|
|
| People Counter |
|
|
| Total Votes : 71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:53 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Distorted_Image Choose not to believe? You don't believe anything when you are born into this world. Looks like people make their decision to believe in something up in the clouds. Go ahead though. I prefer to keep my feet on the ground and live my life for myself, my boyfriend, and to better help humanity, thank you. I'd disagree with that statement. I think babies know God, because I distincly remember feeling really upset like I'd just lost someone the first time I sinned. And in 2000/(add on as many 0's as you like) years is any of that gonna mean squat if there's no God?
Because it does what it is suppose to do.
People get addicted to food because it was meant to taste good and people get addicted to drugs because it makes them feel good.
I could say the same for religion and how it works, mostly because it makes people feel good.
I would also like to say as much as you believe something, telling people your personal experiences wont do much.
Mostly because they can't believe what you feel is correct and many other things. Besides, we are talking babies and not kids here. Kids can believe in religion, not babies.Fine then. What are the consequences of being addicted to religion? Besides if it's something we need to feel good and we need to eat. Does that mean we need religion too? You can ignore personal testimony, but that doesn't mean it's less valid. There's more then one way to make an argument, and testimony is one of them. I think I was more like a toddler. It's somewhere right out of babyhood where you lose Him, I think.
Drugs like Herion work because they give a good feeling.
Religion feels good because they supply hope.
But what is hope without belief?
You can't believe without having some kind of faith.
Personal testimony is ignored because it just can't make sense. Personal testimony is usually used because you can't explain something so you tell it how you took it in.
A girl tried to tell me she had a ghost in her house, her dad was Big Foot, and her teacher was a vampire. She tried telling me in an Atheist guild we are in. Problem is, she actually believed it.
Are you going to believe it because she told you?
Hell no, she has no proof except for what she experienced.
There was a story called the Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe.
The story mainly talks of how just because there is a narrator, doesn't mean he/she is reliable.
Your right though, there is more then one way to make an argument. Testimony, however, is what starts an argument. It doesn't end it.Sure, but I do have faith. It doesn't make sense for me to remember feeling upset and guilty for the first time at the age of two...? I know what you mean, but usually stories have some sort of root, so if it's not too out there it shouldn't be ignored. In your opinion. I still think that it can be used in support of something else, and that's it's rather strange you're trying to limit my ways to debate...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:02 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Distorted_Image Choose not to believe? You don't believe anything when you are born into this world. Looks like people make their decision to believe in something up in the clouds. Go ahead though. I prefer to keep my feet on the ground and live my life for myself, my boyfriend, and to better help humanity, thank you. I'd disagree with that statement. I think babies know God, because I distincly remember feeling really upset like I'd just lost someone the first time I sinned. And in 2000/(add on as many 0's as you like) years is any of that gonna mean squat if there's no God?
Because it does what it is suppose to do.
People get addicted to food because it was meant to taste good and people get addicted to drugs because it makes them feel good.
I could say the same for religion and how it works, mostly because it makes people feel good.
I would also like to say as much as you believe something, telling people your personal experiences wont do much.
Mostly because they can't believe what you feel is correct and many other things. Besides, we are talking babies and not kids here. Kids can believe in religion, not babies.Fine then. What are the consequences of being addicted to religion? Besides if it's something we need to feel good and we need to eat. Does that mean we need religion too? You can ignore personal testimony, but that doesn't mean it's less valid. There's more then one way to make an argument, and testimony is one of them. I think I was more like a toddler. It's somewhere right out of babyhood where you lose Him, I think.
Drugs like Herion work because they give a good feeling.
Religion feels good because they supply hope.
But what is hope without belief?
You can't believe without having some kind of faith.
Personal testimony is ignored because it just can't make sense. Personal testimony is usually used because you can't explain something so you tell it how you took it in.
A girl tried to tell me she had a ghost in her house, her dad was Big Foot, and her teacher was a vampire. She tried telling me in an Atheist guild we are in. Problem is, she actually believed it.
Are you going to believe it because she told you?
Hell no, she has no proof except for what she experienced.
There was a story called the Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe.
The story mainly talks of how just because there is a narrator, doesn't mean he/she is reliable.
Your right though, there is more then one way to make an argument. Testimony, however, is what starts an argument. It doesn't end it.Sure, but I do have faith. It doesn't make sense for me to remember feeling upset and guilty for the first time at the age of two...? I know what you mean, but usually stories have some sort of root, so if it's not too out there it shouldn't be ignored. In your opinion. I still think that it can be used in support of something else, and that's it's rather strange you're trying to limit my ways to debate...
Continuing, Testimonies are used to state something possible and then you check for it's existence. You don't just believe in a testimony and end it.
and I know you have faith, which is why both our claims our different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:45 pm
If anyone catches me here...
<.<
>.>
I can't ever tell anyone what I really think about my beliefs....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:32 pm
Bleached Panda If anyone catches me here...
<.<
>.>
I can't ever tell anyone what I really think about my beliefs.... Why's that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:38 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo Nothing will mean squat without 'God'. The point is to live because it feels good. You know why people get addicted to things?
Because it does what it is suppose to do.
People get addicted to food because it was meant to taste good and people get addicted to drugs because it makes them feel good.
I could say the same for religion and how it works, mostly because it makes people feel good.
I would also like to say as much as you believe something, telling people your personal experiences wont do much.
Mostly because they can't believe what you feel is correct and many other things. Besides, we are talking babies and not kids here. Kids can believe in religion, not babies. Fine then. What are the consequences of being addicted to religion? Besides if it's something we need to feel good and we need to eat. Does that mean we need religion too? You can ignore personal testimony, but that doesn't mean it's less valid. There's more then one way to make an argument, and testimony is one of them. I think I was more like a toddler. It's somewhere right out of babyhood where you lose Him, I think.
Drugs like Herion work because they give a good feeling.
Religion feels good because they supply hope.
But what is hope without belief?
You can't believe without having some kind of faith.
Personal testimony is ignored because it just can't make sense. Personal testimony is usually used because you can't explain something so you tell it how you took it in.
A girl tried to tell me she had a ghost in her house, her dad was Big Foot, and her teacher was a vampire. She tried telling me in an Atheist guild we are in. Problem is, she actually believed it.
Are you going to believe it because she told you?
Hell no, she has no proof except for what she experienced.
There was a story called the Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe.
The story mainly talks of how just because there is a narrator, doesn't mean he/she is reliable.
Your right though, there is more then one way to make an argument. Testimony, however, is what starts an argument. It doesn't end it.Sure, but I do have faith. It doesn't make sense for me to remember feeling upset and guilty for the first time at the age of two...? I know what you mean, but usually stories have some sort of root, so if it's not too out there it shouldn't be ignored. In your opinion. I still think that it can be used in support of something else, and that's it's rather strange you're trying to limit my ways to debate...
Continuing, Testimonies are used to state something possible and then you check for it's existence. You don't just believe in a testimony and end it.
and I know you have faith, which is why both our claims our different.With something that isn't very clear cut, like religion, testimonies can be a really effective way of making a point.. They're used throughout the Bible, so if it's good enough for the Bible, then it's good enough for me. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:39 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo Nothing will mean squat without 'God'. The point is to live because it feels good. You know why people get addicted to things?
Because it does what it is suppose to do.
People get addicted to food because it was meant to taste good and people get addicted to drugs because it makes them feel good.
I could say the same for religion and how it works, mostly because it makes people feel good.
I would also like to say as much as you believe something, telling people your personal experiences wont do much.
Mostly because they can't believe what you feel is correct and many other things. Besides, we are talking babies and not kids here. Kids can believe in religion, not babies. Fine then. What are the consequences of being addicted to religion? Besides if it's something we need to feel good and we need to eat. Does that mean we need religion too? You can ignore personal testimony, but that doesn't mean it's less valid. There's more then one way to make an argument, and testimony is one of them. I think I was more like a toddler. It's somewhere right out of babyhood where you lose Him, I think.
Drugs like Herion work because they give a good feeling.
Religion feels good because they supply hope.
But what is hope without belief?
You can't believe without having some kind of faith.
Personal testimony is ignored because it just can't make sense. Personal testimony is usually used because you can't explain something so you tell it how you took it in.
A girl tried to tell me she had a ghost in her house, her dad was Big Foot, and her teacher was a vampire. She tried telling me in an Atheist guild we are in. Problem is, she actually believed it.
Are you going to believe it because she told you?
Hell no, she has no proof except for what she experienced.
There was a story called the Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe.
The story mainly talks of how just because there is a narrator, doesn't mean he/she is reliable.
Your right though, there is more then one way to make an argument. Testimony, however, is what starts an argument. It doesn't end it.Sure, but I do have faith. It doesn't make sense for me to remember feeling upset and guilty for the first time at the age of two...? I know what you mean, but usually stories have some sort of root, so if it's not too out there it shouldn't be ignored. In your opinion. I still think that it can be used in support of something else, and that's it's rather strange you're trying to limit my ways to debate...
Continuing, Testimonies are used to state something possible and then you check for it's existence. You don't just believe in a testimony and end it.
and I know you have faith, which is why both our claims our different.With something that isn't very clear cut, like religion, testimonies can be a really effective way of making a point.. They're used throughout the Bible, so if it's good enough for the Bible, then it's good enough for me. 3nodding
Have you ever read the story "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe?
He tries to explain just because a character is the narrator, doesn't make his views correct.
I will read a line by the book and explain...
* True! --nervous --very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses --not destroyed --not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad? *
So the question is, can you find him a reliable source?
Let's go further, deeper into the story...
* I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! He had the eye of a vulture --a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees --very gradually --I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever. *
Now we move to the end where the police come to the old man's house where they find the narrator and explain they are here from hearing a shriek.
* The officers were satisfied. My manner had convinced them. I was singularly at ease. They sat, and while I answered cheerily, they chatted of familiar things. But, ere long, I felt myself getting pale and wished them gone. My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct: --It continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definiteness --until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears. No doubt I now grew very pale; --but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased --and what could I do? It was a low, dull, quick sound --much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath --and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly --more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men --but the noise steadily increased. Oh God! what could I do? I foamed --I raved --I swore! I swung the chair upon which I had been sitting, and grated it upon the boards, but the noise arose over all and continually increased. It grew louder --louder --louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! --no, no! They heard! --they suspected! --they knew! --they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now --again! --hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!
"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!" *
So from reading that, can you say that the narrator is reliable?
Hell no.
He committed murder because of an eye, he says that he is hearing things, and he thought, at the end of the story, the man was still alive.
Point is, just because you listen to the testimony of something, does it make it correct? No...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:41 pm
The entire story can be read here: http://www.poemuseum.org/selected_works/tell_tale_heart.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:07 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo Well, it's not being addicted but how something works. Food works because it actually keeps you alive supplying energy.
Drugs like Herion work because they give a good feeling.
Religion feels good because they supply hope.
But what is hope without belief?
You can't believe without having some kind of faith.
Personal testimony is ignored because it just can't make sense. Personal testimony is usually used because you can't explain something so you tell it how you took it in.
A girl tried to tell me she had a ghost in her house, her dad was Big Foot, and her teacher was a vampire. She tried telling me in an Atheist guild we are in. Problem is, she actually believed it.
Are you going to believe it because she told you?
Hell no, she has no proof except for what she experienced.
There was a story called the Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe.
The story mainly talks of how just because there is a narrator, doesn't mean he/she is reliable.
Your right though, there is more then one way to make an argument. Testimony, however, is what starts an argument. It doesn't end it. Sure, but I do have faith. It doesn't make sense for me to remember feeling upset and guilty for the first time at the age of two...? I know what you mean, but usually stories have some sort of root, so if it's not too out there it shouldn't be ignored. In your opinion. I still think that it can be used in support of something else, and that's it's rather strange you're trying to limit my ways to debate...
Continuing, Testimonies are used to state something possible and then you check for it's existence. You don't just believe in a testimony and end it.
and I know you have faith, which is why both our claims our different.With something that isn't very clear cut, like religion, testimonies can be a really effective way of making a point.. They're used throughout the Bible, so if it's good enough for the Bible, then it's good enough for me. 3nodding
Have you ever read the story "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe?
He tries to explain just because a character is the narrator, doesn't make his views correct.
I will read a line by the book and explain...
* True! --nervous --very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses --not destroyed --not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad? *
So the question is, can you find him a reliable source?
Let's go further, deeper into the story...
* I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! He had the eye of a vulture --a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees --very gradually --I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever. *
Now we move to the end where the police come to the old man's house where they find the narrator and explain they are here from hearing a shriek.
* The officers were satisfied. My manner had convinced them. I was singularly at ease. They sat, and while I answered cheerily, they chatted of familiar things. But, ere long, I felt myself getting pale and wished them gone. My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct: --It continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definiteness --until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears. No doubt I now grew very pale; --but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased --and what could I do? It was a low, dull, quick sound --much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath --and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly --more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men --but the noise steadily increased. Oh God! what could I do? I foamed --I raved --I swore! I swung the chair upon which I had been sitting, and grated it upon the boards, but the noise arose over all and continually increased. It grew louder --louder --louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! --no, no! They heard! --they suspected! --they knew! --they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now --again! --hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!
"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!" *
So from reading that, can you say that the narrator is reliable?
Hell no.
He committed murder because of an eye, he says that he is hearing things, and he thought, at the end of the story, the man was still alive.
Point is, just because you listen to the testimony of something, does it make it correct? No...From that though we get that the old man was killed by the narrator, and that he was probably schizophrenic or mentally disturbed which caused the whole unfortunate mess. We should have the common sense to be able to spot a madman's ravings, or other problems with a testimony, and if there are no obvious ones, then one should consider giving the teller the benefit of the doubt. And it isn't reason to doubt the Bible. That was written by mulitple authors over centuries and it all ties in together. Besides you have to look at the motive of telling a testimony, which in the case of the Bible was more to record important events for a family and then a nation, for which they'd want to be accurate. About whether the disciples made up the Bible: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_christianity_is_not_false.html#oO8K4sn3veD3 About whether it's the Word of God: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html#ebfIzsfeTt9w About whether the Bible has been changed since it was first written: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#eRSaxANG32w4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:24 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo Well, it's not being addicted but how something works. Food works because it actually keeps you alive supplying energy.
Drugs like Herion work because they give a good feeling.
Religion feels good because they supply hope.
But what is hope without belief?
You can't believe without having some kind of faith.
Personal testimony is ignored because it just can't make sense. Personal testimony is usually used because you can't explain something so you tell it how you took it in.
A girl tried to tell me she had a ghost in her house, her dad was Big Foot, and her teacher was a vampire. She tried telling me in an Atheist guild we are in. Problem is, she actually believed it.
Are you going to believe it because she told you?
Hell no, she has no proof except for what she experienced.
There was a story called the Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe.
The story mainly talks of how just because there is a narrator, doesn't mean he/she is reliable.
Your right though, there is more then one way to make an argument. Testimony, however, is what starts an argument. It doesn't end it. Sure, but I do have faith. It doesn't make sense for me to remember feeling upset and guilty for the first time at the age of two...? I know what you mean, but usually stories have some sort of root, so if it's not too out there it shouldn't be ignored. In your opinion. I still think that it can be used in support of something else, and that's it's rather strange you're trying to limit my ways to debate...
Continuing, Testimonies are used to state something possible and then you check for it's existence. You don't just believe in a testimony and end it.
and I know you have faith, which is why both our claims our different.With something that isn't very clear cut, like religion, testimonies can be a really effective way of making a point.. They're used throughout the Bible, so if it's good enough for the Bible, then it's good enough for me. 3nodding
Have you ever read the story "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe?
He tries to explain just because a character is the narrator, doesn't make his views correct.
I will read a line by the book and explain...
* True! --nervous --very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses --not destroyed --not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad? *
So the question is, can you find him a reliable source?
Let's go further, deeper into the story...
* I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! He had the eye of a vulture --a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees --very gradually --I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever. *
Now we move to the end where the police come to the old man's house where they find the narrator and explain they are here from hearing a shriek.
* The officers were satisfied. My manner had convinced them. I was singularly at ease. They sat, and while I answered cheerily, they chatted of familiar things. But, ere long, I felt myself getting pale and wished them gone. My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct: --It continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definiteness --until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears. No doubt I now grew very pale; --but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased --and what could I do? It was a low, dull, quick sound --much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath --and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly --more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men --but the noise steadily increased. Oh God! what could I do? I foamed --I raved --I swore! I swung the chair upon which I had been sitting, and grated it upon the boards, but the noise arose over all and continually increased. It grew louder --louder --louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! --no, no! They heard! --they suspected! --they knew! --they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now --again! --hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!
"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!" *
So from reading that, can you say that the narrator is reliable?
Hell no.
He committed murder because of an eye, he says that he is hearing things, and he thought, at the end of the story, the man was still alive.
Point is, just because you listen to the testimony of something, does it make it correct? No...From that though we get that the old man was killed by the narrator, and that he was probably schizophrenic or mentally disturbed which caused the whole unfortunate mess. We should have the common sense to be able to spot a madman's ravings, or other problems with a testimony, and if there are no obvious ones, then one should consider giving the teller the benefit of the doubt. And it isn't reason to doubt the Bible. That was written by mulitple authors over centuries and it all ties in together. Besides you have to look at the motive of telling a testimony, which in the case of the Bible was more to record important events for a family and then a nation, for which they'd want to be accurate. About whether the disciples made up the Bible: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_christianity_is_not_false.html#oO8K4sn3veD3 About whether it's the Word of God: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html#ebfIzsfeTt9w About whether the Bible has been changed since it was first written: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#eRSaxANG32w4
Point being, the story is trying to tell that the narrator can't always be trusted. It's not from how obvious something is, it's if you can trust from what someone is telling you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:12 pm
ninja methinks that atheism is just a mater of choice and that there is nothing wrong with most of them... this is also from the guy who said that rejection of the existence of a monotheistic God is just wrong... but that's just me....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:36 pm
oh yeah, science also proves the existence of a God/ grand Creator through the use of the Big bang theory and Genesis 1:2-5 or: "2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:50 pm
thundersong_gx9 oh yeah, science also proves the existence of a God/ grand Creator through the use of the Big bang theory and Genesis 1:2-5 or: "2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. "
First off, this is an Atheist thread. Not a thread to preach Christianity.
Second, that shows nothing saying Science proves God.
All it says is the Big Bang title and than you quote mined from the Bible. It proved nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:07 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo I'm not 'limiting' your ways of debate. I'm explain that giving me a personal experience will get you no where in this argument.
Continuing, Testimonies are used to state something possible and then you check for it's existence. You don't just believe in a testimony and end it.
and I know you have faith, which is why both our claims our different. With something that isn't very clear cut, like religion, testimonies can be a really effective way of making a point.. They're used throughout the Bible, so if it's good enough for the Bible, then it's good enough for me. 3nodding
Have you ever read the story "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe?
He tries to explain just because a character is the narrator, doesn't make his views correct.
I will read a line by the book and explain...
* True! --nervous --very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses --not destroyed --not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad? *
So the question is, can you find him a reliable source?
Let's go further, deeper into the story...
* I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! He had the eye of a vulture --a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees --very gradually --I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever. *
Now we move to the end where the police come to the old man's house where they find the narrator and explain they are here from hearing a shriek.
* The officers were satisfied. My manner had convinced them. I was singularly at ease. They sat, and while I answered cheerily, they chatted of familiar things. But, ere long, I felt myself getting pale and wished them gone. My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct: --It continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definiteness --until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears. No doubt I now grew very pale; --but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased --and what could I do? It was a low, dull, quick sound --much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath --and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly --more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men --but the noise steadily increased. Oh God! what could I do? I foamed --I raved --I swore! I swung the chair upon which I had been sitting, and grated it upon the boards, but the noise arose over all and continually increased. It grew louder --louder --louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! --no, no! They heard! --they suspected! --they knew! --they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now --again! --hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!
"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!" *
So from reading that, can you say that the narrator is reliable?
Hell no.
He committed murder because of an eye, he says that he is hearing things, and he thought, at the end of the story, the man was still alive.
Point is, just because you listen to the testimony of something, does it make it correct? No...From that though we get that the old man was killed by the narrator, and that he was probably schizophrenic or mentally disturbed which caused the whole unfortunate mess. We should have the common sense to be able to spot a madman's ravings, or other problems with a testimony, and if there are no obvious ones, then one should consider giving the teller the benefit of the doubt. And it isn't reason to doubt the Bible. That was written by mulitple authors over centuries and it all ties in together. Besides you have to look at the motive of telling a testimony, which in the case of the Bible was more to record important events for a family and then a nation, for which they'd want to be accurate. About whether the disciples made up the Bible: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_christianity_is_not_false.html#oO8K4sn3veD3 About whether it's the Word of God: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html#ebfIzsfeTt9w About whether the Bible has been changed since it was first written: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#eRSaxANG32w4
Point being, the story is trying to tell that the narrator can't always be trusted. It's not from how obvious something is, it's if you can trust from what someone is telling you.Most everyone has a skewed perception of the world. We all process things in a way that probably slightly to completely twists. You can't even trust you're own perception, so why bother being so careful with other people's? Plus a hard and fast rule like trust no story that doesn't have proof is usually not the best ideas. A bunch of minor rules for evaluating something like a story usually works better (like look at the motive of the story and the story teller, or look at how probable it is).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:14 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo I'm not 'limiting' your ways of debate. I'm explain that giving me a personal experience will get you no where in this argument.
Continuing, Testimonies are used to state something possible and then you check for it's existence. You don't just believe in a testimony and end it.
and I know you have faith, which is why both our claims our different. With something that isn't very clear cut, like religion, testimonies can be a really effective way of making a point.. They're used throughout the Bible, so if it's good enough for the Bible, then it's good enough for me. 3nodding
Have you ever read the story "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe?
He tries to explain just because a character is the narrator, doesn't make his views correct.
I will read a line by the book and explain...
* True! --nervous --very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses --not destroyed --not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad? *
So the question is, can you find him a reliable source?
Let's go further, deeper into the story...
* I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! He had the eye of a vulture --a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees --very gradually --I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever. *
Now we move to the end where the police come to the old man's house where they find the narrator and explain they are here from hearing a shriek.
* The officers were satisfied. My manner had convinced them. I was singularly at ease. They sat, and while I answered cheerily, they chatted of familiar things. But, ere long, I felt myself getting pale and wished them gone. My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct: --It continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definiteness --until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears. No doubt I now grew very pale; --but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased --and what could I do? It was a low, dull, quick sound --much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath --and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly --more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men --but the noise steadily increased. Oh God! what could I do? I foamed --I raved --I swore! I swung the chair upon which I had been sitting, and grated it upon the boards, but the noise arose over all and continually increased. It grew louder --louder --louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! --no, no! They heard! --they suspected! --they knew! --they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now --again! --hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!
"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!" *
So from reading that, can you say that the narrator is reliable?
Hell no.
He committed murder because of an eye, he says that he is hearing things, and he thought, at the end of the story, the man was still alive.
Point is, just because you listen to the testimony of something, does it make it correct? No...From that though we get that the old man was killed by the narrator, and that he was probably schizophrenic or mentally disturbed which caused the whole unfortunate mess. We should have the common sense to be able to spot a madman's ravings, or other problems with a testimony, and if there are no obvious ones, then one should consider giving the teller the benefit of the doubt. And it isn't reason to doubt the Bible. That was written by mulitple authors over centuries and it all ties in together. Besides you have to look at the motive of telling a testimony, which in the case of the Bible was more to record important events for a family and then a nation, for which they'd want to be accurate. About whether the disciples made up the Bible: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_christianity_is_not_false.html#oO8K4sn3veD3 About whether it's the Word of God: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html#ebfIzsfeTt9w About whether the Bible has been changed since it was first written: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#eRSaxANG32w4
Point being, the story is trying to tell that the narrator can't always be trusted. It's not from how obvious something is, it's if you can trust from what someone is telling you.Most everyone has a skewed perception of the world. We all process things in a way that probably slightly to completely twists. You can't even trust you're own perception, so why bother being so careful with other people's? Plus a hard and fast rule like trust no story that doesn't have proof is usually not the best ideas. A bunch of minor rules for evaluating something like a story usually works better (like look at the motive of the story and the story teller, or look at how probable it is).
But if you are trying to state that why trust others if we can't trust ourselves, then how can you trust your belief in God if your knowledge could just be invalid as anything, like you stated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:36 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo That is why I have a problem with the Bible to begin with.
Have you ever read the story "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe?
He tries to explain just because a character is the narrator, doesn't make his views correct.
I will read a line by the book and explain...
* True! --nervous --very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses --not destroyed --not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad? *
So the question is, can you find him a reliable source?
Let's go further, deeper into the story...
* I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! He had the eye of a vulture --a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees --very gradually --I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever. *
Now we move to the end where the police come to the old man's house where they find the narrator and explain they are here from hearing a shriek.
* The officers were satisfied. My manner had convinced them. I was singularly at ease. They sat, and while I answered cheerily, they chatted of familiar things. But, ere long, I felt myself getting pale and wished them gone. My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct: --It continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definiteness --until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears. No doubt I now grew very pale; --but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased --and what could I do? It was a low, dull, quick sound --much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath --and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly --more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men --but the noise steadily increased. Oh God! what could I do? I foamed --I raved --I swore! I swung the chair upon which I had been sitting, and grated it upon the boards, but the noise arose over all and continually increased. It grew louder --louder --louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! --no, no! They heard! --they suspected! --they knew! --they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now --again! --hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!
"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!" *
So from reading that, can you say that the narrator is reliable?
Hell no.
He committed murder because of an eye, he says that he is hearing things, and he thought, at the end of the story, the man was still alive.
Point is, just because you listen to the testimony of something, does it make it correct? No... From that though we get that the old man was killed by the narrator, and that he was probably schizophrenic or mentally disturbed which caused the whole unfortunate mess. We should have the common sense to be able to spot a madman's ravings, or other problems with a testimony, and if there are no obvious ones, then one should consider giving the teller the benefit of the doubt. And it isn't reason to doubt the Bible. That was written by mulitple authors over centuries and it all ties in together. Besides you have to look at the motive of telling a testimony, which in the case of the Bible was more to record important events for a family and then a nation, for which they'd want to be accurate. About whether the disciples made up the Bible: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_christianity_is_not_false.html#oO8K4sn3veD3 About whether it's the Word of God: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html#ebfIzsfeTt9w About whether the Bible has been changed since it was first written: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#eRSaxANG32w4
Point being, the story is trying to tell that the narrator can't always be trusted. It's not from how obvious something is, it's if you can trust from what someone is telling you.Most everyone has a skewed perception of the world. We all process things in a way that probably slightly to completely twists. You can't even trust you're own perception, so why bother being so careful with other people's? Plus a hard and fast rule like trust no story that doesn't have proof is usually not the best ideas. A bunch of minor rules for evaluating something like a story usually works better (like look at the motive of the story and the story teller, or look at how probable it is).
But if you are trying to state that why trust others if we can't trust ourselves, then how can you trust your belief in God if your knowledge could just be invalid as anything, like you stated?Because I have to trust something. That's part of my point. You either have to learn to trust even when nothing's entirely trustworthy, or live in paranoia. Living in paranoia was getting to me, so I chose the former.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
