Topic: The Treadmill of Atheism - page 12. (Read 7058 times)

Of course!  That's what the bible is - written based on the beliefs of the time - beliefs we have since proved to be wrong. 

So why do you still believe?  Answer:  Brainwashing.  The only other answer is you are being wilfully ignorant.

You and your word games.

The moon is not a light
But that's really all we knew of it until we went there.

Our sun is not the same age as the rest of the stars.  Stars are considerably older than the earth.
The quoted Bible passage suggests that the stars were made at a different time than the sun was, by at least a few seconds, anyway. But we don't know that the stars are considerably older than the earth for a fact. The ONLY scientific method we have for determining that the stars even exist is the starlight that comes from the sky. Again, it is all based on the scientific "IF."

The Earth is not motionless
The quoted bible passage has to do with a poetic way of saying that the earth's whole cosmology is set and cannot be changed.

Happy now? I played your game a little.

The easiest historical fact to disprove in the bible is the world wide flood. There are ice core samples from the south pole that go back almost 120,000 years. They form layers just like tree rings. Studies of ice core samples reveal a lot of information about weather each year and these show that there was no world wide flood anywhere near that time.

For me, the closest thing to God is the mathematical nature of the universe. Sometimes when I learn a new theorem or procedure, I can see such beauty in it that I wonder if this is what people mean when they say they saw the face of God.

Brainwashing is a religious delight.  I am not forced to congregate with other brainwashed people once a week lest my common sense start taking hold.  I don't need my physics teachers to prove to me weekly that gravity pulls me down.  I'm not forced to repeat brainwashed phrases a dozen time a week (the lord is with you, and also with you)....  Why do you guys feel the need to keep reminding you of your faith?  Because without constant reinforcement, brainwashing fades.

That is why every year your god loses followers (even in the US!) and more people pronounce they don't believe in fairly tales anymore.  You are a dying breed.  

See?  This is why you can't argue with a brainwashed person.  They will flat out lie to protect their cult.
If I cared to spend any time, I could show a thousand of these examples.  
Ther brainwashed will call the sky pink if that is what their god says - even though they look at it and see it is blue.


The moon is not a light

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made thestars also.

Our sun is not the same age as the rest of the stars.  Stars are considerably older than the earth.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The Earth is not motionless

Psalms 104:5 The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved.


If you believe science is a lie and your god will save you, go step off a cliff, you fool.   

The vast majority of the world has been brainwashed by whatever other than the Bible has brainwashed them. Often, however, they have the excuse of not having the availability of the Bible in their location, although the Bible is making many inroads into Southeast Asia.

Rather than realizing that modern science has not proven many of the things that it expresses as fact, people go on believing in the scientific lies.

Only for those brainwashed by it. That's the key.

For the vast majority of the world, the bible is simply an outdated book that says rape victims should be forced to marry their attackers.   

The thread wasn't talking about what we should or should not be assuming. It was talking about why atheists debaters use political speaking rather than getting down to the proof. My post explains that.

As far as fact goes, essentially nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong. But many scientific theories about things like evolution have been proven wrong, often by the same scientist that made the particular theory.

The Bible has strength by default, simply because of this. So, consider the strength that it would have if it were proven true.

Surely, that's the wrong way round. Shouldn't we assume the bible statements are fiction until they are proven true?

I haven't been able to tell if you are simply speaking sarcastically, or if you really think that stoners (whatever they are) wrote the Bible. But, if you are serious, consider that the almost 2,000 to 3,500-year-old Bible is one of the most studied books around today. And it isn't only studied by children and mentally retarded. It is studied by some of the greatest debaters around. Consider Ken Ham. Also, many scientists study the Bible.

How much more popular does the Bible have to get before people will see that there is something to what this book has to say? If there wasn't any strength to the book, more than any other book, it would have disappeared into antiquity long ago. Consider Plato. Many people read Plato. Some read Plutarch. Some, Socrates, some Aristotle. But these writings, along with many others, fade into obscurity that is virtual invisiblility in the presence of the amount of Bible reading that is done.

Part of the thing that atheists are missing is having something that is this strong, strong like the Bible. at the core of ALL scientific writings, there exists the great "IF." "IF" this or that happened, then we would have a universe that started with a Big Bang, one that is 13 or 14 billion years old, one where evolution by random happenstance brought us all into being, etc.  

Science and atheism have lots of theories, and ideas that are not even theories. But way down deep, the ideas and theories have no strength if they can't be proven. That's what science is all about... the facts. Scientifically we simply don't know many of the scientific things that are expressed in many books as fact. The Bill Nye's of the world know this. They have been debated into the corner on many occasions... if not by Christian debaters, then by their own conscience when seeking the truth.

One of the strong things that the Bible has, even if the Bible happens to NOT be truth, is that it states the things that it says as though they are FACT. Even if they are not fact, they state it as such. When you have a book that you can't go out an prove is false, simply because nobody has much of the history of the Bible recorded anywhere else, the best you can do is say that it is improbable or implausible. When you stand this up against the scientific non-fact, that is expressed by the "core" scientists right in their scientific papers, what else can the result be?

So, science loses by not being able to prove the things that they say. And the fact that they admit this in their core papers, proves that there is no substance to the science.

While the Bible has all kinds of statements, it is from the past. So, until the scientists can virtually prove Bible statements wrong, these Bible statements stand. This is the strength of the Bible. This is the Bible strength where atheist or anti-Bible people and debaters lose.

We argue against people whose only argument is a 2,000 year old book written by stoners.  There has been zero happenings in 2,000 years that they can attribute to their god.  (I'm talking all the gods on earth, not just the christian one.)

How can you have logical arguments with the brainwashed?

I have now been watching the Atheist and Christian community (it is NOT an Atheist/Theist community, they only talk to Christians) and I just want to point something out.

Atheists don't like testing themselves. When someone like Bill Nye debates Ken Ham, they all talk like "Are we sure we should really validate Ken Ham like that?" but then when Bill Nye is not debating Ken Ham, Matt Dillahunty is debating Sye Ten and everyone else is debating G man. The way to prove these people are not worth validating is by proving them wrong, not by talking to them OVER AND OVER.

If anyone else has been watching, you have probably noticed that Atheism has not ever clearly beaten the Presup. I personally think ALL the Christian arguments fail, and I actually have rebuttals for most of them, but the Atheists have literally been on this SAME topic for almost a year. Can someone PLEASE just think of a better argument than "Well, maybe I'm in a Matrix, but that's ok" again, I don't think the Christians have good arguments, but the Atheists have failed here.

If someone like Bill Nye doesn't come and prove it wrong, it will literally have atheists yelling at their computers for eternity, then having chats afterwards to talk about how circular the eternal debate was.

If someone wants to beat the presup, all you have to do is appeal outside your own reason. Stop being so full of yourself, and accept that you are not using YOUR reasoning, but are building on the reasoning of your ancestors, using their reasoning AND your reasoning, and hearing the reasoning of other. I have literally been watching for almost a year, and no one has been able to do that.

When I first noticed the Atheist community on Youtube a few months ago, I thought they were honestly the more intelligent side. I saw Bill Nye debate Ken Ham, and I thought he completely destroyed him, no one ever talks about the biggest boats we have ever made. Why would no one else use that in an argument against Noah? The boats fall apart, period.

As I watched the debates, I continued to feel as if the Atheists were smarter. But when you watch 2 people like Max Mills and Nick Duncan debate, you can see that there are obviously still some smart people that believe in God (and in case atheists don't know, not all religions require a creator).

But then I noticed something. "Atheism" has simply attached itself to "science". They are not smarter, in fact, many of them are "Shit Slingers". they will literally just say things like "Any tradition from before Jesus was just there because they had no better answer for it", not realizing that Doctors today STILL say the Hippocratic oath. This made it clear to me that Atheism and Science are actually opposed to each other.

Atheists don't like History. If you were to talk to a family in Britain, I am pretty damn sure they would know about the Royal family and the history thereof, and if you went to Vietnam they would probably have a pretty good idea of their heritage.

But because these Atheists are in America (and I have noticed a lot from Australia), they have the mentality that "That is ancient history", having no idea that history is how we got here.

They can accept Cosmology, and think that because they accept that, somehow they are "Science". But Science is far bigger than the realms of the atheist argument. Which has currently devolved to shit slinging. Can someone at least mold their shit into a nice statuette before slinging the next steaming heap?