Something I find typically annoying with atheists.

[CassinoChips]

A good example would actually be the bloody river and diseased livestock. A scientist decides to go and sample the Nile for traces of blood minerals but finds none. This doesn't discount in any way that the river flowed with blood, it simply just can't be examined. The scientist never concluded anything.

That's the problem with the Bible, and religion in general. A vast majority of that which is contained therein is unfalsifiable. It is impossible to prove it wrong, because there's always the caveat that God willed it to be so.

You talk about science "forget[ting] the obvious," but it's fairly obvious that burning bushes don't talk. And that a guy can't move water by the sheer force of his will. And that virgins can't get pregnant. And that people tend to stay dead, not get up and walk around three days later. So why is it that science must keep the obvious in mind, but religion gets a pass and can blatantly ignore what is so blindingly obvious?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

We don't have to prove anything, and here's why--your assertion that it is impossible for scientists to know what happened 3500 years ago simply because they did not find what you thought they should have found proves nothing, so we are just as unknowledgeable about the plagues happening as we were before.

Then correct me if I'm wrong, but science seems to not be so useful in determining the happenings in the Bible.
I never proclaimed that the plagues occurred, I have just been trying to bring to light the limits that science currently has. You can't discount the Bible based on anything more than personal logic.

But here's the thing about logic:
However this reality was created, by God or by natural occurrence, it undermines logic.
I mean think about it, what logical way could reality be born? This is the ultimate question for atheists. Is it any more likely that natural occurrence caused it rather than divinity? What is the difference between the two at the first trillionth of a second where nothingness became something?
Logic seems to only work in relevance when taking this into account, so how can any happening in the Bible be discredited? God put up his guns and let us have free reign until Judgment, so it's not as if much divine activity is still going to be happening. That is where logical relevance comes in. We don't see it, so therefore we find it to be nothing more then a fairy tale.

This is why I have an agnostic approach, as theism and atheism seem to be limits,, ultimatums if you will, pointing towards something we cannot yet see.

 

[der Astronom]

Then correct me if I'm wrong, but science seems to not be so useful in determining the happenings in the Bible.

And why do you expect it to? That wouldn't be the focus of science anyways. Even if you didn't find it useful (ironically, the only reason you can say anything about the shape of the Earth or its orbit is because of science), you have not provided any other useful method of determining if anything in the bible is correct--that you have not lends no credibility for the happenings in the bible.

I never proclaimed that the plagues occurred, I have just been trying to bring to light the limits that science currently has. You can't discount the Bible based on anything more than personal logic.

Not directly, no, but you stated the following in an earlier thread:

There is no evidence that suggests the happenings in the Bible are fictional. The phenomena in the Bible is just penciled in with the 1000's of other things science cannot explain, like the perfectly hexagonal hole on the top of Saturn or why electrons miraculously disappear and pop up somewhere else.

What you're basically saying is that you believe the things in the bible actually happened, and you're furthermore admitting that there is no evidence for it, so anyone else who doesn't have an opinion of the bible has no reason to agree with you. Furthermore, when pressed to provide evidence for your claims, you refuse to provide any, which by default means you have no good reason for your claim that anything in the bible is not fictional, and that line of argument should have ended a long time ago. And if you are not claiming there is any truth in the bible, then I will ask you now: Do you believe the events in the bible happened as they are explained in the bible, and if so, please explain how you know they happened.

But here's the thing about logic:
However this reality was created, by God or by natural occurrence, it undermines logic.
I mean think about it, what logical way could reality be born? This is the ultimate question for atheists.

And I fail to see why it's the ultimate question for a group of people whose only position is that they don't believe in god, not that god created reality (which by the way, is a separate issue, and requires a good explanation).

Is it any more likely that natural occurrence caused it rather than divinity? What is the difference between the two at the first trillionth of a second where nothingness became something?

I don't claim to know, and that doesn't lend any credibility for your argument. If you disagree, feel free to explain why.

Logic seems to only work in relevance when taking this into account, so how can any happening in the Bible be discredited? God put up his guns and let us have free reign until Judgment, so it's not as if much divine activity is still going to be happening. That is where logical relevance comes in. We don't see it, so therefore we find it to be nothing more then a fairy tale.

It is because you are taking on the assumption that god is real. You are taking on the bible as being real and discrediting everything else that doesn't match with it. And I see no good reason why you have to assume the bible is true in the first place, and if you think you have one, I'd like to hear it.

As for the issue of the tree falling, and no one there to see it, nobody is asserting that we don't expect or aren't aware of other possibilities--that's a position regarding knowledge though, not belief. I just prefer not to lie about what I know, and I happen not to believe anything for which I don't know because it's the same position I would take if I hadn't known about it at all, and because I would be asserting something I have no evidence for either.

This is why I have an agnostic approach, as theism and atheism seem to be limits,, ultimatums if you will, pointing towards something we cannot yet see.

You have demonstrated that your approach is anything but agnostic. Assuming that anything in the bible is true is not an agnostic position, and neither is asserting unknowns as being true in lack of evidence, and we've already gone over this issue regarding atheism and theism; I'm sorry you didn't feel like continuing that line of discussion, but I think it might cause problems for this argument too because you don't realize that being an atheist or a theist has no effect on knowledge. Whatever you believe doesn't determine what is true.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

You have demonstrated that your approach is anything but agnostic. Assuming that anything in the bible is true is not an agnostic position, and neither is asserting unknowns as being true in lack of evidence

Gnosticism is a philosophy that states the universe was created by a 'maker'. It's an indiscriminate teaching that many religions generally go by.
Agnosticism is a more specific term that secures an uncertainty claim, saying that a 'maker' may not exist. This is a logical construct that separates agnostics from atheists, who believe that nature created it's own origin.

My intent was never to claim that biblical events occurred, but simply to examine how one shouldn't deny it simply by science alone. Science requires something to examine, and since there is nothing to examine about the plagues, it is illogical to dismiss it on those grounds. It really just becomes a permanent uncertainty.

So it can't really be proven with science, but where there is a lack of evidence for these happenings, there is also lack of evidence in scientific claims.
This was actually the beginning argument before we moved over to this thread. I don't know how it got turned into the plagues.
Reverse psychology maybe?

 

[Rydrum2112]

A good example would actually be the bloody river and diseased livestock. A scientist decides to go and sample the Nile for traces of blood minerals but finds none. This doesn't discount in any way that the river flowed with blood, it simply just can't be examined. The scientist never concluded anything.
This causes people, however, to forget the obvious- that there wasn't likely to be any traces anyway.
And the diseased livestock is the same way. Sure a scientist may have gone searching for clues, but came up with nothing. This isn't surprising- bones deteriorate much faster in the elements rather than in the ground.
3500 years would've either turned them to dust and away in the wind, or buried and shifted in the sand so far and deep that it would be impossible to locate them.

And I never argued that it happened. The only thing I have argued is that science does little to say it didn't.

Prove me wrong- this is how it works now. I have explained in 20 different ways how this is false and have heard crap long enough. It's someone elses turn to bring something to the table.

Walk the talk.

If you have ever done research (I mean real research) you will know that what science "tests" is Null Hypotheses, and the conclusions you make are either:
Rejectig the Null Hypothesis or Failing to reject the null hypothesis.

In your example (nile & blood), the null hypothesis would indicates what didn't happen- meaning the null hypothesis would say the nile never flowed with blood.
Since no positive evidience exists that the nile flowed with blood the conclusion would be failing to reject the null hypothesis.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

If you have ever done research (I mean real research) you will know that what science "tests" is Null Hypotheses, and the conclusions you make are either:
Rejectig the Null Hypothesis or Failing to reject the null hypothesis.

In your example (nile & blood), the null hypothesis would indicates what didn't happen- meaning the null hypothesis would say the nile never flowed with blood.
Since no positive evidience exists that the nile flowed with blood the conclusion would be failing to reject the null hypothesis.

What nonsense is this? How does presenting the event as a null hypothesis do anything to determine the authentication of it?
So scientists admit their limits.. great.
Billion year evolution is a null hypothesis.

 

[der Astronom]

You have demonstrated that your approach is anything but agnostic. Assuming that anything in the bible is true is not an agnostic position, and neither is asserting unknowns as being true in lack of evidence

Gnosticism is a philosophy that states the universe was created by a 'maker'. It's an indiscriminate teaching that many religions generally go by.
Agnosticism is a more specific term that secures an uncertainty claim, saying that a 'maker' may not exist. This is a logical construct that separates agnostics from atheists, who believe that nature created it's own origin.

No, atheism and agnosticism are not comparable for precisely the same reason you can't compare apples with oranges. If you want to debate these definitions further, I suggest you do so in the other thread (but you refuse to apparently, so this discussion is probably over). For the umpteenth time, atheism says nothing about what atheists believe happened at the beginning; only that it was not due to a god or gods because they don't believe in them.

My intent was never to claim that biblical events occurred, but simply to examine how one shouldn't deny it simply by science alone. Science requires something to examine, and since there is nothing to examine about the plagues, it is illogical to dismiss it on those grounds. It really just becomes a permanent uncertainty.

Alright, then you're basically admitting that none of the events in the bible occurred, and that it is nothing more than mythology. Let me ask you this then: If you don't believe it is enough for there not being enough scientific evidence to justify the events in the bible happening, why are you justified in believing they didn't happen anyways?

So it can't really be proven with science, but where there is a lack of evidence for these happenings, there is also lack of evidence in scientific claims.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of science once again, because it is not expected that science needs to prove anything. What science does is discover ideas that can be supported with evidence or disproven, either because the evidence contradicts, or because no evidence supports something. However, it is absurd to expect science to prove something, because that would completely defeat the purpose of falsifiability if I could prove something being completely correct in every single case. The fact is, it's impossible to examine every single case where something could be true. It might simply be because it's a human limitation, and that's where science is inductive rather than deductive, but I'd say it's the best tool we have for discerning truth from falsehoods, even if you don't think it's perfect.

Oh heck, why the hell am I even bothering to explain this, I've already explained this enough times already, so if you're going to sit here and keep complaining about how useless science is, why not present us with a better method for discerning truth from falsehoods, and explain how it works.

This was actually the beginning argument before we moved over to this thread. I don't know how it got turned into the plagues.
Reverse psychology maybe?

It's because you made the claim that science can't provide evidence that plagues didn't exist, and to be quite frank, it was an absurd claim to begin with, since you don't use evidence to support negatives. It's the same idea as not proving a negative.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Then correct me if I'm wrong, but science seems to not be so useful in determining the happenings in the Bible.
I never proclaimed that the plagues occurred, I have just been trying to bring to light the limits that science currently has. You can't discount the Bible based on anything more than personal logic.

Correction - you're wrong. The ability to date objects to greater than 6000 years old undermines the happenings in the Bible quite well. Unless you're going for an interpretation where things like the age of the characters, the garden of eden, and the tower of babel are metaphors, in which case you're agreeing that they are fiction (metaphors) and not actual events (which means science is irrelevant, since it's not into fiction).

But here's the thing about logic:
However this reality was created, by God or by natural occurrence, it undermines logic.

I disagree. We'd have to know something definitive about the way in which it was created to make a claim like this.

I mean think about it, what logical way could reality be born?

Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing - check it out on Youtube) does a good job of addressing the logical way the universe could be born from nothing. As far as reality in general (string theory and all that jazz), and even the birth of the universe, we haven't really been talking about that here. We've been talking about specific events much more recent.

This is the ultimate question for atheists.

No, it's not. And if you insist on thinking it is - how is God (something we have no evidence for) a more logical choice than natural occurrences (things we have observed around us all the time)?

Is it any more likely that natural occurrence caused it rather than divinity?

Given what I just said (God {something we have no evidence for} versus natural occurrences {things we have observed around us all the time}), I'd have to say yes. Yes it is.

Then again, I've always been way more into the Nordic origins of the Universe. Nothing quite like chopping up a Frost Giant to get things done.

What is the difference between the two at the first trillionth of a second where nothingness became something?

Quite a bit. One way of seeing that very moment is claiming the existence of divine creatures, the other is claiming that divinity making the universe is a load. Claiming divinity was responsible (or more likely to be responsible) is a very big claim indeed, and it makes way for all sorts of sloppy thinking as a result (like thinking the Bible is an accurate work supported by logic and evidence, for example).

Logic seems to only work in relevance when taking this into account, so how can any happening in the Bible be discredited?

Sciences (especially anthropology, biology, physics and geology) tend to work best. Historical research and textual analysis work pretty well too.

Also, as a warning, you said discredited, not disproven. As far as science is concerned, the Bible has been discredited for a long long time.

God put up his guns and let us have free reign until Judgment, so it's not as if much divine activity is still going to be happening. That is where logical relevance comes in. We don't see it, so therefore we find it to be nothing more then a fairy tale.

Are you saying God does exist but has stopped interacting with us? And before you say that you didn't mean it literally, allow me to say: if you didn't mean it, you shouldn't say it (or should make it clear you're not actually asserting anything) - this is meant to be a debate.

Gnosticism is a philosophy that states the universe was created by a 'maker'. It's an indiscriminate teaching that many religions generally go by.
Agnosticism is a more specific term that secures an uncertainty claim, saying that a 'maker' may not exist. This is a logical construct that separates agnostics from atheists, who believe that nature created it's own origin.

It's nice and all that you insist on using this definition of agnosticism, but everyone else in this thread has made it clear that we're not using it that way when we use the word. We understand that you have a different definition, but I think it's not too much to ask that you accept that when we use the word, we're not referring to the same definition you seem to be trying to force into use. You can use it your way if you wish, but try to respond to the way that people have made it clear they are actually using it.

My intent was never to claim that biblical events occurred, but simply to examine how one shouldn't deny it simply by science alone. Science requires something to examine, and since there is nothing to examine about the plagues, it is illogical to dismiss it on those grounds. It really just becomes a permanent uncertainty.

Then why did you say:

There is no evidence that suggests the happenings in the Bible are fictional. The phenomena in the Bible is just penciled in with the 1000's of other things science cannot explain, like the perfectly hexagonal hole on the top of Saturn or why electrons miraculously disappear and pop up somewhere else.

?

If you genuinely believe there is no evidence that events in the bible are fictional, then you would either have to believe that there is evidence they are non-fiction, or that there is no evidence one way or the other. Which one is it?

Also, the problem with this lies in the evidence of absence. Eden, the flood, the plagues, the tower of babel, races of giants, the ark. There is no evidence, and thorough investigations have been performed. Not to mention, most of those events, had they occurred, should have left some form of evidence. The plagues have been a focus because they are a great example of fiction in the bible: the utter lack of evidence where there should be some is a form of evidence itself.

And, for a more specific example: how is science alone not enough to handle things like Genesis 30:37-39? It seems like science alone takes care of that one.

So it can't really be proven with science, but where there is a lack of evidence for these happenings, there is also lack of evidence in scientific claims.
This was actually the beginning argument before we moved over to this thread. I don't know how it got turned into the plagues.
Reverse psychology maybe?

The problem is, had all of the events I mentioned really happened - at least one should have left evidence. Like I just said: The plagues have been a focus because they are a great example of fiction in the bible: the utter lack of evidence where there should be some is a form of evidence itself.

Even if you don't think the things in the Bible actually happened (for serious: do you think they happened, or not?), thinking that they would be outside of the realm of science is a very big claim, and it's not one that we are seeing any evidence for (unless we're determining what is real and what isn't in the Bible on a case by case basis, since we know there are certain things that go against how reality actually works).

 

[Sum1sgruj]

It's nice and all that you insist on using this definition of agnosticism, but everyone else in this thread has made it clear that we're not using it that way when we use the word. We understand that you have a different definition, but I think it's not too much to ask that you accept that when we use the word, we're not referring to the same definition you seem to be trying to force into use. You can use it your way if you wish, but try to respond to the way that people have made it clear they are actually using it.

Alright, let me make this clear one last time. It is not my definition, it is the definition. There is no use trying to front this idea any longer.

Since there is no evidence to support the plagues, there is a good way to think backwards and examine the flaws of logic that generally dismiss it, which makes it more tangible.
Here are some ideas that mar evolution as well as the age of the Earth, effectively making the concept a null hypothesis (which is partial in dismissing the logic that dismisses the plagues). Since the term was so endearingly brought up, we might as well make use of it.

1. Birds- no matter what variable you throw into evolution, they simply do not fit the grand scheme of what evolution claims.

2. How life began. This is a major one here. Something that any atheist should definitely ponder on.
How did life occur naturally, when it cannot be made in a controlled, highly-sophisticated setting by the best scientists on Earth. From scratch, no doubt?

3. Gaps in the evolutionary strings. If evolution was true, there wouldn't be any. There currently millions of gaps. Do the math.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_6.htm

This source will authenticate how damaged radio-dating techniques are, organic and inorganic included.

How the universe began:
Whatever 'logical' approach was taken into accounting for this denies every construct of nature, and therefore any real logic. It is no more likely than God creating this reality. In fact I'd almost be willing to believe in God before believing such an unlikely conception.
And string theory allows for other universes and dimensions to exist, it does not conclude where it all came from.
I dare you to challenge me on physics

Are you saying God does exist but has stopped interacting with us? And before you say that you didn't mean it literally, allow me to say: if you didn't mean it, you shouldn't say it (or should make it clear you're not actually asserting anything) - this is meant to be a debate.

I'm saying that God has no reason to produce plagues and other visible divine happenings. We are awaiting judgment now. This is shared by Jews and Christians alike. Both the Testaments proclaim this.

And if this is meant to be a debate, where is all the debating at? All I see is presumption after presumption. It has been this way across this thread and the last. It's starting to bore me, actually. It's not even difficult anymore, and I will specify why:

These questions have been explained time and time again. I have only provided different ways of explaining it in lieu of how the same questions have been asked differently.
It is becoming quite annoying,, heed the title to this thread. But it has also become boring and easy. If nobody wishes to bring up something more significant, than I am going to stop posting.

My intent was never to claim that biblical events occurred, but simply to examine how one shouldn't deny it simply by science alone. Science requires something to examine, and since there is nothing to examine about the plagues, it is illogical to dismiss it on those grounds. It really just becomes a permanent uncertainty.

der Astonom: Alright, then you're basically admitting that none of the events in the bible occurred, and that it is nothing more than mythology.

And where does this ridiculous conclusion spur from in that quote? Seriously, this adds insult to injury.

Side note:
Agnosticism and atheism is not comparable, and yet the proclaimed 'definition' of atheism on this thread is more agnostic than anything.
It's the most double-edged idea to grace this debate as of yet. It's almost as if you all are trying to make an unfalsifiable proclamation of atheism to battle theism.
Oh wait, you all aren't battling theism. What is it then that is trying to be announced here? That you all are agnostic but don't want to bear the title because atheism has already been proclaimed as your belief?
I didn't want to bring this up because I feel it's kind of distasteful, but you all asked for it.
Maybe next time certain individuals will be more careful before insulting one on definition. It's obvious that I'm going to see underneath this logic, so why even set yourself up?

And one more thing: Since it seems that no one is debating amongst each other in any aspect whatsoever, I am going to assume that you all are speaking on each others behalf, are proclaimed atheists, and share this 'definition' of atheism.

 

[Rydrum2112]

What nonsense is this? How does presenting the event as a null hypothesis do anything to determine the authentication of it?
So scientists admit their limits.. great.
Billion year evolution is a null hypothesis.

If you present enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, meaning you presented evidence for an effect. You really should take a research methods & stats course because you clearly don't understand how scientific research works.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

If you present enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, meaning you presented evidence for an effect. You really should take a research methods & stats course because you clearly don't understand how scientific research works.

That never interested me. Those methods are just to present fair game among scientists. You clearly don't understand how science works.
I'm dealing with enough ridiculous input to burden myself with this, so if this is all you have to contribute, just be done with it.

 

[Rydrum2112]

1. Birds- no matter what variable you throw into evolution, they simply do not fit the grand scheme of what evolution claims.

2. How life began. This is a major one here. Something that any atheist should definitely ponder on.
How did life occur naturally, when it cannot be made in a controlled, highly-sophisticated setting by the best scientists on Earth. From scratch, no doubt?

3. Gaps in the evolutionary strings. If evolution was true, there wouldn't be any. There currently millions of gaps. Do the math.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_6.htm

This source will authenticate how damaged radio-dating techniques are, organic and inorganic included.

I am only going to comment on the science in this post.

Your point 1. The origin of life is not a question for evolution nor is it even relevant. Evolution explains the diversity of life, it is the mechanism that takes over after life starts.

Your point 3. There are NO GAPS in evolutionary record, there has never ever been a fossill found that was not what would be expected period. The idea of gaps is silly, say a gap exists between A and C. Someone finds the fossils for B and now you would argue there are 2 more gaps between A and B, and B and C. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero

Birds are easily explained- try reading a real book on evolution,
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne
Science, Evolution, and Creationism

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

It is not my definition, it is the definition. There is no use trying to front this idea any longer.

ag-nos-tic
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Can we please move on from this tired topic?

Since there is no evidence to support the plagues, there is a good way to think backwards and examine the flaws of logic that generally dismiss it, which makes it more tangible.

You're saying that because it isn't provable that makes it more likely to have happened. My mind reels.

2. How life began. This is a major one here. Something that any atheist should definitely ponder on.

This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is an entirely separate idea from how life began, and attacking the latter does not affect the former.

How did life occur naturally, when it cannot be made in a controlled, highly-sophisticated setting by the best scientists on Earth.

We'd have to figure out exactly how life was created in the first place to create it in a lab. Naturally occurring processes don't have that hangup.

3. Gaps in the evolutionary strings. If evolution was true, there wouldn't be any.

Nobody claims that we will have fossil evidence for every creature that has ever existed.

I'm saying that God has no reason to produce plagues and other visible divine happenings. We are awaiting judgment now.

If we're talking about the monotheistic Christian god, a good reason would be to prove His own existence so people don't get punished for not believing in something so illogical. But that would require some empathy. And what moral authority does He have to judge us? He's like the neglectful father I never wanted.

And if this is meant to be a debate, where is all the debating at?

... How exactly haven't we debated?
de-bate
-noun1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides ofaproposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.
Hell, we've even met the archaic definition in a few places.

These questions have been explained time and time again.

Fair enough. I'll make sure not to ask the same questions again. It's just that your explanations were poor, so I expected there might be a better explanations or refutations if I asked a different way. This did not work.

If nobody wishes to bring up something more significant, than I am going to stop posting.

What is the meaning of life?

the proclaimed 'definition' of atheism on this thread is more agnostic than anything.

You're too hung up on the idea of how life/the universe came into existence. Atheism just has to do with the belief in god. That's all. You can make assumptions on what atheists believe about certain things, but that doesn't have anything to do with what the term means.

Oh wait, you all aren't battling theism. What is it then that is trying to be announced here?

The only thing being announced thus far is that every argument you've produced is complete hogwash. You're not a spokesperson for theism or agnosticism or anything, I'm only assaulting your ideas.

That you all are agnostic but don't want to bear the title because atheism has already been proclaimed as your belief?

What the hell does that even mean? You misunderstand what atheism is, but if you want to know our individual beliefs on the creation of the universe/life (which is distinct from what being an atheist means) then here's mine:
There is no god/s. The universe and life developed naturally.

I am going to assume

Please don't make an ass out of you and me. I and the other persons in this thread are all different, distinct individuals.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Alright, let me make this clear one last time. It is not my definition, it is the definition. There is no use trying to front this idea any longer.

Even if your fabricated definition was the official definition (hint: it's not), we've made it clear what definition we're using, so your desire to force yours regardless just makes you look like you're simply unwilling to actually acknowledge anything anyone is saying other than yourself.

From Wikipedia: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

Got a source?

Since there is no evidence to support the plagues, there is a good way to think backwards and examine the flaws of logic that generally dismiss it, which makes it more tangible.

Are you arguing against the idea of evidence of absence? Either way, showing problems in the logic that argues against the plagues (which you fail to do) does not make the plagues more likely to have happened. You'd have to prove the validity of the Bible as a historical document or show other evidence for the plagues having occurred. You're not arguing for the plagues in any way, only arguing against the argument against them.

Here are some ideas that mar evolution as well as the age of the Earth, effectively making the concept a null hypothesis (which is partial in dismissing the logic that dismisses the plagues). Since the term was so endearingly brought up, we might as well make use of it.

1. Birds- no matter what variable you throw into evolution, they simply do not fit the grand scheme of what evolution claims.

How exactly do birds not fit in? What part of evolutionary theory do they contradict?

2. How life began. This is a major one here. Something that any atheist should definitely ponder on.
How did life occur naturally, when it cannot be made in a controlled, highly-sophisticated setting by the best scientists on Earth. From scratch, no doubt?

How is this relevant to evolution? Evolutionary theory never claimed to have any answers on this one. This only serves to show that you don't know what evolutionary theory is actually about.

3. Gaps in the evolutionary strings. If evolution was true, there wouldn't be any. There currently millions of gaps. Do the math.

So you're expecting that every single stage of evolution among any organism would be preserved, but the plagues would not have been preserved?

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_6.htm

This source will authenticate how damaged radio-dating techniques are, organic and inorganic included.

Thank you, I needed a fantastic laugh. That's a lovely non-peer reviewed creation science resource you have there.

Have any peer-reviewed, scientific sources that aren't used as creation science textbooks?

Also, Pro-tip: the "assumptions" that the author is saying are needed to make dating work... well, they aren't assumptions that are actually made in dating techniques.

Also, also, I love this line: "Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionist scientists do!" Conspiracy theory much?

How the universe began:
Whatever 'logical' approach was taken into accounting for this denies every construct of nature, and therefore any real logic. It is no more likely than God creating this reality. In fact I'd almost be willing to believe in God before believing such an unlikely conception.
And string theory allows for other universes and dimensions to exist, it does not conclude where it all came from.

Once again, you are making a huge, belief based leap to believing that we can never know how things came to be and that the conditions are not subject to logic. Since this is a matter of faith for you, I'll leave you to it.

I dare you to challenge me on physics

Fun fact: evolution - not a branch of physics. Dating techniques are, but with the source you linked, I'm afraid such a conversation would go nowhere. I'd rather we get through accepting that people other than yourself use different definitions than you, and if they state the definition that they're using, you should respond to it instead of ignoring it and pretending they're using your definition. Then we can move on to things like physics.

I'm saying that God has no reason to produce plagues and other visible divine happenings. We are awaiting judgment now. This is shared by Jews and Christians alike. Both the Testaments proclaim this.

So, you are saying God exists?

And why wouldn't he have caused plagues if the only reason to believe he exists (the Bible), says he did?

Regardless, you failed to answer the question I actually asked directly ("Are you saying God does exist but has stopped interacting with us?"). Based on context, though, you seem to be convinced God does exist. What evidence other than the Bible leads you to this conclusion?

And if this is meant to be a debate, where is all the debating at? All I see is presumption after presumption. It has been this way across this thread and the last. It's starting to bore me, actually. It's not even difficult anymore, and I will specify why:

You're saying we've been making presumptions and this is the first post that you've made the effort to include a source (even if it is a bad one)? We've been trying to get answers out of you like half of merry England trying to pull the sword out of the stone. If it's presumptuous to think that science is the best way to analyze the world around us, please show us a better method. We've asked over and again.

You, on the other hand, seem to be presuming that the Bible is reliable and Science is false, all while not actually researching scientific sources. How is the Bible more reliable than Science? Than germ theory? Than Newtonian physics? Than Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics or Nietzsche's works (not science, but an actual analysis of morality rather than a set of arbitrary rules that undermine themselves)? Than the Eddas? Than Dianetics? Than the Tao Te Ching?

Even if we lived in some fantastical world where the Bible and other religious texts were immune to probing by science (and many of the claims of the Bible have no such immunity), what would make the Bible reliable? Like I said before, arguing against what disproves the Bible does not make the Bible reliable.

Why don't you ever respond to this question:

"how is science alone not enough to handle things like Genesis 30:37-39?"

I'm very curious how what we know about breeding animals and the passing on of traits does not disprove that selection of the Bible. I really and truly would like to see your answer. If you answer anything I post, please, answer this question. After all, you said "one shouldn't deny it simply by science alone."

These questions have been explained time and time again. I have only provided different ways of explaining it in lieu of how the same questions have been asked differently.
It is becoming quite annoying,, heed the title to this thread. But it has also become boring and easy. If nobody wishes to bring up something more significant, than I am going to stop posting.

You think the holes in your logic that a truck could drive through aren't significant?

It's only becoming easy because you've gotten so good at refusing to respond to questions.

der Astonom: Alright, then you're basically admitting that none of the events in the bible occurred, and that it is nothing more than mythology.

And where does this ridiculous conclusion spur from in that quote? Seriously, this adds insult to injury.

What der Astronom said in total:
"Alright, then you're basically admitting that none of the events in the bible occurred, and that it is nothing more than mythology. Let me ask you this then: If you don't believe it is enough for there not being enough scientific evidence to justify the events in the bible happening, why are you justified in believing they didn't happen anyways?"

To be specific, if you don't believe events in the Bible happened, why don't you (since science isn't the reason)?

Either way, you're saying there's no reason to believe in the biblical plagues (since it's a "permanent uncertainty"), which puts them on the same level as other things where there's no reason to believe in them and no way to prove/disprove (The Eddas, Star Wars, etc.). Seems like a logical conclusion to class it with mythology by the way you're approaching it.

Side note:
Agnosticism and atheism is not comparable, and yet the proclaimed 'definition' of atheism on this thread is more agnostic than anything.

We've already made it clear that when we talk about them, one is about knowledge, the other about belief. By our definitions (not mixing and matching your definition of agnostic with our definitions of atheism), how is atheism more agnostic than anything?

It's the most double-edged idea to grace this debate as of yet. It's almost as if you all are trying to make an unfalsifiable proclamation of atheism to battle theism.
Oh wait, you all aren't battling theism. What is it then that is trying to be announced here? That you all are agnostic but don't want to bear the title because atheism has already been proclaimed as your belief?
I didn't want to bring this up because I feel it's kind of distasteful, but you all asked for it.

It is distasteful to watch you act like you are, I'm glad you're aware of it. We've made it clear how we define atheism and agnosticism, so don't mix and match our definitions with yours and act like we've made a mistake.

Maybe next time certain individuals will be more careful before insulting one on definition. It's obvious that I'm going to see underneath this logic, so why even set yourself up?

Yes, certain individuals should be more careful when they pick and choose which pieces of presented information are matched without thought for the context of said information. The only one who set himself up is you.

And one more thing: Since it seems that no one is debating amongst each other in any aspect whatsoever, I am going to assume that you all are speaking on each others behalf, are proclaimed atheists, and share this 'definition' of atheism.

Big assumption. The thing is, it's not that we're working together in some big conspiracy against you (though you do seem to be a fan of the conspiracy theories...), we're just pointing out the issues with the things you're posting. Just because everyone sees the same logical problems, it doesn't mean that we're all out to get you, it means that maybe you should re-examine your logic.

We haven't had any reason to debate amongst each other because we've been posting sound logic and good information. If I were to make an error, I'd hope that the others would point it out; I'd do the same for them.

So please, keep your assumptions to yourself and engage in the debate (or leave, whichever, no big deal), but don't feel the need to label others because they disagree with you.

 

[der Astronom]

Alright, let me make this clear one last time. It is not my definition, it is the definition. There is no use trying to front this idea any longer.

You know what, this is just pure sophistry. Unless you have anything to offer to this debate with your idea of agnosticism, I suggest you drop it here, and if you don't like the way this is going, you can continue the discussion about the definitions in the other thread.

Since there is no evidence to support the plagues, there is a good way to think backwards and examine the flaws of logic that generally dismiss it, which makes it more tangible.
Here are some ideas that mar evolution as well as the age of the Earth, effectively making the concept a null hypothesis (which is partial in dismissing the logic that dismisses the plagues). Since the term was so endearingly brought up, we might as well make use of it.

1. Birds- no matter what variable you throw into evolution, they simply do not fit the grand scheme of what evolution claims.

2. How life began. This is a major one here. Something that any atheist should definitely ponder on.
How did life occur naturally, when it cannot be made in a controlled, highly-sophisticated setting by the best scientists on Earth. From scratch, no doubt?

3. Gaps in the evolutionary strings. If evolution was true, there wouldn't be any. There currently millions of gaps. Do the math.

So, you're trying to dismiss non-existent evidence by pulling up something else that isn't even related at all? If evolution were wrong, so what? How does that in any way support the notion that there is no evidence for a plague?
Until you are willing to make a position on what you believe regarding the events in the bible, I don't think people have to put up with this nonsense.

These questions have been explained time and time again. I have only provided different ways of explaining it in lieu of how the same questions have been asked differently.

No, I'm pretty sure we get what you mean; it's just that you have trouble seeing the fallacies, as they have been pointed out to you. You just happen not to have provided any sort of satisfactory response or rebuttal to them, that's all.

der Astonom: Alright, then you're basically admitting that none of the events in the bible occurred, and that it is nothing more than mythology. [/I][/COLOR]

And where does this ridiculous conclusion spur from in that quote? Seriously, this adds insult to injury.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]

You either believe the events in the bible happened, or you don't believe they happened. Which is it? Stop beating around the bush.

You cannot use non evidence to refute the negative that the plagues did not happen; you don't even have a position, and can't make any claim. Either you assert that the plagues happen, and you provide evidence for it, or you agree that we don't know anything about the plagues happening in the past, and don't believe in it for logical reasons. If you think there's a logical reason for believing in something you don't know to be true, I'd like to hear it. And by the way, we've already said many times that not having evidence is not a reason to believe; you'd basically be admitting to faith.

Side note:
Agnosticism and atheism is not comparable, and yet the proclaimed 'definition' of atheism on this thread is more agnostic than anything.
It's the most double-edged idea to grace this debate as of yet. It's almost as if you all are trying to make an unfalsifiable proclamation of atheism to battle theism.

More sophistry I don't care to address. If you think it's important, post in the other thread.

Oh wait, you all aren't battling theism. What is it then that is trying to be announced here? That you all are agnostic but don't want to bear the title because atheism has already been proclaimed as your belief?

More red herrings that don't deserve to be addressed. Answer the questions above.

I didn't want to bring this up because I feel it's kind of distasteful, but you all asked for it.

And you shouldn't have; it's not doing anything for your argument.

Maybe next time certain individuals will be more careful before insulting one on definition. It's obvious that I'm going to see underneath this logic, so why even set yourself up?

How is pointing out an obvious fallacy an insult? I'm sorry if you don't like it when people point out logical inconsistencies in your argument, but it's not looking good if you're just going to pretend you're logical when you're not. I think most people here can see that.

And one more thing: Since it seems that no one is debating amongst each other in any aspect whatsoever, I am going to assume that you all are speaking on each others behalf, are proclaimed atheists, and share this 'definition' of atheism.

No actually, it's a beautiful example of how science works. Specifically, peer review. We just happen to converge on the same results for different reasons. Says a lot more than your bible does. We don't have to speak amongst each other to agree; that would undermine the beauty of having several different arguments to refute something.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

You know what, this is just pure sophistry. Unless you have anything to offer to this debate with your idea of agnosticism, I suggest you drop it here, and if you don't like the way this is going, you can continue the discussion about the definitions in the other thread.

How is pointing out an obvious fallacy an insult? I'm sorry if you don't like it when people point out logical inconsistencies in your argument, but it's not looking good if you're just going to pretend you're logical when you're not. I think most people here can see that.

You know what? This is starting to be one big damn joke.

For one, I wasn't the one who was pursuing the definition of every single word posted by me.

Two, what fallacy? All of your definitions are exactly what I have stated throughout the entirety of this and the last thread. I only specified what the true nature of it is on the big scale. What planet are you all on, seriously!?
But most people can see that....?.
I see these people believing the world is a cube if there was a scientist who made a speculative theory on it.

Until you are willing to make a position on what you believe regarding the events in the bible, I don't think people have to put up with this nonsense.

People shouldn't have to put with what? Being riddled even with other people at their side moshing one person?

And nonetheless, I already stated that the events in the bible are likely to stay a permanent uncertainty. There is no knowing or not knowing.
I explained this thoroughly earlier, and it practically pwned the debate.
You all just don't want to face that, but I know a lost cause when I see one:

How exactly do birds not fit in? What part of evolutionary theory do they contradict?

I have already explained, beyond way f*cking beyond, intimate details on how birds contradict evolution in the last thread.
The question has been asked again.

How is this relevant to evolution? Evolutionary theory never claimed to have any answers on this one. This only serves to show that you don't know what evolutionary theory is actually about.

Just for any neutral eyes, this quote is relating to 'how life began'.

This claim- that I don't know what evolution is about because I introduced that it fails to see where life evolved from.. it really makes me happy. Because it shows the desperation of my contraries.
Let's just ignore the fact that this turns 90% of evolutionary theory into a null hypothesis. That'll get em'!!

3. Gaps in the evolutionary strings. If evolution was true, there wouldn't be any. There currently millions of gaps. Do the math.
So you're expecting that every single stage of evolution among any organism would be preserved, but the plagues would not have been preserved

This doesn't even deserve to be ventured upon, but ok:
Millions of gaps. Blood in river.
Millions of gaps. Diseased cattle.
Millions of gaps. Swarms of locust.
Do the math.

Also, also, I love this line: "Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionist scientists do!" Conspiracy theory much?

Conspiracy theory?
Let me say this, and you can take it however you want, but this an unarguable truth:
You would be a complete moron to think this is NOT the case. It's not a 'conspiracy theory', it's what science is. Nobody gets a PhD in 'inconclusiveness'.

I'm glad you brought this up also because it really brings to light a lot of things with you all.



Actually, now that all this has been stated, I don't feel any need to debate any of this further. So, take this as my final leave.
Goodbye.

 

[Jquestionmark]

How is this relevant to evolution? Evolutionary theory never claimed to have any answers on this one. This only serves to show that you don't know what evolutionary theory is actually about.

Just for any neutral eyes, this quote is relating to 'how life began'.

This claim- that I don't know what evolution is about because I introduced that it fails to see where life evolved from.. it really makes me happy. Because it shows the desperation of my contraries.
Let's just ignore the fact that this turns 90% of evolutionary theory into a null hypothesis. That'll get em'!!

Sir, you are a comic genius. Evolution doesn't fail to see where life originates: it never even addresses it in the first place. How can it fail to do something it's not trying to do? You prove my point.

It's no surprise, though, considering your 'source' says things like: "the evolutionary theory of the origin of rock." I wasn't aware evolutionary theory addressed the origin of rock... oh, wait, it doesn't.

Please, read a real book on evolution, if only for your own sake.

To be fair, I suppose you could argue that organisms don't exist, or don't reproduce. If those were the case, then evolution would sure be in trouble...

3. Gaps in the evolutionary strings. If evolution was true, there wouldn't be any. There currently millions of gaps. Do the math.
So you're expecting that every single stage of evolution among any organism would be preserved, but the plagues would not have been preserved

This doesn't even deserve to be ventured upon, but ok:
Millions of gaps. Blood in river.
Millions of gaps. Diseased cattle.
Millions of gaps. Swarms of locust.
Do the math.

Oh, it's adding up to something alright...

Conspiracy theory?
Let me say this, and you can take it however you want, but this an unarguable truth:
You would be a complete moron to think this is NOT the case. It's not a 'conspiracy theory', it's what science is. Nobody gets a PhD in 'inconclusiveness'.

This question has come up before, but you never even addressed it, so I feel okay posting it again: what reason do you have to think that all of science is faked for the sake of supporting science? Is germ theory such a huge hoax as well? What about the science that makes planes and cars possible?

I'm glad you brought this up also because it really brings to light a lot of things with you all.

I bet it does. I'm glad you noticed. We do our very best to use solid logic and reliable sources, after all. I figured you'd see it eventually.

Actually, now that all this has been stated, I don't feel any need to debate any of this further. So, take this as my final leave.
Goodbye.

But you never answered my question about Genesis 30:37-39! Please, I have to know.

 

[der Astronom]

You know what? This is starting to be one big damn joke.

For one, I wasn't the one who was pursuing the definition of every single word posted by me.

Great, then stop arguing about it and just use the agreed to definition that everyone else is familiar with.

Two, what fallacy? All of your definitions are exactly what I have stated throughout the entirety of this and the last thread. I only specified what the true nature of it is on the big scale. What planet are you all on, seriously!?
But most people can see that....?.

You have used sophistry several times in order to convince us that we should give up the commonly accepted definitions of atheism and agnosticism in favor of yours (it wouldn't prove your point anyways). Then you used ad hominem attacks to accuse our character, even though it has nothing to do with the arguments themselves, and you've been bringing up irrelevant points, and just beating around the bush. I'm sorry if you still don't see it.

I see these people believing the world is a cube if there was a scientist who made a speculative theory on it.

Ja, and people centuries ago believed the Earth was flat, so you're one to talk.

People shouldn't have to put with what? Being riddled even with other people at their side moshing one person?

No, they shouldn't have to put up with the irrelevant arguments you're making up, as it in no way furthers the debate or helps your argument.

And nonetheless, I already stated that the events in the bible are likely to stay a permanent uncertainty. There is no knowing or not knowing.

And I'm not asking about whether or not you know if the events in the bible happened; I'm asking about what you believe. So you either believe the events in the bible happened, or you don't believe they happened; which is it and why?

I explained this thoroughly earlier, and it practically pwned the debate.
You all just don't want to face that, but I know a lost cause when I see one:

Actually, you're the one who still hasn't properly responded to our refutations. Answer the question I posed to you above, and answer Jquestionmark's question regarding Genesis.

How exactly do birds not fit in? What part of evolutionary theory do they contradict?

Ironically, that was what you were asserting just earlier, and we're not doing your homework for you. So far as we know, birds do not contradict evolution, and if you're going to try and convince us that they don't, you're going to have to do better than that.
Furthermore, I think this question does not need to be answered. At least not until you explain to us what evolution has to do with this argument in the first place.

I have already explained, beyond way f*cking beyond, intimate details on how birds contradict evolution in the last thread.
The question has been asked again.

Apparently not, otherwise we would not be asking you to provide an explanation for why you think birds contradict evolution. Ja, that might be begging the question, but I glanced through the thread, and couldn't find any mention of birds until after you decided to talk about evolution for no reason whatsoever other than because you had to say something.

How is this relevant to evolution? Evolutionary theory never claimed to have any answers on this one. This only serves to show that you don't know what evolutionary theory is actually about.

And how is evolution relevant to the original argument?

Just for any neutral eyes, this quote is relating to 'how life began'.

This claim- that I don't know what evolution is about because I introduced that it fails to see where life evolved from.. it really makes me happy. Because it shows the desperation of my contraries.
Let's just ignore the fact that this turns 90% of evolutionary theory into a null hypothesis. That'll get em'!!

3. Gaps in the evolutionary strings. If evolution was true, there wouldn't be any. There currently millions of gaps. Do the math.
So you're expecting that every single stage of evolution among any organism would be preserved, but the plagues would not have been preserved

This doesn't even deserve to be ventured upon, but ok:
Millions of gaps. Blood in river.
Millions of gaps. Diseased cattle.
Millions of gaps. Swarms of locust.
Do the math.


Conspiracy theory?
Let me say this, and you can take it however you want, but this an unarguable truth:
You would be a complete moron to think this is NOT the case. It's not a 'conspiracy theory', it's what science is. Nobody gets a PhD in 'inconclusiveness'.

No, just no. You don't get to come on here and spread lies about evolution, or about the validity of your claims, particularly because you haven't even explained what it has to do with the original argument. It's not doing anyone else any good, and you're just making it worse than it already is. Evolution is not a null hypothesis; it's already got plenty of evidence supporting it, and you're using the god of the gaps fallacy, which still doesn't disprove evolution in any way (is gravity wrong just because we haven't observed it in a different galaxy?), anymore than the numerous holes in your pants don't cover your behind (I am referring to the small gaps between the weaving in the fabric), or anymore than your brain exists just because I can't see it (but it is still otherwise demonstrable). You have demonstrated no good understanding of science, and your credibility on this matter just fails.

I'm glad you brought this up also because it really brings to light a lot of things with you all.

Ja, it really demonstrates your ignorance of science.

Actually, now that all this has been stated, I don't feel any need to debate any of this further. So, take this as my final leave.
Goodbye.

Good, now stop misinforming the people reading this thread. I almost feel sorry for them having to read your posts. If you're going to stay here, answer our questions. If you don't, then you're done, and this debate with you is over.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Suppose I should wrap up some last things. I did put a lot of work into this debate, if being the only one who actually did. But after this post, I'm done. And it will be short:

Sir, you are a comic genius. Evolution doesn't fail to see where life originates: it never even addresses it in the first place. How can it fail to do something it's not trying to do? You prove my point.

You missed the point. How can you serve a billion year string of evolution without knowing how life even started? That's why I left out a remaining 10% of evolution as tangible. The rest is unimpressive and far fetched.

It's no surprise, though, considering your 'source' says things like: "the evolutionary theory of the origin of rock." I wasn't aware evolutionary theory addressed the origin of rock... oh, wait, it doesn't.

It speaks on both evolution and the age of the Earth.

Please, read a real book on evolution, if only for your own sake.

I have. Why do you think I know more than you all do about it

This question has come up before, but you never even addressed it, so I feel okay posting it again: what reason do you have to think that all of science is faked for the sake of supporting science? Is germ theory such a huge hoax as well? What about the science that makes planes and cars possible?

Never said it was a hoax. Simply said what the bulk of it is: theory. You all battle that like it's not the most obvious thing as soon as it's studied upon. Two big things within science that make a habit of this is physics and evolution. The thing with physics, though, is that it actually advances.

We do our very best to use solid logic and reliable sources, after all. I figured you'd see it eventually.

I wish I could share that same opinion of you all, but that statement is just not true. I don't even want to post within the same thread anymore. This is the most redundant, immature debate I have ever been in.

And for the Genesis verse: I don't see what relevance that has, but it doesn't matter anyways because quoting Bible verses is probably the most asinine way to argue science. Well, besides the ways you all have argued.

Well I think that about wraps it up. Adios.

 

[blakstang98]

Just to step in here for a moment. Lets not undermine others thoughts and opinions. Posting in a debate thread is not about winning a debate, but having a reasonable discussion about the topic at hand, usually point and counterpoint. Lets not get this idea that we have won the debate and others have lost. If there is nothing more you can post to have your point be heard, then stop posting, simple as that. Remember, post because you have something to say, not because you have to say something.

I'm going to throw this out here again. I keep seeing too much of this "your argument is pointless/invalid" deal going on. It's just debate, you can't force someone to agree with your logic. If you don't like what others say, then don't post anymore. It's a discussion, not a pissing contest. Thank you, carry on.