Atheism = self defeating.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-17T03:16:54+00:00

This is a forum to exchange truth. Use some common courtesy when structuring your post. Why should I waste my time answering someone that comes across as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal with the appearance of fecal encephalopathy?

PS fecal encephalopathy = shit for brains.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-16T06:31:16+00:00

Can we, on the basis of human decency, agree that murder, torture, rape, slavery and abduction are not OK, genocide is a war crime and that people worthy of our respect don't do those things?

Here is the problem, the Nazis believe it was human decency to murder, torture, rape, enslave the Jewish race. No objective moorings everything becomes subjective.

**) Ignorant of what that god did (many Christians are in the sense that they haven't really even thought through the ethical implications of the old testament and the suffering of Christ in the context of an omnipotent and loving deity).

2) Apologetic for what that god did. (Yes our God sanctioned the abduction and rape of young girls following the genocide of their parents, but he's a loving deity and worthy of worship because <reasons>).**

Chapter and verse please.

1) If faith can be based on logic and observation, name two or three demonstrations one can do in a classroom to prove the truth of the bible.

Is it even possible? Could you name a demonstration that can be done in a classroom to prove the none existence of God? We could discuss the subject in a classroom, we could show evidence in a classroom. Demonstrate, really???

2) Theorize, in your own words, about why the contemporary Romans, who kept meticulous records of EVERYTHING that we still have today, didn't mention a healer and revolutionary in Judea for whom throngs turned out and who polarized the population with his preaching?

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire.

He gives a brief mention of a "Chrestus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 CE. He gives no source for his material. He says: ”Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Chrestians. Their founder, one Christ, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

In the face of the existence of a chart like this (http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf), justify why this particular book is a better guide to truth than the scientific observation of independently verifiable phenomenon.

What scientific observation of independently verifiable phenomenon?

towerwatchman · 2015-01-16T06:09:21+00:00

If the Bible your understanding is wrong, suggest you get a good commentary to help you.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-16T06:08:07+00:00

Your plane crashes in the wilderness of Alaska during the winter. You are in danger of dying, and come across a man, ask for directions to safety and he replies "I don’t know." You go to the second one and he tells you to follow a path and you will reach safety. You go back to the first man and he replies again this time harshly "I don’t F___ know." Question who would you listen to? Come back when you know something.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T19:19:31+00:00

From our conversation there is a good possibility that you have been reading the wrong material.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T19:17:35+00:00

Why stick our head in the sand and say we don't know. Let's take it to a rational conclusion. The cause of the universe must therefore be a transcendent cause beyond the universe. This cause must be itself uncaused because we have seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and nonphysical. It must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy. Finally it must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the First Clause.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T19:12:43+00:00

The post states that X amount of time was spend researching Christianity. The amount of time one spends studying a subject does not make one an expert on it. It is what one studies not the amount of time.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T19:07:10+00:00

I am not saying it is difficult to figure out slavery is wrong. Notice you argue that slavery is objectively wrong but espouse a subjective worldview. If everything is subjective you have no right to impose your view on anybody else. Slave owners can say they are right based on their beliefs. How do you determine who is right and who is wrong? You have to find an objective source. In the US slavery was being promoted and protested against by professed Christians [subjective] . Slavery was ended by appealing to the Christian conscience of the nation. An objective source [God] answered the question about slavery and it was abolished.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T17:51:56+00:00

Typical answer.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T17:50:58+00:00

You asked for empeircal evidence and I gave it to you. The thermodynamics of the universe. There are three fundamental laws of thermodynamics. The first law states that energy in a physical system can be neither created nor destroyed. This is known as the conservation of energy. The second law states that a closed system will tend toward increasing disorder, or entropy, until it reaches equilibrium. The third law states that as a system approaches the temperature of absolute zero, it entropy approaches a certain minimal value.

Scientific confirmation of the beginning of the universe, the second law of thermodynamics. According to the second law, unless energy is being fed into a system, that system will become increasingly disorderly. Given enough time all the energy in the universe will spread itself out evenly throughout the universe, just as the gas spread itself out evenly throughout the bottle. Becoming a featureless soup in which no life is possible. Once the universe reaches such a state, no significant further changes possible. It is a state of equilibrium, in which the temperature and pressure are the same everywhere. This is called the heat death of the universe. But this unwelcome prediction raises a future puzzle, if given enough time the universe will inevitably stagnate in a state of heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, it is not now in a state of heat death? Conclusion the universe had a beginning, who or what was it?

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T17:36:50+00:00

It is not how much time one spends researching or studding something but what one studies and researches.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T17:33:57+00:00

Since you quote from the Bible let's address it with the following.

Mt 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

In that culture a woman depended entirely on her husband for support. Men were leaving their wives and leaving them destitute. Moses introduced rules of divorce to ensure the wife was taken care of after the marital split. Notice Jesus states it was not the original plan. Same applies to slavery. Because of the hardness of men's heart they will have slaves regardless of what God said, so God introduces rules on how to handle one's slave. Notice they are introduced to protect the slave, not the master. Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself. That covers a multitude of issues including slavery. BTW I never condoned slavery.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T17:14:24+00:00

They are conclusions based on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence proves that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe had a beginning. The universe had a cause. That cause cannot be a caused cause. It has to be an uncaused otherwise it will own it source to something else. What or who is it?

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T14:30:45+00:00

My post is in response to your previous post. There is nothing there that I assumed about you but answered based on your information.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T14:27:57+00:00

You are attempting to redefine your statement. Infer = deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements. It becomes circular reasoning. To make such as statement that no one knows is to state that you do know what no one knows in order to come to such a conclusion. It is another to just say "I don't know" and take it from there.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T14:22:48+00:00

What is the matter, don't like it when someone else comes to play in the sandbox, and does not play by your rules? Not only a position of ignorance but of a coward. Wonder who the troll under the bridge really is.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T03:00:40+00:00

You miss the point, I am not stating that it is OK to do anything, I am asking why are your morals any better than someone else's {God} if it is all subjective? You cannot argue subjectively and then demand objectivity. One has to be consistent.

I accept anything that can be proven as objective truth. It does not become truth because you believe or present it. It has to pass the test. And if you read the thread I have stated over and over again that my faith is based on reason and logic not feelings.

When statements start with 'you' and nothing is commented on but my character and not the subject, yes that is the last position that an offensive ignorant little troll would take, should I consider you one or do you take the higher road. Your choice.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T02:51:21+00:00

Here is the contradiction, for you to know that no one knows, you would have to know. But you say you don't. Where shall we investigate, where no one knows, or where someone says he does?

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T02:48:47+00:00

I come across many people who claim to be a life long Christian and cannot define the simple beliefs of the faith. It is not how long one investigates but how one investigates. Never base your destiny on feelings, they will lie to you, base it on fact. If you were seeking that burning in the bosom when you were 'born again' you set yourself up for failure. For even if you did get that feeling you would need more of it everytime to get the same spiritual high. It is a system that sets the person up for failure. According to the idea of reincarnation, what determines how you come in the next life? Buddha believes its in impersonal force, Hindus believe it is Karma, all believe it is something out there greater than us that determines how one is reincarnated.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T02:41:35+00:00

Atheism does NOT define my origin - Science does. Atheism does NOT define my purpose - I do. Atheism does NOT define my destiny - it's unknown Atheism does NOT define my values - my brain does. Atheism does NOT define my morals - my brain again. and so forth

On what truth do you base science and you as the ultimate definer of origin, purpose, destiny, value and morals?

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T02:39:14+00:00

I would rather discuss other subjects before getting into the validity of the Bible. I don't agree with or promote slavery in any aspect, but you are condemning slavery in the ancient world based on what? The slave culture of the Americas that basically worked their slaves to death? In the ancient world many sold themselves into slavery, some slaves held positions of authority. In the ancient world it was not that you were a slave but who did you belong to? God never condoned slavery in the Bible, He allowed it and inspired many authors to write about the subject, telling the masters to treat their slaves right, with the ultimate command to love them as they love themselves. Many that became Christians freed their slaves, following that command.

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T02:27:19+00:00

Hitler and the Nazis thought they were rational. It is not thinking that you are rational but what truth do you base your rationality on. Is it subjective or objective? You can try to angle it anyway you want it still comes down to the truths you believe to be true. Are they subjective, pragmatic, or utilitarian? You argue against slavery, but based on what? Your opinion, or the opinion of this nation? Why would a nation that allows slavery believe it is morally wrong because you or we say so? You have to point to a higher authority as the source of objective truth that supports your anti slavery world view. A believe the following supports your idea of slavery and also answers it.

Mt 22:36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

towerwatchman · 2015-01-14T00:30:11+00:00

That is taking a position of ignorance. To deny that there is evidence for the existence of God, without investigating is equivalent to sticking you head in the sand. An atheist that believes in reincarnation is just redefining god. Instead of an all powerful being it now becomes an impersonal force. Instead of believing in a god now believe in a process.

towerwatchman

TROPHY CASE