Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism causes creationism

1…457910…24

Comments

  • #182
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Zombrex wrote: »
    There is tons of data. Religious people either ignore it or simply don't know it exists in the first place (and often don't want to go looking for it)
    I asked you a question in that thread, you didn't seem to see it. Perhaps you can address it now.


  • #183
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    raah! wrote: »
    I asked you a question in that thread, you didn't seem to see it. Perhaps you can address it now.

    You need to be a bit more specific, which thread?


  • #184
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    The hyperactive agency detection thread.


  • #185
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I am a Saved Christian ... and I have repeatedly said so. Ultimately, the only persons who can verify whether anybody is a Christian are themselves and Jesus Christ.

    ... either way, the sight of an Atheist being squeamish about the Christian Orthodoxy of those with whom they choose to debate, certainly is a sight to behold!!!!

    I have 'come clean' ... as you call it ... and told you that I am a Christian ... so ready, steady, go!!

    ... I can understand your fear of coming up against a Christian indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God ... but please be assured that God is gentle and loving and has a special place in his heart for all repentent sinners.

    I'll refer you to this post and the requirement pertained in it

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75571732&postcount=178


  • #186
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    raah! wrote: »
    The hyperactive agency detection thread.

    Apologies I certainly did miss that post. I'm writing a reply right now.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I'll refer you to this post and the requirement pertained in it

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75571732&postcount=178
    Why do you want me to deny Jesus Christ ... or do you only talk to Atheists in order to avoid any real challenges to your faith???


  • #188
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    Why do you want me to deny Jesus Christ ... or do you only talk to Atheists in order to avoid any real challenges to your faith???

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75571732&postcount=178


  • #189
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75571732&postcount=178
    An Atheist who is taking it upon himself to judge whether somebody is a Christian?

    You're starting to sound like a member of the Medieval Inquisition?

    Don't you realise that this judgement is reserved to Jesus Christ, immediately after death?


  • #190
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    raah! wrote: »
    The hyperactive agency detection thread.
    Sounds like an Evolutionist kind of a thing allright!!!!:):D:eek:


  • #191
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I'm not sure how one determines "wealthy" in those times (he wasn't living in a place surrounded by servants), but he was significantly better of than a labourer would have been. For a start he didn't work, he simply travelled around the country side having people adore him.

    Do you actually dispute this? Or do you just not like what is being suggested?

    I'm just enjoying the attempted spin, the last one I read about doing it was Judas :

    “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” - John 12:5


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Zombrex
    I'm not sure how one determines "wealthy" in those times (he wasn't living in a place surrounded by servants), but he was significantly better of than a labourer would have been. For a start he didn't work, he simply travelled around the country side having people adore him.

    Do you actually dispute this? Or do you just not like what is being suggested?
    Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe ... and thus all things in Heaven and Earth ultimately belongs to Him ... even you, Zombrex.
    ... although, in his sovereign majesty, He does grant you the free will to decide whether you want to live with Him in eternal bliss in Heaven ... or, if you prefer, in eternal damnation in Hell, with the Devil and his angels ... the choice is entirely up to you.

    PS ... if you want my advice, I'd choose Salvation and Heaven, if I were you.


  • #193
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    I'm just enjoying the attempted spin

    No spin. A few straw men thrown out by yourself, but no spin. ;)

    You are still avoiding the question I notice. Do you disagree that Jesus was supported by the wealth women who followed him after he cured them of "evil spirits", and that this afforded him a life style he could not have otherwise obtained simply working as a carpenter, allowing him to travel around the country preaching and growing his followers?

    Would you see this as "earthly gain"?


  • #194
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Do you disagree that Jesus was supported by the wealth women who followed him after he cured them of "evil spirits", and that this afforded him a life style he could not have otherwise obtained simply working as a carpenter, allowing him to travel around the country preaching and growing his followers?

    Would you see this as "earthly gain"?
    The Man God Jesus Christ created the entire Universe ... and could turn water into wine ... and raise the dead ... so he had no need of widows mites ...
    ... but I'm sure that He did appreciate gifts freely given, as tokens of pure love for Him or in repentance for sin offenses against Him.


  • #195
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    JC - get back in your box.

    Seriously, one travesty thread is enough. No more posting here.


  • #196
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Like most cult leaders, I would imagine it was money, power over people, and the satisfaction of being worshipped.

    Jesus had his ministry funded by wealthy followers. He was adored by said followers and worshipped as if a god. Not bad for a carpenter, no?

    Do you see similarities between that and other cult leaders, such as Jim Jones?

    No I don't because Jim Jones ordered that his followers kill themselves, as you went on to say. So no, I don't? I thought that might have been obvious.

    So the satisfaction of being worshiped to the point of being nailed to a cross, when He clearly could have fled, is it Zombrex?


  • #197
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Newsite wrote: »
    So the satisfaction of being worshiped to the point of being nailed to a cross, when He clearly could have fled, is it Zombrex?

    Allegedly nailed to the cross when he clearly could have fled, you still haven't established that that actually happened. Still waiting on those links actually.


  • #198
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Allegedly nailed to the cross when he clearly could have fled, you still haven't established that that actually happened. Still waiting on those links actually.

    I know you've got your own agenda, but try not to derail the topic.


  • #199
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    No I don't because Jim Jones ordered that his followers kill themselves, as you went on to say. So no, I don't? I thought that might have been obvious.

    Yes but they did it, didn't they. Killing yourself and your children, not something to take lightly, don't you think?

    You don't think that means that what they believed was true?
    Newsite wrote: »
    So the satisfaction of being worshiped to the point of being nailed to a cross, when He clearly could have fled, is it Zombrex?

    Who says he didn't try and flee? The Christians who worshipped him as a god and constructed a mythology around him needing to die?

    Ever asked a Scientologist what L. Ron Hubbard was really like? :pac:


  • #200
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes but they did it, didn't they. Killing yourself and your children, not something to take lightly, don't you think?

    You don't think that means that what they believed was true?



    Who says he didn't try and flee? The Christians who worshipped him as a god and constructed a mythology around him needing to die?

    Ever asked a Scientologist what L. Ron Hubbard was really like? :pac:

    My simple point is that you are using the version of what happened (the Bible) to cast a slur in saying He was 'in it for the money'. That's the 'fact' that you are basing your argument on. So, if you want to go that way, you also have to accept that He died for His preaching, because that is also in the version of events. And what I'm asking you to do is reconcile one with the other?


  • #201
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    My simple point is that you are using the version of what happened (the Bible) to cast a slur in saying He was 'in it for the money'. That's the 'fact' that you are basing your argument on. So, if you want to go that way, you also have to accept that He died for His preaching, because that is also in the version of events. And what I'm asking you to do is reconcile one with the other?

    Er, again are we applying that logic just to Christianity, or to all religions?

    Cause I'm pretty sure L. Ron Hubbard had a boat. I read about it on the Scientology website. Thus everything Scientology says on its website is true.;)

    Religions have always attempted to present their leaders in a good light. I've no idea if Jesus attempted to flee or not. I do know that if he did you certainly won't be hearing about it in the early oral history of Christianity.

    I've always railed against the claim that religious people were stupid, because it is utterly untrue. But by golly you guys can be incredibly naive.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Newsite wrote: »
    So, if you want to go that way, you also have to accept that He died for His preaching, because that is also in the version of events.
    In the same way L. Ron Hubbard didn't die of a stroke with a gut full of drugs banned by his religion, but rather "left his physical body to conduct more research".


  • #203
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Allegedly nailed to the cross when he clearly could have fled, you still haven't established that that actually happened. Still waiting on those links actually.
    It just so happens that I chose to be an atheist simply because I couldn't find any evidence that proved jesus died for us on the cross, it's unfortunate that you're not willing to save my soul just by providing a link.


  • #204
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You are still avoiding the question I notice. Do you disagree that Jesus was supported by the wealth women who followed him after he cured them of "evil spirits", and that this afforded him a life style he could not have otherwise obtained simply working as a carpenter, allowing him to travel around the country preaching and growing his followers?

    Would you see this as "earthly gain"?

    What is your source for this opinion ?


  • #205
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    marty1985 wrote: »
    Charles Darwin was a member of the Church of England, no?

    Ok, my mistake, I looked over the change from christianity to catholic church.
    marty1985 wrote: »
    Again, I'm not so sure it was the norm. I guess you're saying literalist views always existed, and I wouldn't deny that. Even if we go back to wiki again, in the page for Catholic Church and Evolution it says "even by 1859, the church did not insist on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis".

    It didn't insist, it was just expected. The church has long shown that it can drop certain theological views when they make it look stupid (only certain ones though, they can forget about the whole babies-g-to-limbo thing but for some reason they cant get over condoms or sex before marriage). So when evolution came along, the RCC remembered how stupid looked about the whole Galileo incident, saw that the literal genesis wasn't really important and so gave up without a fight. Other sects of christianity didn't and, as I said to raah!, I fail to see why thats evolutions fault or why we should care.
    marty1985 wrote: »
    There's also a page on Christian Fundamentalism which is worth a read, I will give it a proper read later when I have time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

    Nothing in the page contradicts what I said before: "The "movement" has always existed, it is just that before the theory of evolution, it didn't have anything to move against, it was the norm." It just says that they came from mainly protestant sects. The only difference is implicit vs explicit denial of evolution.
    marty1985 wrote: »
    I don't think cartoons are the best approach to the discussion, since they represent a caricature, while attacking abortion clinics is an awful action, I don't think it's typical of all fundamentalists or evangelicals, to use a broader term.

    Your assertion that militant atheists are the same as fundamental christians is based on your own caricature. why didn't you respond to the big chunk of writing (in the "massive non sequitor..." post) explaining why the comparison is completely invalid.


  • #206
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    It just so happens that I chose to be an atheist simply because I couldn't find any evidence that proved jesus died for us on the cross, it's unfortunate that you're not willing to save my soul just by providing a link.

    Let me ask you this. If I wrote a book in the morning about a man who lived and died approx 27 years ago, and proclaimed Him to be the Messiah, and approx 10 years later someone wrote another very similar account, and then two other people wrote similar accounts, one of which was a full 30 or so years after the first one, but still had the exact same theme, would you say that these books would be instantly discredited as false, especially given that I would be writing about a whole range of people who could instantly discredit me and say what I was writing was false? Or would the book I wrote, and the others, last for thousands of years and instantly gain thousands of followers?

    Which scenario is more likely?


  • #207
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    What is your source for this opinion ?

    Er, the Bible. As I already said.


  • #208
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ok, my mistake, I looked over the change from christianity to catholic church.

    Grand.
    It didn't insist, it was just expected. The church has long shown that it can drop certain theological views when they make it look stupid (only certain ones though, they can forget about the whole babies-g-to-limbo thing but for some reason they cant get over condoms or sex before marriage). So when evolution came along, the RCC remembered how stupid looked about the whole Galileo incident, saw that the literal genesis wasn't really important and so gave up without a fight. Other sects of christianity didn't and, as I said to raah!, I fail to see why thats evolutions fault or why we should care.

    I'm just confused if you're referring specifically to the Catholic Church here or not when you say "church". If so, I disagree for reasons already given. I don't understand the line about anything being evolution's "fault". I just said that creationism as we know it has more to do with evolution because the movement gained publicity through the Scopes Trial.
    Nothing in the page contradicts what I said before: "The "movement" has always existed, it is just that before the theory of evolution, it didn't have anything to move against, it was the norm." It just says that they came from mainly protestant sects. The only difference is implicit vs explicit denial of evolution.

    Not much correlates with it in fairness, (as in actual historical information), but I said already that I understood your view to relate to literal interpretations of the Bible, not fundamentalism per se. Fundamentalism is reactionary. I was only contributing some historical information to the thread, and giving personal opinion, not arguing.

    "Christian fundamentalism, also known as Fundamentalist Christianity, or Fundamentalism,[1] arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians.[2] The founders reacted against liberal theology and militantly asserted that the inerrancy of the Bible was essential for true Christianity and was being violated by the modernists."

    I am not sure what the disagreement is at all.
    Your assertion that militant atheists are the same as fundamental christians is based on your own caricature. why didn't you respond to the big chunk of writing (in the "massive non sequitor..." post) explaining why the comparison is completely invalid.

    Because I respectfully don't agree. My statement was not directed at all militant atheists, ("There are militant athiests out there..."), it's an opinion and I gave reasons why I hold that opinion. It's nothing controversial. I don't see any point in arguing about a difference of opinion.


  • #209
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Er, the Bible. As I already said.

    Can you reference the relevant chapts. and verses please. Thanks


  • #210
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Can you reference the relevant chapts. and verses please. Thanks

    Did you miss it the first time

    Luke 8
    1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Newsite wrote: »
    Let me ask you this. If I wrote a book in the morning about a man who lived and died approx 27 years ago, and proclaimed Him to be the Messiah, and approx 10 years later someone wrote another very similar account, and then two other people wrote similar accounts, one of which was a full 30 or so years after the first one, but still had the exact same theme, would you say that these books would be instantly discredited as false, especially given that I would be writing about a whole range of people who could instantly discredit me and say what I was writing was false? Or would the book I wrote, and the others, last for thousands of years and instantly gain thousands of followers?

    Which scenario is more likely?
    I don't see a link anywhere in this post, just the one will do.


Advertisement