Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 256 of 382 (499470)
02-18-2009 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Buzsaw
02-17-2009 8:52 PM


Buz writes:
LOL. There's so many emphatic Biblical texts establishing monotheism that anyone who tries to claim the Bible is polytheist is obviously ignorant of the Biblical record.
Rrhain writes:
Then why is there the devil? How can he have any power of any kind at all? He is ascribed powers and abilities that we clearly define as "god-like." Thus, he would qualify as "a god." But you immediately fall for exactly what it is that I described: A need to de-legitimize the devil.
Buz writes:
Easy. God creates creatures of free will.
Were the Greek gods actually gods, or not, by your definition?
If the Greek gods were indeed "gods" then on what basis is Satan not a god?
If they were not gods then, according to you, the ancient Greeks were atheists.
Which is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2009 8:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Buzsaw, posted 02-19-2009 8:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 257 of 382 (499570)
02-19-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Buzsaw
02-17-2009 8:52 PM


The entire 'God creates creatures with free will' argument has to be one of the lamest excuses around. "Free Will" is contradicted by
"omniscience" by anything, if you include 'knowing the future 100%' in the 'all knowing' part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2009 8:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 382 (499576)
02-19-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Straggler
02-18-2009 7:02 PM


God, Alleged Gods & Creatures
Straggler writes:
Were the Greek gods actually gods, or not, by your definition?
If the Greek gods were indeed "gods" then on what basis is Satan not a god?
If they were not gods then, according to you, the ancient Greeks were atheists.
Which is it?
Biblical literalists theists believe:
1. So called Greek gods are alleged to be gods by polytheists.
2. There is one only true god, Jehovah, the Biblical god.
3. All real existing entities are creatures, designed and created by the one only Biblical god, Jehovah.
Were the Greek gods actually gods, or not, by your definition?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2009 7:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 1:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 259 of 382 (499623)
02-19-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Buzsaw
02-19-2009 8:55 AM


Re: God, Alleged Gods & Creatures
1. So called Greek gods are alleged to be gods by polytheists.
If we follow your definition of the term 'god' then the ancient Greeks did not beleieve in gods and thus qualify as atheists
If we follow the ancient Greek's use of the term 'god' then Satan qualifies as a god and thus you qualify as a polytheist.
So which is it?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Buzsaw, posted 02-19-2009 8:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 260 of 382 (499649)
02-19-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by dwise1
02-06-2009 2:54 AM


Re: We Have an Answer Courtesy of ICANT
Good post, and I enjoyed reading it. Just had a bit if information for you though:
dwise1 writes:
And believe it or not, that he had put that "(sic)" in himself; one normally only does that when quoting somebody else:
You're correct that this normally isn't used when writing something yourself, but the email writer simply wanted to prove a point. He wrote:
dwise1's email correspondent writes:
...namely satan himself. satan's (sic) main concern...
It's more of a religious "respect" thing. I'm sure you've heard of Christians capitalizing "God", even in the middle of a sentence, out of respect. Well, this is sort of the reverse. The writer is informing you that he is not messing up his capitalization. That is, the second "satan" (after the period) should normally be capitalized for beginning a sentence, however the writer is not capitalizing it in order to not give "satan" any respect in the same way "God" should be given respect.
...or something like that.
A silly thing if you ask me, but that's what they're doing.
I also think that capitalizing God in the middle of sentences is silly. God doesn't require our respect in pedantic, ornery ways, if He even exists. Such things belittle more than they give respect, in my opinion. But I'll do it as much as I can remember anyway because I do have respect for the many, many people who beleive such a thing is incredibly important. And because it is those people who are, generally, my main target-audience in places such as these.
I won't be, however, not-capitalizing "satan" at the beginning of sentences... such things are too far even for me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by dwise1, posted 02-06-2009 2:54 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 261 of 382 (499836)
02-21-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Buzsaw
02-17-2009 8:52 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
By the same token, do the terms, creature and creator mean anything to you?
What does that have to do with anything? Why does the fact that one thing "created" the other mean it is somehow "less"? See, we're back to the claim I made at the beginning: After giving the devil "god-like" significance, you are stuck in having to denigrate the very being you have made so powerful. Either the devil is as powerful as you make him out to be or he isn't. Which is it?
quote:
We have only one god who designates powers to his creatues.
So does the devil have power or not? You're the one saying that god has no need to create other gods, and yet there is this other character, the devil, who seemingly gives god a run for his money in the power department. And once establishing that fact, you then deny it. You don't get to have it both ways. Either the devil is as powerful as you make him out to be or he isn't. Which is it?
quote:
The president presides over the nation. God presides over the universe.
The President is not supreme. And from the way the devil is described, neither is god. Either the devil is as powerful as you make him out to be or he isn't. Which is it?
quote:
That every aspect of the analogy does not match is irrelevant. The analogy supports my point, nevertheless.
Incorrect. Your analogy doesn't even begin to describe what you are trying to say. The President does not have total power. It is shared by two other, co-equal branches. The way the devil is described, he is an independent, "god-like" being. But because you cannot allow evil to win, you immediately denigrate the very power you have granted unto the devil. Either the devil is as powerful as you make him out to be or he isn't. Which is it?
quote:
If the devil wins, the creature overpowers the maker, which is impossible according to the Biblical record.
This is just as I said: Upon giving evil all this power, you immediately recoil from it and denigrate what you just established. You don't get to have it both ways. Either the devil is as powerful as you make him out to be or he isn't. Which is it?
quote:
Biblical prophecy which never fails prophesies the eventual demise of the devil and states that he knows his fate.
Ignoring the fallacious claim that biblical prophecy has actually never succeeded, you are only digging your hole deeper: After describing the devil as this powerful being, you immediately claim that he can't possibly be that way. Either the devil is as powerful as you make him out to be or he isn't. Which is it?
quote:
quote:
But surely you agree that different people have very different understandings of what the Bible says, do you not? If everybody agreed, why aren't we all Orthodox?
LOL. There's so many emphatic Biblical texts establishing monotheism that anyone who tries to claim the Bible is polytheist is obviously ignorant of the Biblical record.
Then clearly the Gnostics don't understand their own religion. And you are confusing the "monotheism" of later passages of the Bible indicating there is only one god anywhere to be found with the "monotheism" of the earlier passages of the Bible indicating that the Jews are to only worship Jehovah but that there are other gods out there (Baal, for example).
At any rate, you haven't answered my question: If everybody agreed, why aren't we all Orthodox?
quote:
God creates creatures of free will.
That doesn't answer the question. Either the devil is as powerful as you make him out to be or he isn't. Which is it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2009 8:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 262 of 382 (500665)
03-01-2009 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Buzsaw
02-07-2009 9:10 PM


Re: Harmful Doctrine
Add one more.
5. If you preach the truth that earth goes around the sun, you still do harm as it is against biblicasl doctrines[sic].

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2009 9:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:47 AM RCS has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 263 of 382 (500744)
03-02-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-30-2009 10:02 AM


conversely
Did you know that there are many creationists who do not have a religion or specific belief in any God? They simply recognize that the earth and all living things cannot be explained solely in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes. They recognize that life must be explained, at least in part, by completed extra-natural processes in a universe which itself was created. These scientists are not interested in the bible or in proving God, but rather, proving that there is created order in our world.
The Evolution Model is seen as an atheistic model (even though not all evolutionists are atheists) because it purports to explain everything without God. The Creation Model is seen a theistic model (even though not all creationists believe in a personal God) because it requires a God or Designer/Creator able to create the whole cosmos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-30-2009 10:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2009 10:44 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 10:48 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 298 by onifre, posted 03-02-2009 5:23 PM Kelly has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 264 of 382 (500745)
03-02-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Kelly
03-02-2009 10:39 AM


Re: conversely
Kelly writes:
Did you know that there are many creationists who do not have a religion or specific belief in any God?
Really? I've never met one who didn't believe in some god or other. Do you have some examples?
The Evolution Model is seen as an atheistic model (even though not all evolutionists are atheists) because it purports to explain everything without God.
The evolution model doesn't explain "everything". Merely the diversity of life we see. It makes no comments on anything else.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:39 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:56 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 265 of 382 (500746)
03-02-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by RCS
03-01-2009 1:47 AM


Re: Harmful Doctrine
Really? Does the Bible really teach contrary to truth? Where does the Bible deny that the earth revolves and rotates around the sun? I have said this already, but the Bible is also a poetic work. People today write about beautiful sunrises--full well knowing that the sun does not literally rise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by RCS, posted 03-01-2009 1:47 AM RCS has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 10:51 AM Kelly has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 266 of 382 (500747)
03-02-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Kelly
03-02-2009 10:39 AM


Re: conversely
Did you know that there are many creationists who do not have a religion or specific belief in any God?
OK please try to explain this one? How can a person believe in a creation myth if they don't believe in a creator. It seems you would need some real logical dancing around to get this idea to work out. Examples of these creationists that don't believe in a god would be some good evidence for you to provide.
The Creation Model is seen a theistic model (even though not all creationists believe in a personal God) because it requires a God or Designer/Creator able to create the whole cosmos
Aren't you contradicting your first sentence? How can you reconcile both these comments?
Personal god or not, creationists have a belief in a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:39 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:02 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 267 of 382 (500748)
03-02-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Kelly
03-02-2009 10:47 AM


Re: Harmful Doctrine
There are plenty of active threads for you to spout your creationist mumbo-jumbo. I think you have already been told in another thread to move your comments to appropriate threads. Please move your comments to appropriate threads. I will happily debate you, but in the threads that the comments belong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:47 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:59 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 268 of 382 (500749)
03-02-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Huntard
03-02-2009 10:44 AM


It depends on what we are talking about then
Creationists do not deny evolution in the micro-sense. This kind of evolution is in complete harmony with creationists because it is predicted by their model and it is observable. There is a great diversity and variation *within* all species of life. We can see a great variety of different kinds of dogs, cats, and even people have evoloved over time, for example.
Creationists draw the line with Darwinian evolution-that is-macroevolution, where the claim is made that one kind has morphed into an entirely different kind or species. That kind of evolution has never been observed by anyone because it requires an emmense span of time to supposedly occur. Ironically, macroevolution cannot be seen in anyone's life time due to the fact that it happens slowly over very long periods of time--yet, it cannot be seen in the fossil record either because it supposedly happens too quickly--in short bursts...and has been refered to as morphing. An example would be the supposed evolution of a dinosaur into bird. It is simply a creative idea with absolutely no proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2009 10:44 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 269 of 382 (500750)
03-02-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Theodoric
03-02-2009 10:51 AM


I am confused
How can my comments not be in keeping with these threads since I am merely responding to claims made in these threads? I am new to this forum and already I get the feeling it isn't going to be a place to enjoy. Some of these threads are ridiculously long and confusing. I am having a hard time fining my way around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 10:51 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 270 of 382 (500751)
03-02-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Theodoric
03-02-2009 10:48 AM


Why do you assume that?
Why do you assume that a creationist believes in a creation myth? Creation Science can be studied independently of any religion or religious writings. There is a difference between biblical creationism and creation science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 10:48 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 11:04 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 272 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 11:12 AM Kelly has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024