The stumbling block for atheists.

[Speedwell]

Really? I am not familiar with what the Discovery Institute teaches in that creationist area. So how am pitching for them? Also, as an Anglican-exactly what is it that you are pitching by lending support to atheists while attempting to discredit a believer?

The Discovery Institute is the originator and primary exponent of Intelligent Design.

As an Anglican, I believe Intelligent Design to be a disgrace to Christianity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really? I am not familiar with what the Discovery Institute teaches in that creationist area. So how am pitching for them?

As was explained to you many times in the past... the ID model is an invention of the discovery institute.

You not knowing or acknowledging that, doesn't in any way change the fact that when you pitch that model, you are pitching discovery institute shennanigans.

Also, as an Anglican-exactly what is it that you are pitching by lending support to atheists while attempting to discredit a believer?

Probably the same thing that the many thousands of christian biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc are pitching: sound science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What for-so you can smugly drone that you can't see?

No. For you to show that the ID model is a science model, as you keep claiming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I politely responded that the modus operandi of selective blindness and inconsistency of policy is unscientific.

No, you were rude by imply that those that use the scientific method are inconsistent when you can't show such inconsistency. You keep claiming to have evidence when you don't even seem to understand the concept.

BTW
It is childish to constantly tag people as ignorant when they don't agree with your personal viewpoint.

And why do you do that? I only point out when a person's statements demonstrate the fact that they have no understanding of the subject that they are posting about. If a person disagrees with me and has evidence that supports his or her position I never call that person ignorant. In fact that is how one learns. You should try it sometime. Try to understand the nature of evidence. See where it actually leads instead of believing first and then trying to force observations to fit your belief. That is not an idea that is supported by evidence. Force should not be necessary.

 

[Freodin]

Another old and often used theist tactic: claim that you have the evidence / truth / ultimate proof... and when you are asked to show it, refuse and claim that the other side wouldn't accept it regardless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is a major stumbling block for atheists:

And another:

 

[KCfromNC]

Another old and often used theist tactic: claim that you have the evidence / truth / ultimate proof... and when you are asked to show it, refuse and claim that the other side wouldn't accept it regardless.

Or claim that you posted it earlier in the thread and can't be bothered to repeat it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The stumbling block for atheists

Jesus is also a stumbling block for both both the non-Christian Jews and Muslims to this days
They all need JESUS...........

Strong's Greek: 4625. σκάνδαλον (skandalon) -- a stick for bait (of a trap), generally a snare, a stumbling block, an offense

4625 skándalon –
properly, the trigger of a trap (the mechanism closing a trap down on the unsuspecting victim); (figuratively) an offense, putting a negative cause-and-effect relationship into motion.
("the means of stumbling") stresses the method (means) of entrapment, i.e. how someone is caught by their own devices (like their personal bias, carnal thinking).

["4625 (skándalon) is the native rock rising up through the earth, which trips up the traveler, hence, of Jesus the Messiah, to the Jews who refused him" (Souter); "properly, the bait-stick of a trap, a snare, stumbling-block" (Abbott-Smith); "the stick in the trap that springs and closes the trap when the animal touches it" (WP, 1, 46).

Isa 8:14
He will be as a sanctuary,
But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense
To both the houses of Israel,
As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Rom 11:9
And David says:
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
Jesus versus the rich corrupt Jewish rulers

LUKE 16:
20 "But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate,
21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table.
Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores."

The Jews were truly rich, feasting on God's spiritual blessings. Yet these very gifts caused them to stumble because they prompted them to self-righteousness.
They gloried in the gifts, without glorifying the Eternal God who gave them. Instead of being a "royal priesthood" that was a blessing to all nations, they instead loathed and despised the surrounding peoples. Certainly, as Paul wrote, "their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them" (Rom. 11:9)............

This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!


.


.

 

[Loudmouth]

All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.

Examples?

 

[Loudmouth]

I politely responded that the modus operandi of selective blindness and inconsistency of policy is unscientific.

Examples?

 

[Loudmouth]

The stumbling block for atheists

Jesus is also a stumbling block for both both the non-Christian Jews and Muslims to this days
They all need JESUS...........

Strong's Greek: 4625. σκάνδαλον (skandalon) -- a stick for bait (of a trap), generally a snare, a stumbling block, an offense

4625 skándalon –
properly, the trigger of a trap (the mechanism closing a trap down on the unsuspecting victim); (figuratively) an offense, putting a negative cause-and-effect relationship into motion.
("the means of stumbling") stresses the method (means) of entrapment, i.e. how someone is caught by their own devices (like their personal bias, carnal thinking).

["4625 (skándalon) is the native rock rising up through the earth, which trips up the traveler, hence, of Jesus the Messiah, to the Jews who refused him" (Souter); "properly, the bait-stick of a trap, a snare, stumbling-block" (Abbott-Smith); "the stick in the trap that springs and closes the trap when the animal touches it" (WP, 1, 46).

Isa 8:14
He will be as a sanctuary,
But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense
To both the houses of Israel,
As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Rom 11:9
And David says:
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
Jesus versus the rich corrupt Jewish rulers

LUKE 16:
20 "But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate,
21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table.
Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores."

The Jews were truly rich, feasting on God's spiritual blessings. Yet these very gifts caused them to stumble because they prompted them to self-righteousness.
They gloried in the gifts, without glorifying the Eternal God who gave them. Instead of being a "royal priesthood" that was a blessing to all nations, they instead loathed and despised the surrounding peoples. Certainly, as Paul wrote, "their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them" (Rom. 11:9)............

This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!


.


.

The whole "lack of evidence" is the real stumbling block for atheists.

 

[Radrook]

Examples?

You examine things that display organization towards purpose and immediately tag them as designed by a mind. Then you turn around and see a far more compelling examples of it and immediately explain it away by saying that mindless chemicals did it.

 

[Radrook]

The whole "lack of evidence" is the real stumbling block for atheists.

I would say that the refusal to admit that there is indeed evidence is the cause.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would say that the refusal to admit that there is indeed evidence is the cause.

Yet another post where you fail to present evidence.

 

[Radrook]

Examples?

Just take your pick from all the examples you already rejected and those you intend to reject.

 

[Radrook]

Yet another post where you fail to present evidence.

That's like throwing up rubber ducks for target practice for a shooter prepared to shoot anything down that even remotely resembles a duck.

 

[Loudmouth]

You examine things that display organization towards purpose and immediately tag them as designed by an mind. Then you turn around and see a far more compelling examples of it and immediately explain it away by saying that mindless chemicals did it.

That's because both intelligent and natural processes can produce organization towards purpose. Why is that a problem?

 

[Loudmouth]

Just take your pick from all the examples you already rejected and those you intend to reject.

Like what?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's like throwing up rubber ducks for target practice.

Yet another post where you fail to present any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say that the refusal to admit that there is indeed evidence is the cause.

Radrook, we have been over why you have no evidence. This is a discussion on scientific concepts. That means that the proper evidence to use is scientific evidence. Without a testable hypothesis at the very least you do not have scientific evidence by definition. And please don't bring up other concepts in science that you do not understand. That is a Tu Quoque fallacy where you, to make it even worse, falsely charge others of doing what you are doing. Even if others were doing the same as you that would not have been an excuse for your refusal to support your claims with proper evidence.