I suppose this is the most logical place to start
  • venomfangxvenomfangx
    Posts: 6,698Archduke
    Posted By: jsizzlexChristian worldview and originate in the Bible which is, according to itself, truth.

    Yes we are aware of the circular notion that exists within the christian doctrine.
    image
    There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters, who never did, and who always will.
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    Posted By: jsizzlexto fully understand my answers you must acknowledge that they all come from a Christian worldview and originate in the Bible which is, according to itself, truth.


    VenomFangX already correctly stated the answer: That's circular reasoning. You've already said that you believe the Bible to be inerrant... but how can you, given that it's wrong about so much?

    As I've posted before:
    Video and source for the below wall of text.

    There is no water above where the firmament isn't a (Gen 1:6-7), and no windows to let it drain in -if there was either water or firmament there. (Gen 7:11) Night is not a veil to be spread over the missing firmament like a curtain or a tent, (Psalms 104:2) and (Isiah 40:22) the stars are not made to stand in the span of this expanse (Isiah 48:13) because they are not "high" in the firmament (Job 22:12); there is no firmament, and they are so far beyond our puny world that "height" is meaningless and inapplicable.They are much too far away to be blown out of place by any storm (2 Esdras 15:34-35) and they couldn't be taken "down" by anything at all. We've also proven that the illusive heavenly firmament has no foundations either, (2 Samuel 22:8) and neither does the Earth. (Job 38:4-6) There are no pillars holding the Earth above the deep, (1 Samuel 2:8) because there is no deep. (Gen 1:2) Outer space is not full of water! We also now know what lies outside our gravitational field. And that proves that you can't have any passage of days and nights without a sun (Gen 1:13-14) to measure them against an Earth which constantly moves. (Psalms 104:5) We also know that the sun cannot be made to set at noon, (Amos 8:9) and that neither the sun nor the moon can be stopped in the sky. (Joshua 10:12-13) We also now know what is beyond our solar system. And that proves that the stars can't fall from the sky, (Matthew 24:29) and even if they did, we still couldn't stomp on them because they're each millions of miles around. (Daniel 8:10) Which makes it a bit silly to imagine a whole group of them having conscious minds, and ganging up in combat with a mere human being. (Judges 5:20) We even know now what lies beyond our galaxy. And that proves that nothing or no one could ever "seal up the stars". (Job 9:7) We also know that the Earth with its fictitious firmament didn't predate the "lights in the heavens" by any amount of time, (Genesis 1:17-19) and that the stars weren't "set" specifically to light the Earth; because the Earth is not at the center, -or the beginning- of the universe in any respect. (Gen 1:1) The way the Bible depicts the Earth in relation to the rest of the universe is wrong and has been known to be wrong for thousands of years.
  • jsizzlex
    Posts: 41Serf
    Posted By: InfernoThere is no water above where the firmament isn't a(Gen 1:6-7), and no windows to let it drain in -if there was either water or firmament there.(Gen 7:11)Night is not a veil to be spread over the missing firmament like a curtain or a tent,(Psalms 104:2)and(Isiah 40:22)the stars are not made to stand in the span of this expanse(Isiah 48:13)because they are not "high" in the firmament(Job 22:12); there is no firmament, and they are so far beyond our puny world that "height" is meaningless and inapplicable.They are much too far away to be blown out of place by any storm(2 Esdras 15:34-35)and they couldn't be taken "down" by anything at all. We've also proven that the illusive heavenly firmament has no foundations either,(2 Samuel 22:8)and neither does the Earth.(Job 38:4-6)There are no pillars holding the Earth above the deep,(1 Samuel 2:8)because there is no deep.(Gen 1:2)Outer space is not full of water! We also now know what lies outside our gravitational field. And that proves that you can't have any passage of days and nights without a sun(Gen 1:13-14)to measure them against an Earth which constantly moves.(Psalms 104:5)We also know that the sun cannot be made to set at noon,(Amos 8:9)and that neither the sun nor the moon can be stopped in the sky.(Joshua 10:12-13)We also now know what is beyond our solar system. And that proves that the stars can't fall from the sky,(Matthew 24:29)and even if they did, we still couldn't stomp on them because they're each millions of miles around.(Daniel 8:10)Which makes it a bit silly to imagine a whole group of them having conscious minds, and ganging up in combat with a mere human being.(Judges 5:20)We even know now what lies beyond our galaxy. And that proves that nothing or no one could ever "seal up the stars".(Job 9:7)We also know that the Earth with its fictitious firmament didn't predate the "lights in the heavens" by any amount of time,(Genesis 1:17-19)and that the stars weren't "set" specifically to light the Earth; because the Earth is not at the center, -or the beginning- of the universe in any respect.(Gen 1:1)The way the Bible depicts the Earth in relation to the rest of the universe is wrong and has been known to be wrong for thousands of years.


    by posting hoardes of information that can be explained, instead of one at a time to discuss them intelligently, it gives you the illusion that you are superior in knowledge simply by attempting to dominate the discussion. i guess atheists have much more in common with mormons than i originally thought.

    we still havent addressed the previous questions, but you want to move on to a lengthy list of supposed errors.
  • ProletariatTreeHuger
    Posts: 5,135Citizen
    Posted By: jsizzlexby posting hoardes of information that can be explained, instead of one at a time to discuss them intelligently, it gives you the illusion that you are superior in knowledge simply by attempting to dominate the discussion. i guess atheists have much more in common with mormons than i originally thought.

    I thought you wanted to have a debate with him, not childishly insult him and try to dismiss his argument. He began by stating that there is a contradiction in your viewpoint. You believe the bible is inerrant, yet there are errors in it. If you want to address his points, then ask to address them individually. All he did was outline his argument.
    If you've seen any formal debate at all, the structure is the same. Each is given a moment to lay down their argument in its entirety. Then the debaters argue the finer and more narrow points.

    But I do agree with you on one point. I don't think this thread of yours should yet have moved past the original argument. The argument over the difference between not believing in a god, and believing a god doesn't exist. The reasoning behind that differentiation stands as a pillar of most atheist's rationality. Coming from epistemology it allows us to understand why we believe what we believe, how beliefs are formed, and helps us better understand our position on things. It's a very important point for you to understand. It determines who has the burden of proof. Simply because a person states that he does not believe in a god, that doesn't equivocate to believing a god does not exist. The difference between belief, disbelief, and denial needs to be made before I believe we can truly move on.
  • jsizzlex
    Posts: 41Serf
    Posted By: ProletariatTreeHugerthere is a contradiction in your viewpoint.

    whats wrong with contradictions?



    Posted By: ProletariatTreeHugernot childishly insult him and try to dismiss his argument

    this did not occur.....
  • jsizzlex
    Posts: 41Serf
    please allow me to clarify something. i, as a theist, did not join this forum looking to disprove or refute atheists. my ultimate goal is to argue my world view with the atheist worldview so that i can better understand where the average (or above average) atheist is coming from.
  • venomfangxvenomfangx
    Posts: 6,698Archduke
    Posted By: jsizzlexmy ultimate goal is to argue my world view with the atheist worldview so that i can better understand where the average (or above average) atheist is coming from

    I am not an average atheist, I am superior in every way.
    yours
    VenomFang><</font>
    There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters, who never did, and who always will.
  • ProletariatTreeHuger
    Posts: 5,135Citizen
    Posted By: jsizzlexwhats wrong with contradictions?

    Was that a serious question? In logic, things that contradict each other are things that cannot simultaneously exist. It becomes irrational to hold onto two contradicting beliefs. Are you saying you advocate irrationality?
    The bible cannot both be inerrant and also full of errors. This is simple logic. So if you believe the bible is inerrant, how do you address the errors within it?



    Posted By: jsizzlexthis did not occur.....

    Don't pretend that this,
    Posted By: jsizzlexby posting hoardes of information that can be explained, instead of one at a time to discuss them intelligently, it gives you the illusion that you are superior in knowledge simply by attempting to dominate the discussion. i guess atheists have much more in common with mormons than i originally thought.

    wasn't an insult designed to make him appear less intelligent or less capable of putting forth a cogent argument. That's just being dishonest now.
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    Posted By: jsizzlexwe still havent addressed the previous questions, but you want to move on to a lengthy list of supposed errors.


    OK, let's go back then. I already showed that you're wrong about "lack of belief" vs "does not believe in". Do you accept that you're wrong about that?

    If you can accept that, then we can move on to the next question: Why do you believe in God, and why that particular version of it?
    You've already addressed that with a circular argument, so I don't have high hopes for that one. However, the "wall of text" was utterly relevant. You stated that the Bible is inerrant, yet that is only a fraction of statements the Bible makes that are utterly wrong. So your argument fails on the outset.
  • venomfangxvenomfangx
    Posts: 6,698Archduke
    Posted By: InfernoI already showed that you're wrong about "lack of belief" vs "does not believe in"

    I tried and I tried
    There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters, who never did, and who always will.
  • jsizzlex
    Posts: 41Serf
    Posted By: ProletariatTreeHugerwasn't an insult designed to make him appear less intelligent or less capable of putting forth a cogent argument. That's just being dishonest now.

    that was not a childish insult. that was an intelligent adult insult. for childish insults please see venomfangx.
    and dont be so sensetive. ;)

    Posted By: ProletariatTreeHugerWas that a serious question? In logic, things that contradict each other are things that cannot simultaneously exist. It becomes irrational to hold onto two contradicting beliefs. Are you saying you advocate irrationality?
    The bible cannot both be inerrant and also full of errors. This is simple logic. So if you believe the bible is inerrant, how do you address the errors within it?

    i am serious. i say they arent contradictions, you say they are......we both believe this and our statements together defy the law of non-contradiction.
    but if you say they are contradictions, you have no absolution that its true or will be a year from now. not according to evolution anyway. the evolution process could in theory speed up or stop tomorow and you could never be sure today of that.
  • breezysprevised
    Posts: 2,407Citizen
    jsizzlex

    Up until now the only thing logical was indeed your place to start.:)


    I want to address your desire to understand atheists better. I think it would be more kind of you to say you would like to understand atheism better and it would also be more gracious to not make snare remarks about the likeness to mormons or sarcastic remarks about not knowing as much as you thought you did. Every atheist is an individual as is every christian. How would you feel if I assumed to know the entire psychology behind your way of thinking based on the five or six posts you have made here stating no more than your very basic and superficial christian views? Do you feel fine to be put in a box with all christians from the pope to O.J. Simpson? I would guess you would prefer to be likened to people based on their dashing personalities or sweet dispositions, not according to their faith. But maybe I assume too much here, that is a big falling pit for me. I am curious to know, though. So, please tell me if I am okay to answer you strictly under assumptions based on faith rather than humanity, because it would still be fun, just sadly dehumanizing.:)

    Oh, oh! And tell me about your name!!!:D
  • jsizzlex
    Posts: 41Serf
    Posted By: breezysprevisedI think it would be more kind of you to say you would like to understand atheism better and it would also be more gracious to not make snare remarks about the likeness to mormons or sarcastic remarks about not knowing as much as you thought you did

    i agree with you...although i am less interested in atheism than i am the atheist at an individual level, because like you said:

    Posted By: breezysprevisedEvery atheist is an individual as is every christian.


    and if i have offended you i apologize. i intentionally offend no one. i just find sarcasm to be the highest form of comedy. so i acknowledge that a typed message lacks tone of voice and facial expressions and will be more careful in the future. please accept my humble apologies #nosarcasm.

    Posted By: breezysprevisedon faith rather than humanity,
    from a Christian world view, these go hand in hand. you can respond to however you like, but it would be more effective to ask rather than assume. #guiltyattimes



    Posted By: breezysprevisedOh, oh! And tell me about your name!!!:D

    j-sizzle: j and s correspond to my first and middle initials. it means nothing, just a silly nickname that stuck and i use as an alias for artwork, video productions, web id's.
    how bout "breezysprevised"?
    http://twitter.com/#!/jsizzlex425
  • ProletariatTreeHuger
    Posts: 5,135Citizen
    Posted By: jsizzlexi am serious. i say they arent contradictions, you say they are......we both believe this and our statements together defy the law of non-contradiction.
    but if you say they are contradictions, you have no absolution that its true or will be a year from now. not according to evolution anyway. the evolution process could in theory speed up or stop tomorow and you could never be sure today of that.

    I have to be honest here. That made no sense whatsoever.
  • jsizzlex
    Posts: 41Serf
    Posted By: ProletariatTreeHugerI have to be honest here. That made no sense whatsoever.

    of course not. it makes no sense if one embraces both the law of non contradiction and the notion that there are no absolutes.
Add a Comment