsense regarding to what we actually know about our physical reality and the age of the Earth. You play on the same field of thought patterns as proposer of a flat Earth... These are very harsh word to say to anyone, and like I said, I don't want to hurt your feelings or cause agony but what I say is true and the truth must be spoken because you are a seeker of the truth, aren't you?

Do you stand behind your point, or don't you?

Not sure what point you refer to, but of course I stands for what I claim; words actually have a meaning to me.... However, this does not exclude that I cannot be wrong or mistaken about things and, if I am, I will duly acknowledge such errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dawkins puts it quite well in his memorable passage that gives fundamentalists the willies:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

That gives fundamentalists the willies? hmmm

 

[mathetes123]

Dawkins puts it quite well in his memorable passage that gives fundamentalists the willies:

It does not give me the willies. Atheists have no basis for making any moral judgements. In the absence of an absolute moral law giver there can be no absolute moral laws and any moral claim is reduced to subjective opinion of no more value than the next persons opinion.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That gives fundamentalists the willies? hmmm

Given how upset they were about the comment, yes.