A case for religion, and against AA.

[dphantom]

I'm curious about the age/circumstance at which religion becomes 'locked in' for some people. In the recent debate, Ken Ham stated that there's essentially no amount of evidence that will change his mind on his young-earth creationist view point. It appears there are several posters in this thread that share a similar mindset.

I have heard that the concept of God begins fairly early and that by 8-12 many have an idea of a Creator regardless of their upbringing. Whether true or not I am not sure.

Not sure about the young-earth and who here is a proponent of it.

 

[ThinClient]

Indeed. Sounds similar to what you do as well. That is, not provide any evidence.

It's not my job to provide evidence for YOUR positive claim. You're the one making the positive claim that god is real, that the bible is the inspired infallible word of god, that christ was divine, etc.

The onus is on YOU to prove it or STFU and concede that you're simply wrong.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I think he's a delusional retard making all sorts of interpretation claims with zero evidence, just like you do about your own faith.

Jonathan Edwards is definitely a lot more intelligent and knowledgeable than you.

 

[ThinClient]

I have heard that the concept of God begins fairly early and that by 8-12 many have an idea of a Creator regardless of their upbringing. Whether true or not I am not sure.

Not sure about the young-earth and who here is a proponent of it.

How can you claim to be unsure about the young-earth when there is literally an entire globe full of evidence that proves that the earth is not young?

 

[ThinClient]

I personally liked that debate. When we can have a good exchange without all the personal attacking and anger, then people are more apt to listen.

Regardless of the polarizing views, I would love to see a debate like that more often.

There are countless on youtube. I've linked you many. You've refused to watch any of them.

 

[Retro Rob]

William Lane Craig is a psychotic young-earth creationist fundamentalist who has absolutely zero scientific background. He's a snake oil salesman.

He is not a YEC. Are you sure you don't simply spend time making stuff up about people who disagree with you.

Although he does not fully endorse intelligent design,[31] and is opposed to Young Earth creationism,[32] he thinks that intelligent design may be a viable alternative to evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Other_views

 

[ThinClient]

Jonathan Edwards is definitely a lot more intelligent and knowledgeable than you.

Here you go again, making positive claims to which you have zero evidence.

Your modus operandi.

 

[ThinClient]

He is not a YEC. Are you sure you don't simply spend time making stuff up about people who disagree with you.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Other_views

He's argued it in debates with Christopher Hitchens :rofl:

Either way, he's still an ignorant religiotard who makes positive claims with zero evidence and tries to rationalize and justify his position based on nothing more than bullshit.

 

[dphantom]

It's not my job to provide evidence for YOUR positive claim. You're the one making the positive claim that god is real, that the bible is the inspired infallible word of god, that christ was divine, etc.

The onus is on YOU to prove it or STFU and concede that you're simply wrong.

You appear to have a real reading comprehension problem. I will now ask for the 3rd time your proof that neuroscientists have disproved free will. Evidence, not someone's utube video with his personal opinion.

I am not asking for proof God does not exist just so you are absolutely clear on what I am and have asked for.

 

[Retro Rob]

There are countless on youtube. I've linked you many. You've refused to watch any of them.

They're Dawkins-heavy, which means their full of Biblical ignorance and hatred.

I don't have time for that sort of person.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

It's not my job to provide evidence for YOUR positive claim. You're the one making the positive claim that god is real, that the bible is the inspired infallible word of god, that christ was divine, etc.

The onus is on YOU to prove it or STFU and concede that you're simply wrong.

All your claims are automatically wrong.

You should STFU and concede that you're simply wrong.

 

[Retro Rob]

He's argued it in debates with Christopher Hitchens :rofl:

OK, I stand corrected.

 

[dphantom]

How can you claim to be unsure about the young-earth when there is literally an entire globe full of evidence that proves that the earth is not young?

I am unsure about who here is a YEC. Perhaps I did not sate that clearly enough.

 

[JEDIYoda]

here we go again -- when ThinClient cannot provide proof to back up what he says and then others provide proof to debunk his so called proof we get his standard Atheist partline replies --

You worship a figment of your imagination.

Like I said, I won't stop you from googling his actual neuroscience papers. -- there are none!!I know you won't, though, because you're not really interested in truth. You're only interested in arguing. That's fine, you fit the bill for the rest of your religious ilk. Just because you're not interested in educating yourself doesn't mean that the information doesn't exist. I've provided enough information -- information as in heresay -- wild misquotes of the scriptures...wild exagerations...umm ok -- I guess depending on your point of view anything could be called the truth!for you to continue with your own self-education. I'm not going to spoon feed this to you like you're a child. You're an adult. If you're actually interested in truth, -- implying that we don`t already have the truth!you can google it yourself.


Sam harris has NO..as in Zero....papers dealing in just neorscience, where his Atheist opinions are not added to what should be a purely scientific research paper.

In other words Sam Harris is not a very good scientist! He approaches his science to prove his preconceived ideas!
Not the other way around -- allowing his science to either prove or disprove....

for example -- Eddie Nahmias -- associate professor in the Philosophy Department and the Neuroscience Institute at Georgia State University
takes issues with Sam Harris --
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...eath-of-free-will/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

anyways -- we knew after your first couple of posts what to expect from you...heheee

Then ThinClient resorts to claiming that you are not interested in educating yourself because you dismiss what Sam Harris says -- yet Sam Harris has rightly so published no, not one scientific paper supporting his misguided assertions....only his divergent and inaccurate opinion!

Then ThinClient stays with the Atheist party line that says --
If your actually interested in the truth..lol
Your only interested in arguing...lol...again

or --
I've given you plenty of opportunity to provide evidence for your religious claims. You do not. -- rofl....now that is classic Atheist talking point that holds absolutely no water at all.

To top everything off...this ThinClient uses the much maligned and often debunked words of Sam Harris as proof?? of what may I ask?

That`s okay -- Jesus Loves you!!

 

[ThinClient]

You appear to have a real reading comprehension problem. I will now ask for the 3rd time your proof that neuroscientists have disproved free will. Evidence, not someone's utube video with his personal opinion.

I am not asking for proof God does not exist just so you are absolutely clear on what I am and have asked for.

You appear to have a real reading comprehension problem. I will not tell you for the 3rd time that I won't stop you from googling Sam Harris's scientific work.

I gave you the summary in the scientist's own words from the scientist himself. I gave you the name of the person. He explains it on a childish level so that you can understand. If you want to read the nitty gritty, feel free to look it up yourself.

Again, if you were truly interested in educating yourself instead of simply arguing, you'd go looking. Thanks for proving my point that you're not interested in the truth and that you're only interested in arguing on the internet.

 

[ThinClient]

here we go again -- when ThinClient cannot provide proof to back up what he says and then other provide proof to debunk his so called proof we get his standard uneducated Atheist replies --

Yep, you get what you give. I ask for evidence, I get nothing. If you want to play games instead of offer an honest effort in this debate, I can provide you a dose of your own medicine if that's what you want.

See how someone found evidence to counter my claim? Great! See how they react when evidence is provided to counter theirs? Hypocrites, the lot of them.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Yep, you get what you give. I ask for evidence, I get nothing.

Good to see you say that you have a lot of evidence. Your prayer is answered.

 

[ThinClient]

You are saying that you got a lot of evidence? Cool stuff.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that your god is real and all that jazz. I won't hold my breath because I know that you're full of it.

 

[crashtestdummy]

It's not my job to provide evidence for YOUR positive claim. You're the one making the positive claim that god is real, that the bible is the inspired infallible word of god, that christ was divine, etc.

The onus is on YOU to prove it or STFU and concede that you're simply wrong.

You're really trolling at this point. While I don't see an inherent reason for "free will", as something independent of the machinery of the brain, to exist, you're not having an intellectual debate. Thus far, your contribution to this thread has largely been a series of ad-hominem attacks and appeals to authority. (Sam Harris is a neuroscientist! Thus, he knows about free will!) By not actually having any sort of substance to attach yourself to, you've more or less created an environment where you can't be proven wrong and you can hover above and taunt people.

Please reconsider your approach. It's not likely to do anything except make people angry.

 

[JEDIYoda]

There are countless on youtube. I've linked you many. You've refused to watch any of them.

There are countless debates on Youtube debunking your beliefs...in fact Sam Harris gets eaten alive by William Lane Craig .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_lQ...9D45E6&index=1

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that your god is real and all that jazz. I won't hold my breath because I know that you're full of it.

You're wrong again. How are you wrong so much?

 

[ThinClient]

There are countless debates on Youtube debunking your beliefs...in fact Sam Harris gets eaten alive by William Lane Craig .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_lQ...9D45E6&index=1

William Lane Craig has never won a debate. Ever.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your mistake was seeing God and Man as equals.

Where did I do that?

Initially I was hoping you were smart enough to see your mistake without me pointing it out. Was I being condescending?

1.) You haven't established that I am guilty of what you accuse.

2.) You haven't established that the fault of which you baseless accuse me is valid.

I was being nice about my request for more information. It's using good communication techniques. I don't understand why you wouldn't show me step by step when I asked. Can you explain why you balked at that request?

You exhausted your entitlements to that type of courtesy a long, long ago. Actions have consequences, and I have a good memory.

 

[soulcougher73]

There is a fundamental problem with what you're saying here. If God has a plan, then he planned for Adam and Eve to sin, and planned for us to go to "hell".

Can't they then rightfully blame God for every bad thing, since he planned everything?

You're contradicting yourself by saying God knows what you will do, but what you're doing is "free will".

Wow, you surprise me Rob :thumbsup:

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Where did I do that?

In my mind.


1.) You haven't established that I am guilty of what you accuse.

I did for me.

2.) You haven't established that the fault which you baseless accuse me is valid.

I did for me.

You exhausted your entitlements to that type of courtesy a long, long ago. Actions have consequences, and I have a good memory.

Actions have consequences. Guilty as accused.