7 days or 7 billion years?

kumate_champ07 · 18-06-2009 2:55pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, it's not. When a claim is made, that claim must be substantiated. In this case, a claim has been made that a bloke 2000 years ago performed miracles and raised from the dead. The evidence for that claim has not been presented, therefore I do not accept it. That is not a belief, it is a refusal to believe without evidence

semantics+lose of what is being debated. its not just jesus, its also god.
i believe that there might have been a jesus. but why does he have white skin if he was born in the middle east? why havent modern picture souvenirs of jesus been corrected?
what did he do during his 20's?

philologos · 18-06-2009 2:57pm

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

so from what you just stated, people desire to become homosexual?

Homosexuality is based on desires. Just as heterosexuality is.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

1) so being gay is a choice?

I don't know whether it is a choice or predetermined, but I am not going to assume.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

2) or is it the kind of environment that your grew you in?

Possibly, again we don't have enough to work on at the minute.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

3) you dont think its genetically determined?

I don't think so because I have no reason to think so.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

ill add another question, are we all born with the same genetics?

Of course not. Why on earth would we be all different in appearance amongst other things if there weren't genetic differences?

As for Jesus and white skin. Of course Jesus would not have had white skin if He was Jewish and from the Middle East. Depictions always let us down since we don't actually know what Jesus looked like. In Africa Jesus is black on depictions, in China Jesus is Chinese.

Sam Vimes · 18-06-2009 2:59pm

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

semantics+lose of what is being debated. its not just jesus, its also god.
i believe that there might have been a jesus. but why does he have white skin if he was born in the middle east? why havent modern picture souvenirs of jesus been corrected?
what did he do during his 20's?

I know it's not just jesus, that was just an example. The evidence for god has not been presented either.

Sam Vimes · 18-06-2009 3:01pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Homosexuality is based on desires. Just as heterosexuality is.

Could you wake up tomorrow and decide to find men attractive?

Goduznt Xzst · 18-06-2009 3:02pm

Jakkass wrote: »

people became homosexuals.

Can you detail when you "became" heterosexual? I don't know about you but I've always been this way, so I assume homosexuals are also. I have no reason to think otherwise.

philologos · 18-06-2009 3:05pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could you wake up tomorrow and decide to find men attractive?

Do you not think it is a bit of a leap to go from this position, to the position that it must be biologically predetermined?

Surely it is just as likely that other factors could be involved?

kumate_champ07 · 18-06-2009 3:05pm

doh, i meant *loss not lose

kumate_champ07 · 18-06-2009 3:08pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you not think it is a bit of a leap to go from this position, to the position that it must be biologically predetermined?

Surely it is just as likely that other factors could be involved?

i have the desire to lie, desire to steal, desire for sex outside marriage,desire to physically harm another person, but i try not to give in to desires.
i never have the desire to stick my dick in another mans arse, because i was born hetrosexual.

Twin-go · 18-06-2009 3:10pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you not think it is a bit of a leap to go from this position, to the position that it must be biologically predetermined?

Surely it is just as likely that other factors could be involved?

It has been shown that some animals in the wild can have preference for same sex sexual contact. Did they choose to be that way or is it instinct?

philologos · 18-06-2009 3:12pm

Twin-go wrote: »

Lev.21 17-23 Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

Interestingly, this only refers to the high priests in the Tent of the Lord's Presence and the Temple in Jerusalem. It does not refer to the general population only as to what requirements there were for being a High Priest in the Holy of Holies. Again looking up a bit about Judaism might be useful.

Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that God hates anyone of disability. It merely says that people who are disabled probably shouldn't serve as High Priests in the Temple. Infact God commands people in the very same book that you quote from (Leviticus) to show deference to the poor, the weak and the stranger in the land of Egypt.

The way these posts are going I'm wondering when the Judaism forum is going to open

Sam Vimes · 18-06-2009 3:13pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you not think it is a bit of a leap to go from this position, to the position that it must be biologically predetermined?

Surely it is just as likely that other factors could be involved?

Well that's not the only indication. There's also the fact that a significant number of gay people hate being gay, hide it from their family and friends, refuse to admit it to themselves, commit suicide etc. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that it's a choice and whole lot to indicate that it's a biologically determined attribute that people often wish they didn't have

People can't help who they find attractive. It's not a choice

kumate_champ07 · 18-06-2009 3:15pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Surely it is just as likely that other factors could be involved?

like what?

philologos · 18-06-2009 3:16pm

Twin-go wrote: »

It has been shown that some animals in the wild can have preference for same sex sexual contact. Did they choose to be that way or is it instinct?

Others have offered alternative explanations for this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081104-homosexual-beetles.html

Some say it is a reproductive practice to give animals a reproductive edge when they come to mate with females. It's far far to early to just leap to the conclusion that it is biologically predetermined.

This is a quote from the article that was particularly notable:

"So many papers look at these sorts of behaviors and immediately consider them from a human perspective. This paper has done a remarkable job of not sexing up the homosexuality and [instead] just asking why beetles do this."

When we are observing the animal world we shouldn't be putting human standards on them so easily.

Twin-go · 18-06-2009 3:18pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly, this only refers to the high priests in the Tent of the Lord's Presence and the Temple in Jerusalem. It does not refer to the general population only as to what requirements there were for being a High Priest in the Holy of Holies. Again looking up a bit about Judaism might be useful.

Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that God hates anyone of disability. It merely says that people who are disabled probably shouldn't serve as High Priests in the Temple. Infact God commands people in the very same book that you quote from (Leviticus) to show deference to the poor, the weak and the stranger in the land of Egypt.

The way these posts are going I'm wondering when the Judaism forum is going to open

In Leviticus 21:18 does it not say, some twelve impairments - from restricted growth to ruptured testicles, are listed as being unacceptable to God and in Samuel 5:8 He orders that those who are blind and lame "shall not come into the home."

Again, the bible can be quoted in both sides of any agrument.

BTW still wait for you to come back on some earlier posts.:D;)

philologos · 18-06-2009 3:21pm

Twin-go wrote: »

In Leviticus 21:18 does it not say, some twelve impairments - from restricted growth to ruptured testicles, are listed as being unacceptable to God and in Samuel 5:8 He orders that those who are blind and lame "shall not come into the home."

Again, the bible can be quoted in both sides of any agrument.

BTW still wait for you to come back on some earlier posts.:D;)

Which book of Samuel, first or second Samuel?

Secondly, I must ask you are you merely googling this instead of reading this yourself? If so, I don't think it's the best example of freethought.

As for coming back to your earlier posts, I'm not going to be able to get around to all of them considering there is only one of me.

Twin-go · 18-06-2009 3:23pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Others have offered alternative explanations for this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081104-homosexual-beetles.html

Some say it is a reproductive practice to give animals a reproductive edge when they come to mate with females. It's far far to early to just leap to the conclusion that it is biologically predetermined.

This is a quote from the article that was particularly notable:

When we are observing the animal world we shouldn't be putting human standards on them so easily.

Is this not an example biologically predetermination

Did they sit and think, "I wonder what would give me a repoductuve edge?"
Animal instinct is biologically predetermination.

TheInquisitor · 18-06-2009 3:25pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Which book of Samuel, first or second Samuel?

Secondly, I must ask you are you merely googling this instead of reading this yourself? If so, I don't think it's the best example of freethought.

As for coming back to your earlier posts, I'm not going to be able to get around to all of them considering there is only one of me.

Lets give it up for jackkass, fair enough i strongly disagree with everything he thinks but without him there'd be no discussion on the atheism forum or on this thread!

philologos · 18-06-2009 3:27pm

2 Samuel 5:6-8 wrote:

The king and his men marched to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, ‘You will not come in here, even the blind and the lame will turn you back’—thinking, ‘David cannot come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David. David had said on that day, ‘Whoever wishes to strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, those whom David hates.’ Therefore it is said, ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.’

It's quite funny that you quote this passage. This passage is not a commandment.

"Therefore it is said" refers to a common expression in Israel that was uttered by the people due to remembering this historical event. It does not refer to a commandment.

David and his army are invading Jerusalem the city of the Jebusites. They say concerning David's army that even the blind and the lame will cast you out of the city of Jerusalem. I.E You have no chance even the blind and the lame will defeat you. David however, did conquer the city of Jerusalem, hence the expression was used in ancient Israel.

The deaf and the blind are also used in Hebrew scriptures to refer to those who are incapable due to their disbelief to see God's work, and the deaf to refer to those who are unwilling to listen to God or to heed his commandments. It's used in Leviticus in this context and in other Jewish prophets of the Bible.

Edit: In this case it seems to be more that the expression was a reverse on the arrogance the Jebusites had uttered about the Jews.

Twin-go · 18-06-2009 3:28pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Which book of Samuel, first or second Samuel?.

Second.

Jakkass wrote: »

Secondly, I must ask you are you merely googling this instead of reading this yourself? If so, I don't think it's the best example of freethought.

Question was where in the Bible does God say Disabilities are evil?

That seems a strieght forward question. No free thought required. I quoted a passage were disabled people a thought as lesser people not capable of being preists.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for coming back to your earlier posts, I'm not going to be able to get around to all of them considering there is only one of me.

What, the God believer is in the minority:eek::eek::eek:

How is that possible??

Twin-go · 18-06-2009 3:31pm

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Lets give it up for jackkass, fair enough i strongly disagree with everything he thinks but without him there'd be no discussion on the atheism forum or on this thread!

Amen to that!!

togster · 18-06-2009 3:44pm

Twin-go wrote: »

Sorry, but you are wrong. Atheist have no beliefs.

Can you tell me anything else that people believe in but we have no proof for? Anything at all?

Jesus may have been a great spiritual teacher but there have been many great spiritual teachers. Mohammad, Buddha and even in modren world the Dali Lama.

OK then you don't believe in something. Why is believing in something so different to you not believing in it? There is no evidnce that god definetly doesn't exsist. People keep trying to disprove or prove things. Do they really know what the are trying to dis-prove or prove?
Do you see my point?
I agree. With your final part, and if you look closely thay all pretty much said the same thing with the same common goal

javaboy · 18-06-2009 3:49pm

I see this has as expected descended into a debate about whether or not God exists. This is not the place for it. I'd normally lock it but I'm bored so:

From now on any posts in this thread containing the letter 'e' will be deleted. No posting a 3 or a € or an asterisk in place of it either. And I'll be removing one additional letter from usage each day.

Seriously.

Twin-go · 18-06-2009 3:54pm

togster wrote: »

OK then you don't believe in something. Why is believing in something so different to you not believing in it?

Because it is the complete oppisite.

togster wrote: »

There is also no evidnce that god definetly doesn't exsist. People keep trying to disprove or prove things. Do they really know what the are trying to dis-prove or prove? Do you see my point?

I ask you again, What else is there that we have no proof exists yet we have many people who believe it exists?

togster wrote: »

I agree. With your final part, and if you look closely thay all pretty much said the same thing with the same common goal

They all have the same goal yes. But some believe theirs is the one true God/religion. This is why it is divisive. Atheism removes this divisivness.

Galvasean · 18-06-2009 3:54pm

How can I talk about Darwin's claims without using that particular graphic?

togster · 18-06-2009 4:08pm

Twin-go wrote: »

Because it is the complete oppisite.

Not really. You don't believe in god right? So why don't you? Is it because there is no evidence to prove that "god" does exsist?

You base your beliefs on absence of evidence and "religios" people base there's on books. Neither are solid evidence. Kinda like faith tbh.

Twin-go wrote: »

I ask you again, What else is there that we have no proof exists yet we have many people who believe it exists?

But your right i can't come up with anything, but why do so many people believe? There most be some tiny bit of truth somewhere and i think thats what Jesus and others were all about.

Twin-go wrote: »

They all have the same goal yes. But some believe theirs is the one true God/religion. This is why it is divisive. Atheism removes this divisivness.

Yes some "believers", but not all....

When teachers say it's "the only way" or "i am the only" way. You gotta understand that they didn't mean them personally. Just the method/path they took to get "there"

Twin-go wrote: »

Atheism removes this divisivness.

How?

ScumLord · 18-06-2009 4:10pm

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Lets give it up for jackkass, fair enough i strongly disagree with everything he thinks but without him there'd be no discussion on the atheism forum or on this thread!

He's well able to defend his position and it's to be respected.

javaboy · 18-06-2009 4:12pm

Stop using that symbol. It's not that hard. Lots of words do not contain that symbol which follows d. Just try. You can do it. I know you can.

Smart Bug · 18-06-2009 4:15pm

I'm a...good...work...guy

Sam Vimes · 18-06-2009 4:31pm

togster wrote: »

Not really. You don't believe in god right? So why don't you? Is it because there is no evidence to prove that "god" does exsist?

You base your beliefs on absence of evidence and "religios" people base there's on books. Neither are solid evidence. Kinda like faith tbh.

Belief despite lack of evidence is faith. Disbelief because of lack of evidence is not faith, it is lack of faith

Do you consider believing in unicorns and not believing in unicorns to be similar in terms of the faith required?

Twin-go · 18-06-2009 4:32pm

togster wrote: »

Not really. You don't believe in god right? So why don't you? Is it because there is no evidence to prove that "god" does exsist?

I don't beleive in God the same way I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy

togster wrote: »

You base your beliefs on absence of evidence and "religios" people base there's on books. Neither are solid evidence. Kinda like faith tbh.

Atheism is not a belief structure. It's a disbelief structure.

togster wrote: »

But your right i can't come up with anything, but why do so many people believe? There most be some tiny bit of truth somewhere and i think thats what Jesus and others were all about..

Millions of Children Believe in Santa.......

togster wrote: »

How?

Atheism removes divisivness becasue there is nothing to disagree about.

If you put it the other way around and removed Ateism and everybody believed in God you would still have people disagreeing on how to follow him.

ScumLord · 18-06-2009 4:38pm

javaboy wrote: »

Stop using that symbol. It's not that hard. Lots of words do not contain that symbol which follows d. Just try. You can do it. I know you can.

Aaaahhhhh, mmmm. Daaa ****e I can't do it.

philologos · 18-06-2009 4:39pm

Twin-go wrote: »

Atheism removes divisivness becasue there is nothing to disagree about.

If you put it the other way around and removed Ateism and everybody believed in God you would still have people disagreeing on how to follow him.

We are disagreeing right now, atheism hasn't helped us in any respect

Your view is basically. If everyone was an atheist there would be nothing to disagree about. That's like saying that everyone was a Christian there would be nothing to disagree about.

I think people would still squabble about politics as usual

Twin-go · 18-06-2009 4:47pm

Jakkass wrote: »

We are disagreeing right now, atheism hasn't helped us in any respect

Your view is basically. If everyone was an atheist there would be nothing to disagree about. That's like saying that everyone was a Christian there would be nothing to disagree about.

I think people would still squabble about politics as usual

No, If you were Atheist also we would not be disagreeing. If I were Christian we could still disagree about how to worship him.

Politics has nothing to do with Atheism. We would still have divisions on other issues. Politics, Land boarder etc. But that is a whole other discussion.

If everybody was Christian you would still have disagreements. The 2 communities in Northren Ireland are both Christian after all. The Sunnis and the Shias in Iraq are both Muslims.

:P:P right back at you!!:D

Sam Vimes · 18-06-2009 6:01pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Your view is basically. If everyone was an atheist there would be nothing to disagree about. That's like saying that everyone was a Christian there would be nothing to disagree about.

That's not his view

kumate_champ07 · 18-06-2009 6:16pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Belief despite lack of evidence is faith. Disbelief because of lack of evidence is not faith, it is lack of faith

Do you consider believing in unicorns and not believing in unicorns to be similar in terms of the faith required?

i have faith. i believe that things will work out, even if i cant see how.

kumate_champ07 · 18-06-2009 6:19pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Secondly, I must ask you are you merely googling this instead of reading this yourself? If so, I don't think it's the best example of freethought.

your google is the bible. 'free-thought' isnt quoting text from a holy book, its using logic, using your head

philologos · 18-06-2009 7:09pm

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

your google is the bible. 'free-thought' isnt quoting text from a holy book, its using logic, using your head

I use my head when thinking about passages generally. Not that the Biblical text is the only thing I ever read

togster · 18-06-2009 7:14pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Belief despite lack of evidence is faith. Disbelief because of lack of evidence is not faith, it is lack of faith

Yes that's true but both are based upon the principal of something. I just think we see it different is all

I'm not a christian (i still don't really know what that means) although i think the dude jesus had alot of good things to say. When people say "god". What brand of "god" do you think they are referring to?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you consider believing in unicorns and not believing in unicorns to be similar in terms of the faith required?

No not really but i didn't believe in "god" untill a year (god equals unicorn) ago and now i do. My reality is mine and yours is yours, neither negate the other

Sam Vimes · 18-06-2009 8:21pm

togster wrote: »

Yes that's true but both are based upon the principal of something. I just think we see it different is all I'm not a christian (i still don't really know what that means) although i think the dude jesus had alot of good things to say. When people say "god". What brand of "god" do you think they are referring to?

They are both based on a principal but on completely different ones. Faith makes a virtue of believing despite lack of knowledge and for the other that is the highest sin.

What brand they're referring to depends on the circumstances. Often arguments are made for some kind of generic creator with the unspoken assumption that doing so lends credence to an old story book (but not all the other old story books)

togster wrote: »

No not really but i didn't believe in "god" untill a year (god equals unicorn) ago and now i do. My reality is mine and yours is yours, neither negate the other

Neither might negate the other but suggesting that lack of faith is really a kind of faith is an attempt to negate my position, and a flawed one at that

markopantelic · 18-06-2009 8:35pm

BOARDS.IE IS SO NOT RELIGOUS LOL

A_SN · 21-06-2009 9:27am

This is Europe, not America :pac:

I mean even the catholic church has officially recognised evolution.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

snip

You? Debating about religion?? In my boards?! No way!!

Sam Vimes · 21-06-2009 9:48am

A_SN wrote: »

You? Debating about religion?? In my boards?! No way!!

I see......

A_SN · 21-06-2009 9:50am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I see......

It's fine, you're just a man who loves his big "reason vs faith" debates

Sam Vimes · 21-06-2009 9:51am

A_SN wrote: »

It's fine, you're just a man who loves his big "reason vs faith" debates

I see....

7 days or 7 billion years?

Comments