Answering Atheists

[nPeace]

Just so we're clear: you're asking this question from a perspective that assumes everything is designed, right?

Wrong.

 

[nPeace]

Hate the sin, love the sinner. I believe given the same environment, we would follow the same path - there but by the grace of God go I, walk a mile in their shoes, we would have done the same thing. Teach people, do not condemn them to hell. Hell = incompetent teachers. The idea of hell, and heirarchies kills God's ability to teach, and kills Christianity in general. The all tears wiped away - ALL - and died for all mankind - ALL - get rid of hell completely, get rid of heirarchies and thinking anyone is better than anyone else, create an idea that is actually just considering everyone's vastly different environments, and actually loving and supportive - that is the only way a "loving" God concept works.

An environment that is conducive to our potential for growing in love and righteousness is certain to produce an abundance of good, I agree. That is the way our creator intends his creation to be, and it will certainly be, I am convinced.
However, we know that individual thinking does not always go in the same direction. Why that is, has to do with what we think about, doesn't it.
We have many examples, but take Judas, who was among the twelve, and who walked with Jesus.
True, there was other influences around, but barring that, was not the crux of matter what Judas thought about?
So there will be people who think differently for selfish reasons.

However, think about this...
Say there was no reason for anyone to think selfishly, would there ever be anyone thinking in the opposite direction? Not all all.
Think back to the first angel that sinned.
Based on what the Bile says , he was thinking selfishly, on his own. No one influence him. His pride and ego grew. He fed and fueled it,

What though if he knew that thinking would not lead to any benefit at all, and he could gain nothing from it? Would he continue thinking on it?
It doesn't make sense that he would.

So this is why we can be sure that a time will come when no one will think like that again.
All the angels in heaven are seeing that God's way is right, and any thinking to the contrary will not lead to good.
Humans also are seeing this, and at the end of the thousand years, only a madman would think differently... which we know is impossible, becase no one will be plagued with mental illness.
So we can picture after the thousand years have passed, when Satan is put out of existence finally, as the Bible says, all creatures will be living in an environment that allows all to follow the same path, where any child born into that environment, will only be influenced in good.
What reason would they have for thinking selfishly? I can't think of any, but if you can, feel free to share.

That's why I see the wisdom of the creator, in how he dealt with the situation, and I can see clearly, that it is wisdom.
Solomon gave us a human example in wisdom - that is, during his earlier years.
According to the Bible, God is not just powerful. He is wise.

 

[nPeace]

Grief! Where have I been, that I missed this thread?

Gee. I don't know.

It’s a good one!

Thanks.

nPeace, as you and I know, the Problem of Evil is pretty simple: all intelligent life from Angels to humans, at their inception, was / has been granted their own ability to make either good or bad choices, to obey or disobey. And Genesis tells us of a revolt against God’s rulership… there was a big issue involved (the right of sovereignty) and, although it’s taken over 6,000 years to accumulate all the evidence to get weighed and sifted, for each of us individually who’s suffered it’s only been 70 to 80 yrs. If certain ones suffered a lot, then their time has been less.

After that, it’s R.I.P. for everyone, until the promised Resurrection (John 5:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 24:15). Afterwards, peace will prevail everywhere!

So, the only suffering humans will ever experience, is in this unjust and corrupt system.

IMO

You and I understand this, but as you know, the complaints will be even louder.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ultimately, it would be God who's responsible for the desires of those "bad people who work against peace and lasting security," so if God didn't want them, it would have been within his power not to create them that way in the first place.

No. People make their own decisions. If it’s wrong, The fault is theirs. Deuteronomy 32:4-5.

We have a divine, built-in conscience.

And it’s that conscience, I.e., our ability to determine what’s just & unjust, what’s proper and improper conduct, that is the main source of the entire world’s judicial systems.

This capacity separates us from other physical life forms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. People make their own decisions. If it’s wrong, The fault is theirs. Deuteronomy 32:4-5.

Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game. One person can have a degree of responsibility for something that another person is entirely responsible for.

Take this recent event:

Philadelphia subway riders witnessed rape but did nothing, police say

... and then answer two questions:

- the other riders on that subway who witnessed the attack and did nothing... do you think their actions were morally perfect?
- was God any less aware of what was going on than the people on that train? Was he less capable of helping?

We have a divine, built-in conscience.

And it’s that conscience, I.e., our ability to determine what’s just & unjust, what’s proper and improper conduct, that is the main source of the entire world’s judicial systems.

This capacity separates us from other physical life forms.

Okay, well it's that conscience you say is divine that tells me your God is evil and unjust.

 

[joelr]

The thing is, we know that design requires a designer. That's a fact, and we see that in what the scientists do. They use intelligence, to make sure 1) they plan; 2) they provide the right instructions, which will 3) satisfy a set of specific requirements, in order to 4) accomplish an intended goal.

Thus we can infer that the design we see in nature required not just a designer, but an intelligent designer.
Like a watch with hundreds of intricate parts, all put together with the criterion for design - whether organic or not, the intricately designed object required a maker.

Outside of watches and objects humans created, the entire visible universe has created itself with natural laws. How these laws came about is not known. Are there mechanisms for natural laws to manifest out of more random forces? Could be. Or does a magic being from myths whip them up. Maybe, less likely. There is no evidence for this.

We are not always right, and that happens when we are considering circumstantial evidence, and we may not be able to prove it 100%.
The honest scientists know this well, and they can tell you that from experience.
Is their evidence objective? On what basis, and how does it differ from the evidence for God?

There is no evidence for God. The Gods in stories have evidence they are made up by people.

 

[joelr]

I have been questioning the Bible now for the past 30 years, and it has always given me answers that I cannot refute in the light of facts.
Yes it was writen by men, but contains things that men could not know without supernatural guidance... unless aliens from another world came here and told man these things.
There is so much the Bible contains that proves the truthfulness of 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and 2 Peter 1:2.
It proves to be the word of God.

Please list something in the Bible that men could not know without aliens or supernatural intervention?

 

[joelr]

Am I mistaken 1213, or is the Epic of Gilgamesh no older than the third millennium B.C.E.?
Isn't the flood reported to have happened about a millennium prior?
So if the Bible recorded the actual event after the Epic of Gilgamesh myth, how does that automatically translate to copying the myth?
You know, the reasoning of some scholars do give the impression that they are not very good scholars at all. So I think you did well in putting that in quotations.

Clearly, the flood myths of the scattered inhabitants from the Mesopotamian region, after the flood, were diverse and filled with their false religious ideas, but the followers of the true God, reported the facts.

We know why we can trust the Bible, and we have the evidence for why we can.

The original poems date around 2100 B.C. The old Babylonian version dates to the 18th century B.C.
The Genesis version was written sometimes after 1200 B.C. and is known by historians to be using older myths to construct a narrative for an emerging people. Clearly it re-worked older flood myths to fit in with the new theology being developed.
The Noah myth tells of a story that took place long ago. The idea that every time a scholars comes across an ancient flood myth that claims to take place many centuries earlier, they would assume it's actually true and "must be the source" is the opposite of science and a fundamentalist agenda that has no interest in what is actually true. There were no Israelites, Yahweh or anything else related during the Mesopotamian period. Retro-fitting history reeks of desperate attempts to change facts.

Hundreds of cultures took the Mesopotamian flood myth and made their own. As did the Israelites around 1200BC. At this time the "true God" was a warrior deity storm God paired with Ashera.



Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.
KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus.

 

[Sheldon]

God can also destroy innocent people, because he can do anything,

Well that's just yet another bare unevidenced claim. Though it appears this deity can't put a fruit tree it doesn't want touched, out of harms way, or create a planet he's happy with without flooding it all to start again, or let go of his own anger at some fruit being eaten, or forgive fallible humans without a blood sacrifice, or avoid committing mass murder, even on a global scale, or accurately explain the origins of the universe without the errant nonsense in the bible and koran's creation myths.

 

[Sheldon]

Please give me the sufficient objective evidence for identifying a transitional fossil.

Firstly you don't evidence your beliefs by challenging scientific facts, but I'll ignore the goalpost shifting and play along. All fossils are transitional, did you not know this?

Here is a complete fossil record of the evolution of the horse spanning 55 million years. It is one of the most complete available.

Overwhelming scientific evidence for species evolution <HERE> However the scientific fact of species evolution could be completely reversed tomorrow, this wouldn't evidence creationism at all, as it's not a choice between scientific facts or unevidenced superstition. That is called a false dichotomy fallacy.

We infer or perceive design from this...
the components of the object have 1) specific instructions, which are 2) intended to satisfying a set of specific requirements which are 3) intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal.
That's design.

What's your point?

Design requires a designer - the planner - One who set the plan in motion.

Again your point escapes me?

Your second is not necessary in this case, and can be ignored. However, thanks for your complete answer.

I thought you'd be keen to wave away the answer that you asked me for, nevertheless, design and created objects do not occur naturally, that is a fact. It's why Paley's watchmaker fallacy is widely disregarded as nonsensical, a watch on a beach stands out because we know watches don't randomly appear in nature and we have conclusive objective evidence they are designed, nothing need be assumed, and of course in the creationists version like Paley, everything was created even the sand, so why use the example of one thing in contrast to another, that makes no sense.

No one saw the origin. So the claim that a land-dwelling wolf-like creature evolved to a water dwelling blubber packed creature, is just as extraordinary as the claim that a supernatural being designed the first ancestors of each kind of living creature.

I agree, they are both errant nonsense, though why you've created this straw man claim masquerading one assumes as your version of evolution. and are telling an atheist it has no more merit that unevidenced superstitious creation myths is not clear?

We both agree, we do not have to see the designer at work, to infer that the object was designed.

No we don't, read what I said carefully, instead of waving it away, and then misrepresenting it like this. I'd appreciate if you didn't make up statements, and then assign them to me when I've said precisely the opposite, and in the very post you are responding to.

I hope we can also agree that an object that comes about naturally, or according to your words, "occurs naturally" can be designed.

No, and again you're making a statement that is directly at odds with my post that you are responding to, designed things do not occur in nature, as I said, so why you are reversing that now only you can know. It is your belief not mine.

Take this piece of information...
Scientists Create Simple Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally
How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch

Of course they used the material that was already available, and did not have to build that material. So a far superior intelligence, and one with a greater ability, actually designing everything - material and all, is not far-fetched, and so extraordinary as is claimed.

I think you need to look up natural or nature, man made objects are designed, they do not occur naturally, and this example proves that point, and again we know this because there is objective evidence, you even linked the evidence that men designed this using aspects that already existed albeit natural the result was designed because it did not occur naturally, dear oh dear.

The thing is, we know that design requires a designer. That's a fact, and we see that in what the scientists do. They use intelligence, to make sure 1) they plan; 2) they provide the right instructions, which will 3) satisfy a set of specific requirements, in order to 4) accomplish an intended goal.

We only know something is designed if that can be demonstrated with sufficient objective evidence. So no we don't assume design as you keep doing, then use circular reasoning fallacies to "infer" a designer. Well I don't, you obviously do. Designed items do not occur naturally.

Thus we can infer that the design we see in nature required not just a designer, but an intelligent designer.

What design in nature? This is a begging the question fallacy you keep repeating endlessly, look it up seriously. You haven't inferred anything, you have simply assumed design, without any objective evidence, then used a circular reasoning fallacy to claim a designer is needed.

The Bible puts it this way.
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. - Hebrews 3:4
It says the reason people do not accept this logic, is because they "are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. - Romans 1:18-20
It also says they wickedly make no investigation.

All you are doing is demonstrating you don't seem to understand the difference between a bare claim and objective evidence. Unevidenced claims in the bible are not evidence, that's axiomatic.

The above is objective evidence.

Don't be absurd, all you have done is make unevidenced claims and assumptions. Then endlessly repeated your unevidenced assumption that nature is designed, then added that your assumption of design needs a designer, as if this represents a profound observation of fact, when it is naught but a vapid tautology.

The honest scientists know this well, and they can tell you that from experience.

No true Scotsman fallacy, and it is axiomatic that science supports the fact of species evolution, and creation myths are unfalsifiable, thus they are unscientific by definition, did you not know about falsifiability? It is the most basic requirement of the scientific method.

"
Falsifiability was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), faithfully translated[E] into English by him and two other translators in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation.

Without falsifiability, there is no predictive power and statistical tests are not applicable, seriously compromising usefulness."

Is their evidence objective? On what basis, and how does it differ from the evidence for God?

You've offered no evidence for any deity? There is yet again zero data to examine in your unevidenced assertions and assumptions, what's more your core belief in creationism is unfalsifiable, and you don't seem to even understand the significant of something that is "not even wrong".

Species evolution is a scientific fact, as well established as the rotundity of the earth, there is no reasonable nor rational basis to deny it. It is only denied in favour of unevidenced unfalsifiable creation myths, as you have conclusively shown here again. In the mistaken belief that decrying a a scientific fact somehow opens the window for creation myths, it does not obviously. You don't seem to even understand that evidence must show data that is testable and falsifiable or it is not evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

And it’s that conscience, I.e., our ability to determine what’s just & unjust, what’s proper and improper conduct, that is the main source of the entire world’s judicial systems.

That's just hilarious, please tell me you're being ironic? Were Nazi Gemrany's courts derived from this innate ability? How about Stalin's courts?

That claims is asinine sorry. All evolved animals have necessarily evolved the ability to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, they could not survive as societies otherwise.

Human morality is necessarily complex, and evolves, but that is because it is subjective, there are no moral absolutes. This is why religions that try to impose the morals of patriarchal bronze age Bedouins on modern post industrialised democracies fail. The bible describes a barbaric and cruel deity by any modern standard, it endorsed slavery quite specifically, it encouraged and committed indiscriminate acts of mass murder and ethnic cleansing, infanticide, even tortured a newborn baby to death over 7 days, just because it was conceived in an adulterous relationship, in a petulant angry and vindictive way to punish the father king David. It endorsed sex trafficking virginal female prisoners, and on and on and on, tortured one its most committed worshippers and even killed his family in a bet with the devil, wiped out an entire planet allegedly in a global genocide.

The only up side is that there isn't a shred of objective evidence any such deity exists, if it did I would want nothing to do with it.

 

[idea]

An environment that is conducive to our potential for growing in love and righteousness is certain to produce an abundance of good, I agree. That is the way our creator intends his creation to be, and it will certainly be, I am convinced.
However, we know that individual thinking does not always go in the same direction. Why that is, has to do with what we think about, doesn't it.
We have many examples, but take Judas, who was among the twelve, and who walked with Jesus.
True, there was other influences around, but barring that, was not the crux of matter what Judas thought about?
So there will be people who think differently for selfish reasons.

However, think about this...
Say there was no reason for anyone to think selfishly, would there ever be anyone thinking in the opposite direction? Not all all.
Think back to the first angel that sinned.
Based on what the Bile says , he was thinking selfishly, on his own. No one influence him. His pride and ego grew. He fed and fueled it,

What though if he knew that thinking would not lead to any benefit at all, and he could gain nothing from it? Would he continue thinking on it?
It doesn't make sense that he would.

So this is why we can be sure that a time will come when no one will think like that again.
All the angels in heaven are seeing that God's way is right, and any thinking to the contrary will not lead to good.
Humans also are seeing this, and at the end of the thousand years, only a madman would think differently... which we know is impossible, becase no one will be plagued with mental illness.
So we can picture after the thousand years have passed, when Satan is put out of existence finally, as the Bible says, all creatures will be living in an environment that allows all to follow the same path, where any child born into that environment, will only be influenced in good.
What reason would they have for thinking selfishly? I can't think of any, but if you can, feel free to share.

That's why I see the wisdom of the creator, in how he dealt with the situation, and I can see clearly, that it is wisdom.
Solomon gave us a human example in wisdom - that is, during his earlier years.
According to the Bible, God is not just powerful. He is wise.

The lesson of Peter denying Christ, and no one staying awake to me is never trust religious leaders, not even apostles, they cannot heal, cannot walk on water, will sleep rather than help - meaning we all have to be self-reliant. Taking care of yourself isn't prideful, it is reality.

The plan required Jesus to die, Jesus comanded Judas to do what he did...

Yin/yang, a balance no high without low. Through eternity we all have the same potential so I value all equally - just see some as further along their path than others. I stand by what I said - any existence of hell negates a loving creator. I will be the last to heaven, as any loving person could not be happy unless everyone else was first happy too. I reject Christianity's "chosen little flock" idea as evil, unloving, unjust, and the root of sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other evil that comes of pride of anyone ever thinking they are better than anyone else. No one is better than anyone else, including God and Jesus- we are all just on different parts of the journey. Anyone's success or failure is also the success or failure of all those around them. We are all linked and responsible for one another - that is what love is.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Were Nazi Gemrany's courts derived from this innate ability? How about Stalin's courts?

Uh, no. These are exceptions to the rule though, wouldn’t you say? (Grief, I knew I should’ve worded it “the entire world’s accepted judicial systems.”)

I’m sure there were others, during Pol Pot’s regime or Pinochet’s.

But you just reinforced my point. You highlighted 2 exceptions that obviously weren’t fair. So, innately we know what’s just and unjust, if we’re free of corrupt motives & influences.
And accepted judicial systems are based on our divinely given, built-in conscience.

 

[nPeace]

Outside of watches and objects humans created, the entire visible universe has created itself with natural laws.

You know this? Okay. One question. How do you know this?

How these laws came about is not known. Are there mechanisms for natural laws to manifest out of more random forces? Could be. Or does a magic being from myths whip them up. Maybe, less likely. There is no evidence for this.

There is no evidence for God. The Gods in stories have evidence they are made up by people.

We disagree. However, what evidence do you have that they are made up by people?

Please list something in the Bible that men could not know without aliens or supernatural intervention?

Where have you been? That's been repeatedly done.
I don't see any wisdom in repeating, especially for joelr.

The original poems date around 2100 B.C. The old Babylonian version dates to the 18th century B.C.
The Genesis version was written sometimes after 1200 B.C. and is known by historians to be using older myths to construct a narrative for an emerging people. Clearly it re-worked older flood myths to fit in with the new theology being developed.
The Noah myth tells of a story that took place long ago. The idea that every time a scholars comes across an ancient flood myth that claims to take place many centuries earlier, they would assume it's actually true and "must be the source" is the opposite of science and a fundamentalist agenda that has no interest in what is actually true. There were no Israelites, Yahweh or anything else related during the Mesopotamian period. Retro-fitting history reeks of desperate attempts to change facts.

Hundreds of cultures took the Mesopotamian flood myth and made their own. As did the Israelites around 1200BC. At this time the "true God" was a warrior deity storm God paired with Ashera.



Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.
KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus.

May I ask what is the point of your opinion?
Some of the details of the Noah story seem mythical, so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh." These ancient narratives were already being passed down from one generation to the next, centuries before Noah appeared in the Bible.

"The earlier Mesopotamian stories are very similar where the gods are sending a flood to wipe out humans," said biblical archaeologist Eric Cline. "There's one man they choose to survive. He builds a boat and brings on animals and lands on a mountain and lives happily ever after? I would argue that it's the same story."

The same account told from different cultures, and "colored" with their own beliefs.
Facts : 1) The account happened. 2) The Biblical account differs from the mythical flavors within the others.

 

[nPeace]

Well that's just yet another bare unevidenced claim. Though it appears this deity can't put a fruit tree it doesn't want touched, out of harms way, or create a planet he's happy with without flooding it all to start again, or let go of his own anger at some fruit being eaten, or forgive fallible humans without a blood sacrifice, or avoid committing mass murder, even on a global scale, or accurately explain the origins of the universe without the errant nonsense in the bible and koran's creation myths.

The tree served an important purpose in the garden. Atheists are totally ignorant of that purpose, Hence they make statements like the above, and because they do not understand anything in the Bible, which they are bent on discrediting, they mistakenly believe their reasoning is wise.

Firstly you don't evidence your beliefs by challenging scientific facts, but I'll ignore the goalpost shifting and play along. All fossils are transitional, did you not know this?

Here is a complete fossil record of the evolution of the horse spanning 55 million years. It is one of the most complete available.

Overwhelming scientific evidence for species evolution <HERE> However the scientific fact of species evolution could be completely reversed tomorrow, this wouldn't evidence creationism at all, as it's not a choice between scientific facts or unevidenced superstition. That is called a false dichotomy fallacy.
Who's shifting the goalpost?

I think going around the world and returning without answering a simple question, is not only trying to shift the goalpost, but actually pretending not to se them.

What's your point?


Again your point escapes me?

I don't expect you to grasp it, based on your worldview.

I thought you'd be keen to wave away the answer that you asked me for, nevertheless, design and created objects do not occur naturally, that is a fact. It's why Paley's watchmaker fallacy is widely disregarded as nonsensical, a watch on a beach stands out because we know watches don't randomly appear in nature and we have conclusive objective evidence they are designed, nothing need be assumed, and of course in the creationists version like Paley, everything was created even the sand, so why use the example of one thing in contrast to another, that makes no sense.


I agree, they are both errant nonsense, though why you've created this straw man claim masquerading one assumes as your version of evolution. and are telling an atheist it has no more merit that unevidenced superstitious creation myths is not clear?


No we don't, read what I said carefully, instead of waving it away, and then misrepresenting it like this. I'd appreciate if you didn't make up statements, and then assign them to me when I've said precisely the opposite, and in the very post you are responding to.


No, and again you're making a statement that is directly at odds with my post that you are responding to, designed things do not occur in nature, as I said, so why you are reversing that now only you can know. It is your belief not mine.


I think you need to look up natural or nature, man made objects are designed, they do not occur naturally, and this example proves that point, and again we know this because there is objective evidence, you even linked the evidence that men designed this using aspects that already existed albeit natural the result was designed because it did not occur naturally, dear oh dear.


We only know something is designed if that can be demonstrated with sufficient objective evidence. So no we don't assume design as you keep doing, then use circular reasoning fallacies to "infer" a designer. Well I don't, you obviously do. Designed items do not occur naturally.


What design in nature? This is a begging the question fallacy you keep repeating endlessly, look it up seriously. You haven't inferred anything, you have simply assumed design, without any objective evidence, then used a circular reasoning fallacy to claim a designer is needed.


All you are doing is demonstrating you don't seem to understand the difference between a bare claim and objective evidence. Unevidenced claims in the bible are not evidence, that's axiomatic.


Don't be absurd, all you have done is make unevidenced claims and assumptions. Then endlessly repeated your unevidenced assumption that nature is designed, then added that your assumption of design needs a designer, as if this represents a profound observation of fact, when it is naught but a vapid tautology.


No true Scotsman fallacy, and it is axiomatic that science supports the fact of species evolution, and creation myths are unfalsifiable, thus they are unscientific by definition, did you not know about falsifiability? It is the most basic requirement of the scientific method.


You've offered no evidence for any deity? There is yet again zero data to examine in your unevidenced assertions and assumptions, what's more your core belief in creationism is unfalsifiable, and you don't seem to even understand the significant of something that is "not even wrong".

Species evolution is a scientific fact, as well established as the rotundity of the earth, there is no reasonable nor rational basis to deny it. It is only denied in favour of unevidenced unfalsifiable creation myths, as you have conclusively shown here again. In the mistaken belief that decrying a a scientific fact somehow opens the window for creation myths, it does not obviously. You don't seem to even understand that evidence must show data that is testable and falsifiable or it is not evidence.

All you have done here is stated your beliefs. nothing more.

 

[nPeace]

The lesson of Peter denying Christ, and no one staying awake to me is never trust religious leaders, not even apostles, they cannot heal, cannot walk on water, will sleep rather than help - meaning we all have to be self-reliant. Taking care of yourself isn't prideful, it is reality.

The plan required Jesus to die, Jesus comanded Judas to do what he did...

Yin/yang, a balance no high without low. Through eternity we all have the same potential so I value all equally - just see some as further along their path than others. I stand by what I said - any existence of hell negates a loving creator. I will be the last to heaven, as any loving person could not be happy unless everyone else was first happy too. I reject Christianity's "chosen little flock" idea as evil, unloving, unjust, and the root of sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other evil that comes of pride of anyone ever thinking they are better than anyone else. No one is better than anyone else, including God and Jesus- we are all just on different parts of the journey. Anyone's success or failure is also the success or failure of all those around them. We are all linked and responsible for one another - that is what love is.

Perhaps some day you will share with me and the rest of the world, the source of those ideas. How important do you think they are... important enough to share with the world?
Jesus knew that his message was very urgent, and important for the world. Matthew 24:14
Is that how you view what you believe?

 

[Sheldon]

The tree served an important purpose in the garden. Atheists are totally ignorant of that purpose, Hence they make statements like the above, and because they do not understand anything in the Bible, which they are bent on discrediting, they mistakenly believe their reasoning is wise.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

I think going around the world and returning without answering a simple question, is not only trying to shift the goalpost, but actually pretending not to se them.

What's your point?

I don't expect you to grasp it, based on your worldview.

You know absolutely nothing about my worldview beyond it lacking a superstitious belief in an unevidenced deity.

All you have done here is stated your beliefs. nothing more.

Hilarious that you would object to that even were it true, but again all you have done is make yet another bare assertion, theists seem to think these have some intrinsic value, but I'm dubious.

The real irony is that your disjointed rant did not address one single word in my post, just the usual dismissive handwaving. Tyr and set your frustration that others don't share your beliefs aside, and see if you can offer anything objective to support them, or at least honestly and rationally address their observations.

After all the bible depicts a deity that fails again and again, cursed humans for generations to come, just for eating some fruit it didn't want eaten, but as I said placed it directly in harms way. Committed a global genocide because its "plan" wasn't going to its liking. Took ghostly form, to rape a virgin, and impregnate her with a human version of itself, which is also its son? All so it could have itself / its son, tortured to death as a blood sacrifice, to appease its own anger, over some fruit it failed to properly protect and despite being omniscient couldn't see was going to be eaten. If this is a perfect design by an infallible deity that isn't reflected in the bible..

 

[idea]

Perhaps some day you will share with me and the rest of the world, the source of those ideas. How important do you think they are... important enough to share with the world?
Jesus knew that his message was very urgent, and important for the world. Matthew 24:14
Is that how you view what you believe?

As someone with family members abused by a religious leader (Mormon church), in support groups with so many others from similar circumstances, I believe my message of NOT trusting religious leaders is urgent. No relying on arms of flesh - not even apostles or prophet. No borrowed light. We all must be our own light. To me, part of the journey takes place in one community or another, but then as you grow older and learn about other amazing people with completely different beliefs, you realize it is not about one group being right vs. another group being right, or one person being the prophet vs. another being a prophet. In the end it is a personal spiritual journey with no middle-man.

"The lesson of Peter denying Christ, and no one staying awake to me is never trust religious leaders, not even apostles, they cannot heal, cannot walk on water, will sleep rather than help - meaning we all have to be self-reliant. Taking care of yourself isn't prideful, it is reality."

As a teacher who has seen too much pain, suffering, and injustice caused from those who do not view everyone equally, I also see the message of all having equal potential as being urgent.

"Through eternity we all have the same potential so I value all equally - just see some as further along their path than others. I stand by what I said - any existence of hell negates a loving creator. I will be the last to heaven, as any loving person could not be happy unless everyone else was first happy too."

There is enough pain in the world. Enough judging, pride, unjust abusive hierarchies, false leaders, racism, sexism, child abuse by religious leaders. I believe many need a message of hope, love, equality, and connection with all.

It is not prideful to think for yourself, become a leader rather than follower of other imperfect humans, to be responsible for your own well-being - to be self-reliant is where genuine self-esteem comes from. To help others you must first be in a stable position yourself. Love others as you also love yourself. Self-care goes hand in hand with other care. It is ok to care for yourself, to be self-reliant, to learn and change beliefs, to be imperfect because everyone is imperfect. It is ok to question leaders - they are just people speculating and relying on their own experiences just like you. No one has authority over anyone else, we all only have authority over ourselves, and we need to learn to take care of ourselves. It is a message everyone needs to hear.

...not abused by a stranger... abused by someone the entire congregation raised their hands and sustained... who everyone smiles, and hugs, and competes to get attention from.... rejected by congregation as a liar, and looked down on for taking said abuser to court (they are in jail for the rest of their life, with no probation - strangers saw them for who they really are).
Betrayal trauma - Wikipedia
Betrayal trauma does not happen when you do not rely on others for support.
"elevation" aka "the spirit" is not a feeling from God, does not protect, does not testify of truth, does not dictate who should be doing what job.... actual education and training is needed, NOT good feelings. Reality check is needed, NOT warm fuzzies.

A bird does not stress over a branch braking when it trusts its own wings.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

…despite being omniscient…

And this is your assumption, that Jehovah God knows what an individual will do.

Where does the Bible say that? It does say Jehovah can read our heart, but He doesn’t automatically know what course we’ll take.

if God did know the decisions a person would make, then why did He try to tell Cain to control himself? If God knew Cain was gonna kill Abel, that would’ve been a fruitless endeavor.

And after God stopped Abraham from attempting to offer up Isaac, God said, “Now I know that you fear me.”

IOW, God didn’t know before.

Have I wasted my time?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Just so we're clear: you're asking this question from a perspective that assumes everything is designed, right?

If I may answer this:
No, not really.
If that were true, ie, that everything functioned as God intended, then there’d be no plants dangerous to humans, for one thing.
For another, we wouldn’t have killer storms.
None of these existed in the Garden of Eden.. But when A&E chose to side with the Rebel, that gave validity to those challenges to God’s person and His sovereignty. So Jehovah has temporarily removed His spirit & protection from the Earth and mankind — stepping away, so to speak— to give humans a try at their own sovereignty, ruling themselves.

Although Jehovah has given us some measure of intelligence and a conscience to guide us (and during His absence He’s provided a 1500-page letter to those who do value His guidance), human rule still hasn’t worked out too well, has it?