Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[BilliardsBall]

Then I find your opinion on the subject terrifying.

If you are unaware that raping or murdering another human being is a wrong action, without some deity telling you that you shouldn't do it, I have to wonder what is wrong with you. Where is your moral compass and why do you need orders from above in order to recognize that murder and rape are wrong actions? Gee, how would anybody ever know that molesting children is wrong or keeping human beings as slaves is wrong, given that the Bible doesn't bother to say so? You really think that's a difficult concept to figure out?

Christopher Hitchens said it like this:

"The test I apply in my book, a fairly good, pragmatic, American test, is what do you do when no one's looking? The fact is someone is looking. You have an internal conversation with yourself where you don't want to look or feel bad. I don't think this comes from God. I think it comes as part of our evolution. Darwin points out, and others have noticed since, that there are animals who behave ethically to one another. They have solidarity; they have family groups; they seem able to feel sympathy; they certainly come to each other's aid, in the case of some of the higher mammals. I think our morality evolved, and I don't believe that my Jewish ancestors thought that perjury and murder and theft were okay until they got to Mount Sinai and were told no dice."
Hitchens Debates Transcripts: Hitchens vs. Roberts, Hugh Hewitt Show

You are making subjective, presentist statements, that neither reflect the "savages" we study in anthropology, nor Darwinism or Social Darwinism. And Hitchens or no, the Jews were leaders in telling the rest of the world how to be moral. The difference between what Jesus taught and what the Romans then lived is VAST.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You've already tried this on me before. You have to jump through hoops and carry out a number of mental gymnastics to come up with the date. In our last conversation on the matter you asserted that the Bible states the exact date, which of course, it doesn't.

It's a self-fulfilled prophecy because people worked hard, over long periods of time to make it happen. If they had done it in 1927 or 1962, instead of 1948, you'd most likely still be touting this as a fulfilled Biblical prophecy. If I say I'm going to order a sandwich for lunch, then order a sandwich for lunch, and then the waiter brings me a sandwich for lunch, is that a fulfilled prophecy, or a self-fulfilled one?

I don't know where you come up with your "anti-Semitic inference."

Yes, people wanted Israel to be Jewish for a long time, and thousands worked on it before the date was revealed, in hindsight.

The anti-Semitism comes up when someone says, "Jews in the land in 1948 is self-fulfilled," as if we wanted to be in diaspora and persecution for 2,000 years to self-fulfill the prophecy! There are also prophecies of being persecuted in diaspora. Are THOSE self-fulfilled? To say so is very anti-Semitic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please try to concentrate. The punishment for jaywalking should not be the same as the punishment for child rape. That is where Christianity fails.

You are avoiding the biblical concept that only perfect people can inherit a perfect kingdom. Hell is neither for jaywalking nor paedophilia. It is for people who refuse to be transformed to be ABLE to live in a utopia. A jaywalker or a rapist can travel between nations if they choose to file for a passport.

 

[BilliardsBall]

He doesn't understand the problem with his first sentence here...



Strange how they were able to predict the accurate date AFTER the event took place, don't you think?

It's because atheists after the event felt that the prophecies weren't fulfilled, and then researchers made the link. Read this if interested: Prophecy Fulfilled: Israel Becomes A Nation In 1948

 

[BilliardsBall]

You miss the point. Isn't hell for ETERNITY?
Prison usually (except in exceptional cases) has parole and release, even then punishment ends when you die.
Humans are more compassionate than your god.

One point of "should we unlock prisons" is that you're okay with jailing paedophiles, but not okay from barring them from eternal bliss in Heaven. That's not a consistent stance.

Heaven is for morally perfect people only, otherwise, it's not utopia.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No one “know” god, just as no one really have “relationship” with god.

All they “know” is they believe they think they “know” God.

And all they know is what it say in the bible say, and what the church say. And all that are hearsay.

Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, if these people exist, may have “relationship” with god, therefore they may “know”, but everyone one else, today, only what the bible say, which are most likely not even true stories, because we don’t know if these people exist.

That’s called “faith” in their beliefs, that’s not really “relationship”, so people actually don’t know God.

It is self-evident to me I exist. It is self-evident to me God exists. I don't know how you can say you can judge what I think and feel internally, from afar.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Obviously not! I never mentioned "trust" or "correct". I said that one document enslaves personal freedoms, and the other protects personal freedoms. I said that one document can be challenged, and the other can't. Also, simply rephrasing what I said doesn't help either. There are only two places in the Constitution where religion is referenced(only as a formality). The only place where Religion is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is where it prohibits the imposition of any religious tests for public offices(Art.VI, Sect. 3). Regarding the influence of the Bible and the Government, I agree. The Bible and Government - Faith Facts . But, I think we're drifting away from the central theme of this strand. Don

The Bible can be challenged but the Constitution cannot? Are you sure?

You said "don't trust an old document". You said "the Bible enslaves personal freedoms and the Constitution protects personal freedoms," yet the rights of the Declaration start with "created . . . God . . . inalienable . . . "

Do you feel the writers of the Constitution were trying to undo the Bible? You did know signers of the Declaration led Bible societies, printed and distributed Bibles, were church elders and pastors, and shouted "No king but Jesus!" in battle, right?

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's because atheists after the event felt that the prophecies weren't fulfilled, and then researchers made the link. Read this if interested: Prophecy Fulfilled: Israel Becomes A Nation In 1948

Find me a more credible source and I'll be open to the possibility.

 

[Audie]

Obviously not! I never mentioned "trust" or "correct". I said that one document enslaves personal freedoms, and the other protects personal freedoms. I said that one document can be challenged, and the other can't. Also, simply rephrasing what I said doesn't help either. There are only two places in the Constitution where religion is referenced(only as a formality). The only place where Religion is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is where it prohibits the imposition of any religious tests for public offices(Art.VI, Sect. 3). Regarding the influence of the Bible and the Government, I agree. The Bible and Government - Faith Facts . But, I think we're drifting away from the central theme of this strand. Don

One point of "should we unlock prisons" is that you're okay with jailing paedophiles, but not okay from barring them from eternal bliss in Heaven. That's not a consistent stance.

Heaven is for morally perfect people only, otherwise, it's not utopia.

Interesting. Are you morally perfect?

 

[ChristineM]

In my opinion/understanding, atheists break at least 8 of 10 commandments in the decalogue. So saying they are moral or immoral is a subjective perspective, but saying atheists are far more moral than Christians isn't a biblical perspective.

Nor have I met atheists who love their enemies. Nor have I met atheists who lay down their lives for others. Nor have I met atheists who give financially to the church/charity when it hurts, etc.

The commandment's in themselves are irrelevant to an atheist, however human morality takes care of everything other than bowing to a bronze age myth. Like no killing, no stealing, no raping (oops, the bible is fine with raping), no keeping slaves (ah right another right mess the bible got you into), lying (ive rarely met a christisan who a not ok with lying), treating people with the respect they deserve (another Christian failing)

And another wowsie, of course atheist morality is not biblical. Do you really think the Bible is relevant to an atheist?

You got me there, i loath the ira (christian) who chopped off my aunt's arm in front of my eyes and left me partially blind and in constant pain.
I loath the christians who beat me to the ground then tried (and thankfully failed) to push my twins pushchair in front of a moving bus.
Other than that i have no real enemies to speak of. Tell me, honstly, if someone mutilated a relative of yours or tried to kill your children would you forgive them?

Ahh the old atheist in foxholes lie, how very Christian of you. Most certainly, percentage wise an atheist is just as likely to give up their life to save another as anyone else. And you say you know many atheists, are you breaking none of your commandments here? Now be honest.

And charity? Are you sure you want to go there? Because there are numerous reports that prove you wrong.

Muslims and Christians less generous than atheists, study finds
Atheists are the most generous—even without heavenly reward!
Atheist Charities Are More Generous than Religious Charities - Thaumaturgical

And from my own experience, i can pretty much guarantee that i have donated more to charity since i started earning a wage than you could earn in a lifetime.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are avoiding the biblical concept that only perfect people can inherit a perfect kingdom. Hell is neither for jaywalking nor paedophilia. It is for people who refuse to be transformed to be ABLE to live in a utopia. A jaywalker or a rapist can travel between nations if they choose to file for a passport.

There is nothing to avoid there. That is a bogus concept. You cannot complain about justice, as so many Christians do when comparing their beliefs to those that reject their myth. You merely do not wish to admit that you worship an evil god.

Remember that in your myth it is your god's fault that man is imperfect. He screwed up and he blames his creation. that once again makes your god immoral.

 

[Altfish]

One point of "should we unlock prisons" is that you're okay with jailing paedophiles, but not okay from barring them from eternal bliss in Heaven. That's not a consistent stance.

Heaven is for morally perfect people only, otherwise, it's not utopia.

I don't think I said that.
It was the comparison between a caring non-believer and a serial murderer or paedophile and their chances of getting into heaven. There was more chance of a repentant paedophile who had found god than a caring person.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In my opinion/understanding, atheists break at least 8 of 10 commandments in the decalogue. So saying they are moral or immoral is a subjective perspective, but saying atheists are far more moral than Christians isn't a biblical perspective.

Nor have I met atheists who love their enemies. Nor have I met atheists who lay down their lives for others. Nor have I met atheists who give financially to the church/charity when it hurts, etc.

Sounds like you need to get out more.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, this was after a lot of F&%*%$@, first. Losers.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are making subjective, presentist statements, that neither reflect the "savages" we study in anthropology, nor Darwinism or Social Darwinism. And Hitchens or no, the Jews were leaders in telling the rest of the world how to be moral. The difference between what Jesus taught and what the Romans then lived is VAST.

Savages? Darwinism? What on earth are you talking about? Who said anything about social Darwinism? It would be nice if you would actually address what was said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, people wanted Israel to be Jewish for a long time, and thousands worked on it before the date was revealed, in hindsight.

The anti-Semitism comes up when someone says, "Jews in the land in 1948 is self-fulfilled," as if we wanted to be in diaspora and persecution for 2,000 years to self-fulfill the prophecy! There are also prophecies of being persecuted in diaspora. Are THOSE self-fulfilled? To say so is very anti-Semitic.

Hindsight makes it easier to work backwards to make things fit the story rather than actually predicting the date beforehand, as you originally had claimed about the Bible but which turned out to be false.

What's anti-Semitic about pointing out that people wanted something to happen, and so worked to make it happen? Just a sad attempt at name calling and deflection. I never once suggested that Jews wanted or deserved to suffer. Gimme a break.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible can be challenged but the Constitution cannot? Are you sure?

You said "don't trust an old document". You said "the Bible enslaves personal freedoms and the Constitution protects personal freedoms," yet the rights of the Declaration start with "created . . . God . . . inalienable . . . "

Do you feel the writers of the Constitution were trying to undo the Bible? You did know signers of the Declaration led Bible societies, printed and distributed Bibles, were church elders and pastors, and shouted "No king but Jesus!" in battle, right?

You do know that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not the same documents, right?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The Bible can be challenged but the Constitution cannot? Are you sure?

You said "don't trust an old document". You said "the Bible enslaves personal freedoms and the Constitution protects personal freedoms," yet the rights of the Declaration start with "created . . . God . . . inalienable . . . "

Do you feel the writers of the Constitution were trying to undo the Bible? You did know signers of the Declaration led Bible societies, printed and distributed Bibles, were church elders and pastors, and shouted "No king but Jesus!" in battle, right?

If you wish to believe this about the constitution, I don't care. You are wrong, and a victim of selective cherry-picking and self-serving and special interpretation. I could use up a lot of space deputing your claims with facts. But this has nothing to do with the points I raised about religions beliefs, myths, superstitions, and fairy tales. And, how do you challenge the laws made by a supernatural all powerful entity? How? Don

 

[BilliardsBall]

Interesting. Are you morally perfect?

No! I'd destroy Heaven if I went there today, because I err.

But, having trusted in Christ, I will be transformed when He comes to separate persons to Heaven and Hell, so that I can be fit to live in a utopia.

Your very question begs the question, "You asked if I'm morally perfect because you knew I'm not. Therefore, you must believe all persons are morally imperfect, and it would be logical to infer we need moral redemption, therefore, yes?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Find me a more credible source and I'll be open to the possibility.

I don't understand:

1. The Bible gives prophetic dates
2. We confirm the first date of 537 BCE via archaeology and history (secular)
3. We confirm Israel's date of 1948 CE by looking at textbooks or newspapers/microfiche

We have thus used two secular sources to affirm the truth of Bible prophecy.