The fallacy of Jesus dying for our sins (By Shabir Ally)

[Sleeppy]

Please go ahead, make my day, show me where they are right.

This most likely won't make your day, until several days or years after your denial period.. Did you know earthquakes actually produced our mountain ranges? Quran 16:15.. Maybe you have another translation, and you did know this?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So which genetic mutation allow someone a human soul? Surely you would agree that a rodent doesn't have a human soul, so what genetic difference grants someone a human soul? How do you know this soul even exists, do you have some proof?

Which genetic differences make Homo sapiens different from other hominids?

I'm not getting into some pointless argument over "proof" for the existence of God or souls. Your belief or disbelief is your business.

So then you agree partial free will exists?

No. There's no inbetween with free will, as I understand it. Either you have the ability to make decisions or not.

 

[serp777]

This most likely won't make your day, until several days or years after your denial period.. Did you know earthquakes actually produced our mountain ranges? Quran 16:15.. Maybe you have another translation, and you did know this?

Oh come on. You're throwing him an easy one. How about Mohammad flying to heaven on a winged horse? Considering winged horses don't exist, check mate?

 

[Sleeppy]

Oh come on. You're throwing him an easy one. How about Mohammad flying to heaven on a winged horse? Considering winged horses don't exist, check mate?

He probably believes a winged horse was created especially for the last true prophet of God.. I don't think I'd be able to take that away from him just yet.

 

[nash8]

"Generalizing an opinion about another person concerning multiple fields of science"

it's called the scientific method :thud:

Generalizing someone else's opinion concerning a wide array of scientific inquiry, based upon one's assumption concerning another's opinion of a specific scientific inquiry = "the scientific method".

I can already tell your gonna last a while around here. :no:

Opinions are irrelevant when science with thousands of different pieces of peer reviewed evidence, from numerous fields, exist.

All of those pieces of "science" and peer reviewed "evidence" are nothing more than opinions, so you contradicted yourself. Contrary to popular belief, a "theory" is not a fact. Go look it up and learn something. :yes:

One does not simply "disagree" with evolution without any rationale or justification; it would be just like disagreeing with medicine or physics.

People "disagree" with evolution all the time, especially with regard to exactly how it works, and especially amongst scholars of the "theory" of evolution. Same goes for medicine and physics. Hence why have doctors that do different types of treatment for the same condition... or why we have some physicists who support quantum loop gravity and some who support string theory.

"Science" is not as black and white and/or "factual" as you seem to think. Add to it the rampant intellectual dishonesty that goes on in many research facilities due to competition for scarce resources, and "science" is not nearly as infallible as you seem to think.

In fact, a significant amount of medicine is based on evolution, which makes it particularly relevant.

Can you cite some evidence that supports this theory of yours???

The scientific method is what generated all of those fields, so it is not irrelevant. If you disagree with evolution, then why do you agree with any other section of science? It's a foolish double standard.

For one you can't "test" evolution which is one of the biggest parameters in the scientific method. So it is entirely different from say, medicine, because an hypothesis can be form, a treatment created and tested, and results interpreted. So there's one difference.

Secondly, you can perform the same "scientific method" concerning a subject and/or test, and have provide two totally different groups of evidence that support two totally different theories. Same method, same steps, and different outcome. This can happen for a myriad of different reasons including, but not limited to: bias, intellectual dishonesty, faulty study design, different perspective in the interpretation of evidence, and the list goes on and on.

Moral of the story is: Just because someone does not agree with one aspect of "science" does not necessarily imply that said person disagrees with all aspects of "science". I, for example, still adhere to the holographic universe theory although it is no longer the "prominent theory" of universal composition due to some experiments that did not go according to the theoretical framework proposed by the proponents of the holographic universe theory (most prominent of those is probably Stephen Hawking). I, however, am still of the opinion that the experiment was flawed, and possibly the theoretical equations, or possibly both, rather than the theory itself.

Because I adhere to a theory that is no longer generally accepted by the scientific community, does it mean that I reject "SCIENCE"?

"Do you blame the child or the parent for committing the action."
You are not being consistent with the analogy. It would be like a parent putting a child in a room with unshielded electrical outlets, sharp knives, toxic candies, and firearms. Well what on earth do you think is going to happen?

And I am the one not being consistent with the analogy lol.

It would seem if the universe was as you described it, that the child that is us would not have lasted this long. So the parent must have been doing something right, eh?

"Have you ever let your kid do something dumb, knowing what the outcome would be, just because you know that's the only way he/she would learn."

That's a terrible way of teaching. Preventative learning > learning the hard way.

I am an educator, and preventative learning doesn't always work lol. I tell my kids on a regular basis what's going to happen if they do this or that. More often than not do they do it anyway... of course. How many things did your parents tell you not to do in your lifetime and you did them anyway? Are they suppose to physically impede you from committing mistakes? Is that the best way to "learn"? To shield your student from everything so that there is little to be experienced?

Surely God is able to think of a better way.

If God were to tell you, would you have the ability to hear what he/she had to say?

"According to anthropological evidence we all came from a small area in Ethiopia so there couldn't have been a very large population of the first humans anyway"

It certainly wasn't two humans though, it was probably a group of several thousand in order to keep the gene pool diverse enough. Humans didn't just pop into existence: it was a gradual transition with no defining moment of transformation, Furthermore humans interbred with neanderthals and probably other primate species along the way, making things more complicated. Adam and eve is incredibly naive and false.

At some point in time there had to be exactly two humans, and only two humans that had the exact qualities to be classified in modern classification systems as "homo sapiens". While I agree with you that it is not likely that these were the only two "humans", there were nonetheless exactly two "humans" that were the first and only two humans that existed on planet earth at the specific point in time. Did the rest of humanity spring from just those two, probably not, but they're were only 2 humans on earth nonetheless.

Anthropomorphism is one of the few ways we have of relating to God. It's far easier to say, "I want to do God's will for me," than it is to say, "I want my energies to align with those of the universe that will create harmonious outcomes."

And for me, this presents a problem, and is one of the major deficits I see within organized religion in general. The first statement imposes a host of anthropomorphic qualities and human ideals on God based upon an individual's specific belief system and conception of deity which, in effect, changes "the will of God" according to our own, as well as our cultures, "will". So in affect you are creating "God's will" according to your own cultural beliefs and ideals, through the anthropomorphic means that you spoke of earlier.

The second statement carries no such, or at the least more minimal, imposition of culture and personal beliefs on the universal energies many conceptualize as God, thus allowing "God" to affect your life, rather than you affecting your own life through an anthropomorphic conceptualization of God and his "will" for you.

On some level, God must be immanent and personal, and it's just easier to accomplish that with anthropomorphic language.

I agree, but I also believe that when we anthropomorphize God to the point where he/she is nothing, but a reflection of our own personal values, and cultural identifications, what we call "God" ceases to be the flow of universal energies which, in reality, is God, and simply becomes a reflection of a narrow band of energies, that we choose to identify with and reflect.

In other words, God, in my opinion, is ALL energies in the universe, not just the ones we connect with through cultural entrainment. Can something be God if it is not omnipresent?

 

[serp777]

Generalizing someone else's opinion concerning a wide array of scientific inquiry, based upon one's assumption concerning another's opinion of a specific scientific inquiry = "the scientific method".

I can already tell your gonna last a while around here. :no:



All of those pieces of "science" and peer reviewed "evidence" are nothing more than opinions, so you contradicted yourself. Contrary to popular belief, a "theory" is not a fact. Go look it up and learn something. :yes:



People "disagree" with evolution all the time, especially with regard to exactly how it works, and especially amongst scholars of the "theory" of evolution. Same goes for medicine and physics. Hence why have doctors that do different types of treatment for the same condition... or why we have some physicists who support quantum loop gravity and some who support string theory.

"Science" is not as black and white and/or "factual" as you seem to think. Add to it the rampant intellectual dishonesty that goes on in many research facilities due to competition for scarce resources, and "science" is not nearly as infallible as you seem to think.



Can you cite some evidence that supports this theory of yours???



Because I adhere to a theory that is no longer generally accepted by the scientific community, does it mean that I reject "SCIENCE"?



And I am the one not being consistent with the analogy lol.

It would seem if the universe was as you described it, that the child that is us would not have lasted this long. So the parent must have been doing something right, eh?



I am an educator, and preventative learning doesn't always work lol. I tell my kids on a regular basis what's going to happen if they do this or that. More often than not do they do it anyway... of course. How many things did your parents tell you not to do in your lifetime and you did them anyway? Are they suppose to physically impede you from committing mistakes? Is that the best way to "learn"? To shield your student from everything so that there is little to be experienced?



If God were to tell you, would you have the ability to hear what he/she had to say?



At some point in time there had to be exactly two humans, and only two humans that had the exact qualities to be classified in modern classification systems as "homo sapiens". While I agree with you that it is not likely that these were the only two "humans", there were nonetheless exactly two "humans" that were the first and only two humans that existed on planet earth at the specific point in time. Did the rest of humanity spring from just those two, probably not, but they're were only 2 humans on earth nonetheless.



And for me, this presents a problem, and is one of the major deficits I see within organized religion in general. The first statement imposes a host of anthropomorphic qualities and human ideals on God based upon an individual's specific belief system and conception of deity which, in effect, changes "the will of God" according to our own, as well as our cultures, "will". So in affect you are creating "God's will" according to your own cultural beliefs and ideals, through the anthropomorphic means that you spoke of earlier.

The second statement carries no such, or at the least more minimal, imposition of culture and personal beliefs on the universal energies many conceptualize as God, thus allowing "God" to affect your life, rather than you affecting your own life through an anthropomorphic conceptualization of God and his "will" for you.



I agree, but I also believe that when we anthropomorphize God to the point where he/she is nothing, but a reflection of our own personal values, and cultural identifications, what we call "God" ceases to be the flow of universal energies which, in reality, is God, and simply becomes a reflection of a narrow band of energies, that we choose to identify with and reflect.

In other words, God, in my opinion, is ALL energies in the universe, not just the ones we connect with through cultural entrainment. Can something be God if it is not omnipresent?

"I can already tell your gonna last a while around here. :no:"
A red herring. Pointless.

"All of those pieces of "science" and peer reviewed "evidence" are nothing more than opinions, so you contradicted yourself. Contrary to popular belief, a "theory" is not a fact. Go look it up and learn something. :yes:"

So the fact that computers work is an opinion? The fact that medicine saves lives is an opinion too? And the theory of relativity must be an opinion as well. And obviously all opinions are of equal value and credibility :biglaugh:. Everything in science is a theory anyways; if you understood the scientific method you wouldn't have made such a statement. Science doesn't make claims of absolute certainty.

"At some point in time there had to be exactly two humans, and only two humans that had the exact qualities to be classified in modern classification systems as "homo sapiens"."

This is something that people who don't understand evolution argue. It's preposterous because where do you draw the line between what mutations would classify something as human vs non human? So tell me then, what mutations make a person human? Evolution is a gradual process over thousands of years with incremental changes. It would be like asking at what instant someone becomes an adult from a teenager.

"Moral of the story is: Just because someone does not agree with one aspect of "science" does not necessarily imply that said person disagrees with all aspects of "science"."

That's correct, but a strawman since that was not what I was arguing. I was arguing that disagreeing evolution would be like disagreeing with computer science, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine. These fields have so much supporting evidence that arguing against them is not sensible unless you present some very bullet proof evidence and a counter theory.

"I, for example, still adhere to the holographic universe theory although it is no longer the "prominent theory" of universal composition due to some experiments that did not go according to the theoretical framework proposed by the proponents of the holographic universe theory (most prominent of those is probably Stephen Hawking)."

This is a bad example because it relies on an accurate theory of quantum gravity that does not exist. It also relies on a good knowledge of black holes, of which we have limited evidence. The evidence for a holographic universe is far more scant than the plethora of genetic, fossil, and computer simulation evidence that supports evolution.

"Can you cite some evidence that supports this theory of yours???"
Easy--anti biotic resistant bacteria. It shows you how evolution has a critical effect on medicine, particularly anti biotics. Evolutionary theory predicted that substantial use of anti biotics unnecessarily would lead to resistance. Also look up drug resistant tuberculosis. I will cite if need be, but you can surely do a google search if you don't believe me. This is relatively common knowledge. Pbs frontline did a documentary on it, which was actually quite good.

"And I am the one not being consistent with the analogy lol."
It would seem if the universe was as you described it, that the child that is us would not have lasted this long. So the parent must have been doing something right, eh?"
:bonk: You forgot what the analogy was about. The point of the analogy wasn't about surviving and dangers, it was about being in a world where it is extremely easy to sin, where God knew we would sin, and yet is still discontent when we sin. I argued that was God's fault. It's similar to a parent leaving a bunch of dangerous objects in a room with a kid, because like God, the parent knows the kid will most likely hurt themselves (on the other side of the analogy it means God knows humans will most likely sin). God gives us the ability and makes it very likely that we will sin, like how the parent gives the ability and makes it very likely that the child will hurt themselves.

"If God were to tell you, would you have the ability to hear what he/she had to say?"
Obviously--God could re arrange the stars to spell out a message in English. That would do it.

"I am an educator, and preventative learning doesn't always work lol. "
Sure, but that doesn't mean you should just let a kid hurt themselves so they learn a hard lesson. I'll agree that parenting styles are just an opinion though, since there isn't evidence i'm aware of that would support one parenting style over another.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I wouldn't call it fallacy head on, as I think that would be rude to Christians, I'd just say that I don't believe in it and I'm not convinced with it. Just my belief.

 

[Britedream]

This most likely won't make your day, until several days or years after your denial period.. Did you know earthquakes actually produced our mountain ranges? Quran 16:15.. Maybe you have another translation, and you did know this?

please list the verse in the Quran, and tell me where is the error in it. do not dance our the translation.

 

[Sleeppy]

please list the verse in the Quran, and tell me where is the error in it. do not dance our the translation.

Quran 16:15.. If you know Arabic, you provide the correct English translation. I do not know Arabic, and as you explained earlier, I would need to for an accurate translation.

 

[Britedream]

He probably believes a winged horse was created especially for the last true prophet of God.. I don't think I'd be able to take that away from him just yet.

is that so, show where is in the Quran it says that, either you show me where,Or you adimt you are lying to try to prove your point.

 

[Britedream]

Quran 16:15.. If you know Arabic, you provide the correct English translation. I do not know Arabic, and as you explained earlier, I would need to for an accurate translation.

the chapters and verses are numbered in the Quran, you provided the chapter and the verse number, I can't see why can't copy and paste the original verse.

 

[Sleeppy]

You are totally wrong, the translation is false,

you have to know arabic to understand, you know that

the chapters and verses are numbered in the Quran, you provided the chapter and the verse number, I can't see why can't copy and paste the original verse.

This is what you've said to me. So for this reason, It does not make sense for me to present another faulty translation. I do not know Arabic; you do. You present your translation of the chapter and verse. If you will not, do not respond at all.

 

[Britedream]

This is what you've said to me. So for this reason, It does not make sense for me to present another faulty translation. I do not know Arabic; you do. You present your translation of the chapter and verse. If you will not, do not respond at all.

you keep saying I do not know arabic, yet you claim that the arabic verse has error, if you do not know arabic, then how can you put forth such claim. the translation is not the Quran, and it is not inspired by God.

your claim is not about error in the translation to make what you have said valid, your claim is about the arabic text in the Quran, I do not see any error in that verse, so you have to bring up the verse here, and show us where the error is.

 

[Sleeppy]

you keep saying I do not know arabic, yet you claim that the arabic verse has error, if you do not know arabic, then how can you put forth such claim. the translation is not the Quran, and it is not inspired by God.

your claim is not about error in the translation to make what you have said valid, your claim is about the arabic text in the Quran, I do not see any error in that verse, so you have to bring up the verse here, and show us where the error is.

I do not know Arabic. I'm repeating what you've said.. You're telling me you DO know Arabic, which I agree with. I'm asking you to give me a good translation of Quran 16:15. I do not know Arabic, and so I cannot know what translations are accurate.

 

[Britedream]

I do not know Arabic. I'm repeating what you've said.. You're telling me you DO know Arabic, which I agree with. I'm asking you to give me a good translation of Quran 16:15. I do not know Arabic, and so I cannot know what translations are accurate.

I do not use any translation, I know arabic, so I do not need them.

you do not need a translation to tell me where the error, you already know the error, just point which word(s) has the error, and tell me what it is.

 

[Sleeppy]

I do not use any translation, I know arabic, so I do not need them.

you do not need a translation to tell me where the error, you already know the error, just point which word(s) has the error, and tell me what it is.

The error is the entire verse actually. Earthquakes formed our mountain ranges. Mountains don't prevent the Earth from shaking. If you want to read the Arabic for yourself, you can, but I don't need to.

 

[Britedream]

The error is the entire verse actually. Earthquakes formed our mountain ranges. Mountains don't prevent the Earth from shaking. If you want to read the Arabic for yourself, you can, but I don't need to.

You see now,why I asked you to put the verse up, and show me where is the error.

the verse doesn't mention or talk about earthquakes, or how the mountains are formed.

simply the verse talks about that God put provsion in earth for mountains, so the earth is to be stable.

there is a book which has been written about theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth.

 

[Sleeppy]

You see now,why I asked you to put the verse up, and show me where is the error.

the verse doesn't mention or talk about earthquakes, or how the mountains are formed.

simply the verse talks about that God put provsion in earth for mountains, so the earth is to be stable.

there is a book which has been written about theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth.

This is false.. Mountains do not make the Earth stable. Error #1.

 

[Britedream]

This is false.. Mountains do not make the Earth stable. Error #1.

prove it wrong.

 

[Britedream]

This is false.. Mountains do not make the Earth stable. Error #1.

This is also for you to read:

A logical question therefore arises: how can the mountains stabilize the earth, while their mass and dimensions are so small when compared to the earth's mass and dimensions?

It was not until the mid sixties that the answer became known. It appeared that the lithosphere runs through a tremendous network of faults that extends for tens of thousands of kilometers, wholly encompassing the earth. They vary between 65 and 150 kms in depth. Therefore, they result in rupturing the lithosphere into a number of isolated plates leveling with these faults. These plates float over a supple, half-molten, highly dense and viscid layer known as the earth's asthenosphere. This layer abounds with active thermal currents taking the form of violent vortexes of convection currents. They drive the plates away from each other, or bring them into collision with such velocities that make it impossible to live on.

The violent motion of these plates is only calmed through the consecutive formation of mountain chains till they reach their final stage. This is achieved by completely consuming the ocean platform that separates two remote continents. One continent pushes the platform under the other continent till the two collide compressing the rock aggregate between them into great mountain chains extending with their wedges, which fasten the rocks of both continents together just like a wedge fastens down a tent .

This process occurred when the Indian Continent moved towards Asia. They collided resulting in the formation of the highest and most recently formed, Himalaya Mountains.

Concerning the earth as a planet, we know that the rotational motion around its axis has changed its completely circular shape into a spheroid, slightly bulging at the equator, and slightly flat at the poles. This equatorial protrusion of the earth caused the rotational axis to change its direction in a slow motion called 'Precession'. The term refers to the slow gyration of Earth's axis around the pole of the ecliptic, caused mainly by the gravitational pull of the sun, moon, and other planets of Earth's equatorial bulge. The mountain chains with their deep roots in the lithosphere , (whose depth comes to about ten to fifteen times their height above the earth's surface) tend to subside these violent motions , lessen the powerful staggering of the earth's rotational axis and make the earth more stable and orderly in its rotation around the axis . The mountains also, attenuate the violent movement of the earth in such a way that a tire attenuates percussion during rotation.