Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Phantasman]

Do you always miss the point as a matter of policy, or what? Dont like where it is going, if you acknowledge what I said?

What part? The Burka or hanging by your hair in fire? Ask a specific and I'll answer the same. I don't waste time beating around bushes. Just saying.........

 

[Phantasman]

should I not pray to test a theory?

Why do you ask? Like we gives a flyin' patootie what ya do?

We? lol........

Are you answering a post I directed at another for them? Maybe you are one of those with multiple accounts. One for each personality.

 

[Audie]

What part? The Burka or hanging by your hair in fire? Ask a specific and I'll answer the same. I don't waste time beating around bushes. Just saying.........

Guess it does not much matter if you are that unable to follow an idea, or are pretending. Either way, no sense me bothering further.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have it kind of backwards.

It is not rape unless it is wrong. It isnt "wrong" because it is "rape". That is self evident to any woman.

What do you mean, "self-evident"? I was responding to another skeptic, who questioned whether any moral decision, e.g. rape is "wrong", can possibly be self-evident.

If it is self-evident that rape is wrong, how can you deny when a Christian finds that Jesus Christ is self-evident to them?

 

[BilliardsBall]

My husband proves he loves me with facts. He does nice things for me, treats me with dignity and respect, rubs my feet when they hurt, tells me he loves me. Those are all facts that demonstrate his love for me. His actions provide me with proof of his love for me. If he treated me badly and told me he doesn't like me, those would all be facts demonstrating that he doesn't love me.
The same idea works for morality. If morality is about well-being, then there are facts we can collect about specific actions, in order to demonstrate whether they result in human well-being, or not.

Do you love him based on facts, feelings or both? You seem to think religionists should deal with facts only and not feelings, yet religionists speak of their love for god(s).

How would you feel if I wrote you 2 to 4 messages per day explaining that your husband doesn't love you, and your love for him is a delusion, since he does not exist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Like I said, it's easy to make the details fit when you attempt to cram them in, AFTER THE FACT. Nostradamus' "prophecies" can also be convincing, when viewed in the same light.


If I'm being bullied and I make the claim I am going to continue to be bullied, is that a prophecy? Or is it an observation and conclusion of the facts that are going on around me?


What is it that you are suggesting then, exactly?


Okay so God does "provide the details to prophecy fulfillers" then? You just said above that "He" doesn't.


Do you latch onto Nostradamus' prophecies so quickly and willingly as well? He supposedly predicted all kinds of things long before they happened. Or so say the people who perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to make his prophecies work out too. When things are stately vaguely enough without exact details, it's not all that difficult to cram them into any pre-made "prophecies" you want. It's funny how none of these supposed prophecies actually provide any dates, though you continually claim that they have predicted exact dates. They'd be a lot more convincing if they said something like "Israel will become a sovereign nation on May 14, 1948." It's all just counting back numbers from arbitrary places, which again, makes it a whole lot easier to get what you want out of the stories.

I don't recall you providing a Bible verse for this yet (if you have, I apologize).
Are you referring to Isaiah 66:8?

"Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children."

If it is, I've got to say, that's pretty weak. And talk about vague!


How vague are those prophecies, I wonder.


Oh so you didn't believe in God before you researched those "prophecies?"

You pretty much ignored my point earlier, so I'll ask this way:
Let's say all the prophecies turned out exactly as claimed, as you believe. What conclusion(s) do you draw from that, and why?

Thanks for raising these issues. Often, when preaching, I mention Nostradamus. His prophecies were vague, even so, less than 1% of his prophecies have come to pass, vaguely.

One set of prophecies you and I have been discussing goes like this:

1. The Jews will be in diaspora 2,520 years
2. They will scatter to many nations
3. They will be a blessing in each nation
4. They will be persecuted, at times awfully, in each nation
5. They will in a single day receive their land
6. Enemies will surround them as they do

There are many more points that could be added, but we have fairly specific prophecies here that touch a several-million member people group, as well as many of the Gentile nations.

There are verses besides Isaiah 66 in play, but the fact is, unlike many nations that arose over time, as borders flexed and wars raged and monarchs reigned and fought, the U.N. declared Israel to exist at 12:01 AM, May 15, 1948. Within 24 hours, six Arab nations declared war. Numerous prophecies follow, including Jewish victory against vastly superior forces.

I went back and forth with belief in God and skepticism for years, but studying prophecies led me to trust Christ and become a Christian believer, to answer your question.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And again you are misquoting me. I have never said i accept my feelings as true. Feelings are subject to manipulation by events, past and present.

Yes there are facts that theft and murder and rape and slavery are wrong, its called he law.

Show me objective evidence of JC

Stolen from much older civilisations, far older than the Bible so so dont pretend the bible invented morality

So you avoid the question. Fair enough if you are too embarrassed to answer

To answer your question, I will show you objective evidence that Jesus Christ is alive now, if you will show me:

* objective evidence that rape is wrong
* objective evidence that anything in this universe besides rape is "wrong" or "right"
* explain how you know based on FACTS, without it being FEELINGS or merely SELF-EVIDENT, that anything is "right" or "wrong"

You claim above the law proves rape is wrong, yet I'm sure you've said earlier that the Bible law regarding rape, itself is wrong, so how do you prove which laws are "right" and which are "wrong".

I think you must admit your beliefs are subjective. Of course, I'd be happy if you'd say anything is objectively true or false, since if absolute morals exist...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Still no explanation of the 1948 date. And let's look at the Amos prophecy first. To see if a prophecy has "come true" or not one must look at the entire prophecy. One key proviso to that prophecy was in Amos 9 10 and 11:

10 All the sinners among my people
will die by the sword,
all those who say,
‘Disaster will not overtake or meet us.

11 “In that day

“I will restore David’s fallen shelter
I will repair its broken walls
and restore its ruins and will rebuild it as it used to be,

Are you saying that all sinning Jews died by the sword? That all of the Jews that survived the holocaust were sinless? I would seriously doubt that claim.

You didn't like the first link I posted, but clearly ignored the second link where I explained the date.

Did you ever stop to think of how common it is for skeptics to misunderstand Bible interpretation? I see that the sinners who died by the sword had another factor in play, they were also the ones who said "Disaster will not overtake or meet us," in the (future) day when Messiah comes to restore the ruins of David's structures.

The Holocaust? And you want me to fix my dates?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You do not seem to understand that all morality is subjective. Even yours. There is nothing wrong with subjective morality as long as it is consistent. Atheist subjective morality tends to be far superior to Christian subjective morality. Both have room for improvement, but atheist morality is self correcting where Christian morality tends to resist correction.

Huh? I've said several times that all human morality is subjective. My subjective morality includes the decalogue, most of which atheists break. So there's that.

However, my point remains: Since we're talking about a subjective something, at some point, your morality will be what you feel is right and what is self-evident to you, particularly in those areas where your conscience agonizes and where no statute of law intrudes.

So how is it that an atheist can claim subjective, self-evident morality is okay, but deny that a Christian can assert that Jesus Christ is self-evident within?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What did I get wrong? Quoting the failed argument of "Prager University" does you no good. Your morals are just as subjective as mine are.

I can explain to you why rape is wrong, but first you need to substantiate your claim that your morals are objective. How would you prove that your morals are objective? I know why they are subjective.

Morals are not objective. I know why they are subjective.

However, I do not lack the moral backbone to say to you, "rape is ALWAYS wrong", which is fairly close to an objective absolute, I believe you'd agree?

My point stands--your subjective morals are at root level, "self-evident" to your way of thinking. God is self-evident to me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Prophesies are always used by truth benders when they figure them out in hind sight. No different than Nostradamus. Prophesy doesn't imply an exact (like time), but a leading up to.

End times zealots have always been with us.

If I present to you ten Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled, do you think you can prove:

1. They were figured in hindsight
2. They are substantively the same as vague prophecies of Nostradamus
3. They do not predict exact times and days

And do you misunderstand that many Bible prophecies are NOT about end times, but about times in history we can review, to see God's prescience?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't like the first link I posted, but clearly ignored the second link where I explained the date.

Did you ever stop to think of how common it is for skeptics to misunderstand Bible interpretation? I see that the sinners who died by the sword had another factor in play, they were also the ones who said "Disaster will not overtake or meet us," in the (future) day when Messiah comes to restore the ruins of David's structures.

The Holocaust? And you want me to fix my dates?

Sorry, but the Holocaust was rather indiscriminate. You have yet to support your claim. And I saw nothing in the second link that explained the date. There is a reason that the sort of claims that you have made are not taken seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Morals are not objective. I know why they are subjective.

However, I do not lack the moral backbone to say to you, "rape is ALWAYS wrong", which is fairly close to an objective absolute, I believe you'd agree?

My point stands--your subjective morals are at root level, "self-evident" to your way of thinking. God is self-evident to me.

No, god is merely a convenient belief.

The "self evident" claim has never been substantiated.

Second rape is easily demonstrably wrong. Have you heard of the concept of the "Veil of Ignorance"? It takes a bit of empathy to use it, but one merely has to put oneself in the other's place mentally.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but the Holocaust was rather indiscriminate. You have yet to support your claim. And I saw nothing in the second link that explained the date. There is a reason that the sort of claims that you have made are not taken seriously.

Yes, the Holocaust was indiscriminate of you, since the prophecy is referring to the end times.

This second link is open about the specific date and the room we both have for reasonable doubt: Prophecy Fulfilled: Israel Becomes A Nation In 1948

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? I've said several times that all human morality is subjective. My subjective morality includes the decalogue, most of which atheists break. So there's that.

Which "decalogue"? Are you referring to the rules that were carved in stone by God (or by Moses, the Bible is inconsistent in that matter) and are called "The Ten Commandments" in the Bible?

And those laws are extremely subjective, so you are right in admitting that your morals are subjective too. They are far inferior to mine.

However, my point remains: Since we're talking about a subjective something, at some point, your morality will be what you feel is right and what is self-evident to you, particularly in those areas where your conscience agonizes and where no statute of law intrudes.

And no, my morals are based upon rational thought processes.

So how is it that an atheist can claim subjective, self-evident morality is okay, but deny that a Christian can assert that Jesus Christ is self-evident within?

Because I can demonstrate why my morals are superior.. You cannot do the same with Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the Holocaust was indiscriminate of you, since the prophecy is referring to the end times.

This second link is open about the specific date and the room we both have for reasonable doubt: Prophecy Fulfilled: Israel Becomes A Nation In 1948

It clearly was indiscriminate since the survivors still "sin". It did not cleanse out the non-existent evil in the Jewish people.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, god is merely a convenient belief.

The "self evident" claim has never been substantiated.

Second rape is easily demonstrably wrong. Have you heard of the concept of the "Veil of Ignorance"? It takes a bit of empathy to use it, but one merely has to put oneself in the other's place mentally.

My self-evident claim for Christ has not been substantiated to you, but it has been to me, therefore, "self-evident" as opposed to "evident, even to skeptics, deniers and former religionists."

The veil of ignorance is a good reference, yes, for the empathy we employ to hear women who say, "No means no" and "Rape causes me untoward pain and harm." Yes!

Now, demonstrate using empirical, testable, falsifiable, observable, documented facts and evidence, how causing someone pain is "wrong". You already said "rape is subjectively wrong" when you said "morals are subjective". After all, my sharing Christian concepts with you may cause you pain, but I feel this pain is for your greater good, so I continue. Sometimes, causing pain is good. "No pain, no gain" is what the gym folks teach.

I think what you actually meant to say is "causing someone a certain intolerable amount of pain is wrong," meaning you would now need to show facts proving how we measure pain and what "too much pain" is and what laboratory instruments we can use to measure pain, which is, at some level, metaphysical. Pain can even be illusory.

After all, just today you told me atheist morality is "superior" to Christian morality. Arrogant, but if it's also true, prove it with some facts. Thanks!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which "decalogue"? Are you referring to the rules that were carved in stone by God (or by Moses, the Bible is inconsistent in that matter) and are called "The Ten Commandments" in the Bible?

And those laws are extremely subjective, so you are right in admitting that your morals are subjective too. They are far inferior to mine.



And no, my morals are based upon rational thought processes.



Because I can demonstrate why my morals are superior.. You cannot do the same with Jesus.

You can demonstrate why your morals are superior? Of necessity, you'd have to show everyone using falsifiable, testable facts what "better" and "worse" morals are.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry over your post. I got it! I'll pray.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It clearly was indiscriminate since the survivors still "sin". It did not cleanse out the non-existent evil in the Jewish people.

Huh? You asked whether the verses in question were regarding the Holocaust. They were not. All the people who in the future say the imminent restoration of David's ruins cannot be restored by God will die. NEWS FLASH: Everyone dies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My self-evident claim for Christ has not been substantiated to you, but it has been to me, therefore, "self-evident" as opposed to "evident, even to skeptics, deniers and former religionists."

That is not what that phrase means:

Definition of SELF-EVIDENT

The veil of ignorance is a good reference, yes, for the empathy we employ to hear women who say, "No means no" and "Rape causes me untoward pain and harm." Yes!

Now, demonstrate using empirical, testable, falsifiable, observable, documented facts and evidence, how causing someone pain is "wrong". You already said "rape is subjectively wrong" when you said "morals are subjective". After all, my sharing Christian concepts with you may cause you pain, but I feel this pain is for your greater good, so I continue. Sometimes, causing pain is good. "No pain, no gain" is what the gym folks teach.

It is not a matter for that sort of testing. What I have pointed out is that my morals are superior of yours. Of course both of our morals have the same source, morals are a human construct. The problem with "Christian morals" is that they have to be dragged into improvement. They rely on an outdated source and as a they lag general improvements in society.

I think what you actually meant to say is "causing someone a certain intolerable amount of pain is wrong," meaning you would now need to show facts proving how we measure pain and what "too much pain" is and what laboratory instruments we can use to measure pain, which is, at some level, metaphysical. Pain can even be illusory.

After all, just today you told me atheist morality is "superior" to Christian morality. Arrogant, but if it's also true, prove it with some facts. Thanks!

No, one merely needs to show that one is preferable to another. There are times that the scientific method is used and there are times that other means are. This is more of a case for logic.