₦airaland Forum

sisimose:
utter nonsense, show of ignorance and extreme self delusion

Good to know there are still people around with a sense of humour

babaearly:
@ NFERYN
you're not only an atheist but a skeptic. too depressing!!!

Why would that be depressing?

Hi dblock,

Remember this:

I cannot prove that christianity is a true faith, but I can prove that science cannot explain Biology beyond classroom science and that Religion is Paramount

Still waiting

spoilt:

Yeah, now go and cry to your skydaddy.

@nferyn

no one talks about God like that and gets away with it!

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities, it was not my intention. I only was getting a little fed up with the arrogant know-it-all tone of sage's reply.

sage:
There is no point. So shall we say

It's quite obvious you can't live up to my evidentiary standards. Look at these sites if you ever plan on convincing an atheist of your truths:
* http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
* http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/hownot.html

sage:
nferyn wait till God comes down and has a face to face talk with you b/for you believe he exists . It might be a one sided meeting then.

Condescending smuck arrogance, check.

sage:
You have all the evidence you need. When you get that additional one you are looking for, it would be way too late.

Evidence? You've never been anywhere near a science class, have you?

sage:
At times i wonder when you think of something like the ozone layer that was designed to shield humans from harmful sun rays, one wonders how a bigbang and evolution could have placed it there.

Just throw in an anthropic principle, mix it with a design inference, add one cosmological argument. There you are: one weak apologist. Shaken, not stirred.

sage:
Atheism is empty

Yeah, now go and cry to your skydaddy.

sage:
@nferyn
.

your mind is made up already. I wanted to give you those for a start but its obviously of no use.

Look who's talking about minds made up. I asked for strong evidence for inspiration. All you can come up with are some vague prophecies. If the Bible was truly inspired by an inerrant God, all of these prophecies would be fulfilled, yet you still believe in spite of the mirky picture the Bible paints.

sage:
But in tackling the points that i raised you said Cyrus was a common name, but my question would be how many persian king Cyruses ordered the return of the jews from exile and the rebuilding of the temple?

In that passage you read an order for the jews to return and an order to rebuild the temple? Your inter textual reading capacity far surpasses mine, no doubt.

sage:
There was only one and it was forcasted with accuracy.

There were several Persian kings by the name Cyrus, one of whom was Cyrus the Great. The Babylonian empire has been under threat from the Persians almost during it's entire existence. Swell prophecy to foretell what is likely to happen anyway.

sage:
The prophesy of Jeremiah could not have been written in the first century AD so funny as it is that you you now try to clutch at straws to say the prophesy is random . The destruction of many cities were foretold in the bible but only a few cities were spoken off as never to be rebuilt forever and ever. Edom is a good example.

Edom is an appaling example, the references to Edom in Numbers speaks of a force that could resist the passage of the Jews. During the middle and late bronze ages there was no permanent settlement there. The whole account of Edom, with it's fields, vineyards and borders is a complete fabrication.
By the way, where did I say that Jeremiah was written in the first century CE? That prophecy isn't random, it's only trivial, comparable to those of Nostradamus.

sage:
The shape of the earth was guessed by the chinese and others but was not common knowledge in Europe. The bible description of the shape of the clashed with common view of what the earth as flat but was not stated as a probability. the bible stated it as a fact.

Yes and the Bible is really a good guide when it comes to science and cosmology:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has [b]fixed [/b]the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast [b]fixed [/b]the earth immovable and firm , ”
Psalm 96:10: “He has [b]fixed [/b]the earth firm, immovable , ”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst [b]fix [/b]the earth on its [b]foundation [/b]so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “, who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself [b]fixed [/b]it fast, ”

from http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm:
The Shape of the Earth

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth, reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him, ”
The Bible says the earth is spherical, you say? One of the many Biblical contradictions rather.

sage:
Besides what makes you thin that Noah's flood is a myth and the earth cannot be repopulated in a period of 4000 to 5000 years?

Do you really want to go there? If I give you irrefutable scientific evidence that the Flood is a myth, will you than concede that the Bible is in error?

dblock:
You have elightened Me . But Nferyn never gives up, he's a full time athiest

Dear dblock, sage and others,

I'm happy that all of this can convince you of the veracity of the Christian worldview, but my evidentiary standards are slightly higher. I'll tackle all of sage's evidences point by point.

sage:
Ok Nferyn

I'm back.

Glad to hear.

sage:
Evidences of biblical inspiration

1 Isa 44:24,27,28 and 45:1-4 specifically named Cyrus as the Medo Persian leader that would liberate Isreal from Babylonian bondage. It describes exactly how that will be achieved, diversion of the waters and the gates being left open. This was written over 200years in advance. Isaiah lived in the 8th century BC and he clearly forecasted the future with accuracy, even giving specific names over 200 years in advance. Isaiah lived in Judea under Assyrian domination and Cyrus was no where near beign born at that time and and the Judean kingdom was still free and not under Babylonian captivity yet.

You mean that these verses:
44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
45:2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
is saying all you mentioned above? I really can't seen how you can read all of this in these vague verses. The only thing concrete I see in here is the name Cyrus, a very common Persian first name.
When talking about accuracy in the prophecies, you should also not forget that Isaiah prophecised that:
* the Nile would dry up: didn't happen
* Damascus would cease to be a city and be deserted forever: didn't happen either
So basically, the moment a prophecy mentions a specific, [b]unlikely [/b]event beforehand, it doesn't come to pass. So much for the value of these prophecies

sage:
2 Jer 49:17,18 foretold about the eternal annihilation of Edom in the 6th century BC. At that point Edom was still an existent kingdom. Edom seized to exist at around the 1st century BC and was obliterated in the first century AD, over 700yrs after the prophecy. This is one prophecy you and I are still seeing the fufilment. Edom has never been rebuilt till today.

Unlike Damascus, then
If you make enough prophecies that have a sufficient likelihood of happening, some will eventually be correct. Simple probability. Why didn't Jeremiah foresee a specific date(range) for his prophecy, something like the second coming of Jesus in the lifetime his followers? But then again, when the prophecies get specific and unlikely, they fail to happen.

sage:
3 Jesus accurately prophesied the destruction of Jeruselem by Roman armies. He instructed his followers to flee Jeruselem whenever it becomes besieged by Roman Armies. It seemed like an impossible task but when Roman armies besieged Jeruselem, after a while they just pulled back for no reason, allowing Jesus followers to act on his instructions. The Romans returned under General Titus and destroyed Jeruselem.

You have got to be kidding. None of the gospels were written during the lifetime of Jesus and the earliest gospel (Mark) is widely believed to be written during or just after the first Jewish-Roman war, exactly the time when those prophecies were taking place, what a coincidence.

sage:
4 The shape of the planet earth.
Isa 40:22 refers accurately to the shape of the earth. It shows that earth was spherical, ages before the telescope and other human inventions confirmed the shape of the earth. In another verse it refers to the suspension of the earth by saying the God hangs the earth upon nothing (N/B the teaching that the earth was flat and had literal support from some sea creatures was a false church teaching, like many false doctrines that the church still parades to day that had no basis from the bible). Now that screams inspiration

The spherical nature of the earth was know long before Isaiah (e.g. by the Egyptians and the Chinese). This only scream [i]straws [/i]and desperate attempts to [i]grasp [/i]them.

sage:
5 Lev 11:6 refers to Hares (Rabbits) as cud chewers. Critics attacked this bible passage as false until the 18th century when it was finally observed that the Rabbit did indeed chew cud.

This must be the worst attempt of putting up a straw man I have ever seen. Which critics? How would rabbits chewing cud [i]scream [/i]inspiration?

sage:
6 Daniel Chapter 8:20-22 prophesied about Alexander the Great and how he would defeat Persia and how he his kingdom would be divided into four. This was 200 to 300 years in advance.

Actually, it wasn't. Any respectable historian studying the Bible knows that Daniel was written in the second century BCE, after those events took place. this is apparent in a number of details, e.g. :
* Parts of the book were writen in Aramaic, which wasn't a common language among the Jews at the time of the captivity
* Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king's name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time
* In 2:2 the king's wise men are called "Chaldeans". But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, "Chaldean" would have referred to a nationality. It was only centuries later that it came to mean sorcerer or astrologer.
* The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents of Babylon in the sixth century BCE.
* The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with 6th century BCE Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official in the employ of King Nebuchadnezzar

sage:
7 The bible was written over a period of 1,600 years by men from all different works of life who had never met each other yet it shows harmony right to smallest of details. It was not like they collaborated to write it

<SARCASM>[/b]Harmony? Obviously, the Bible was written by these authors without even one knowing of the works of the others or being inspired by them. No editing happened after it's original writing, no books were left out to reach that harmony. Midrash was an unheard of practice amongst Jews.[b]</SARCASM> And yet, it still needs the intellectually olympic discipline of theology to explain away all the remaining internal contradictions. Harmony, you say?

sage:
Well let us take these for a start.

And what a start it was.

sage:
I expect this to be unbelievable to an atheist so i expect you to start clutching at straws in order to sustain the self delusionary thought that mankind and the orderly planet(albeit one now desecrated by mankind) appeared from nowhere by chance.

You've got something with straws, haven't you? Strawman arguments really are your thing: Mankind and the orderly planet appearing from nowhere by chance? Sound's like a [i]goddidit [/i]kind of argument to me. You wouldn't fall into the trap of projection now, would you?

sage:
Nferyn i am waiting . The last time i asked to you show me one thing in the bible that science has proven wrong or false i did not hear from you again

You mean the creation myth in Genesis or Noah's flood (2)? Of course I can rehash the arguments here, but you can follow the links now, can't you?

stranger12:
GOD:

1: The mythical being who supposedly created this world we live in
2: The supreme being who created this world we live in

choose any, you might be right.

I was referring to the nature/properties of god, not his actions, i.e. what makes god different from not-God?

stranger12:
People who believe in God believe they were created by a supreme being.

Not necessarily. For example, Catholic doctrine accepts the Theory of Evolution, considers Genesis to be allegorical, which contradicts 'literal' creation.

stranger12:
People who don't believe in God believe they just happened.

If you consider the scientific explanation for our universe and the processes that resulted in us as 'just happening', then yes, but that only goes for me and the people who think like me. There are also atheists who don't subscribe to the scientific method, though.

stranger12:
is it the word "GOD" that is hard to swallow?

ok, for the benefit of logic, can you please substitute "God" for "a Supreme Being"

These are not exactly the same. Could you define God for argument's sake, as I see a difference between a supreme being (in relation to other beings) and the God concept, which (must be) very specific.
Is your God the personal, theist omnimax God as described in the Bible?

@ Backslider
Thanks for living up to my expectations. You eventually brought the fire and brimstone to the party. It's good to have some certainties in life.

stranger12:
I just had a bad day yesterday, thats all.

and I needed someone to spill it out on.

Never mind, we all have our bad days - maybe I had mine yesterday as well

stranger12:
hey, who says I'm challenged

I don't think I went that far with either you or nferyn. And you, nferyn inferred that I am stupid.

Only after you said I must be a robot bent on destruction, a rather stupid comment to make. Anyway, apologies for my lack of tact

stranger12:
I went through your comic strips again and I should say they seemed funny. But the down side is that it is a mockery of what some people's hold dear.

You can mock anything I hold dear, except for my family.

stranger12:
But nferyn, you keep saying I'm not making sense.

Hmm, maybe I'm not good with communicating my thoughts

That could be it. I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

stranger12:
I will rephrase one of my questions

Do you think man on earth is the most advanced being?

your answer might be NO.

but here is my logic, what if the answer is YES.


Do you think we can in the future create intelligent beings? YES
What if we create such beings in test tubes or petri dishes. Do you think they can be smart enough to measure the size of their surroundings?
(the same way we know the size of the milky way)


If my thoughts are logical, are we not Gods to the beings we create.

It's not because something is created by something more advanced that the more advanced being is a god, it's only more advanced.
Unfortunately I still don't get the point you're trying to make

stranger12:
Are we good or bad if we decide to bin our research?

Huh?

Jehu:
@ nferyn

Hi my Guy,

I 've followed your discourse and I'm really thrilled.

You have some knowledge, though, but let's present some infallibility in Bible prophesy.

The Book of Daniel: Daniel was regarded as a prophet. Interestingly, he served in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldean King. So other records can prove his existence.

In the book, the King dreamt and summoned all his wise men to not only tell him his dream but also interpret it. This, Daniel with the help of his God did.

The beauty of this whole episode is that the dream was revealed to Nebuchadnezzar as a prophecy of what was to come after him.

Though he saw a statue, but civilizations were revealed to him in the interpretations.
This prophecy is still being fulfilled to this very day.

Do you question this ?

I'm not really in a position to question anything, as I'm not familiar enough with the content of these prophecies. However, there are people far more knowledgeable on the subject than I am that question the validity of these prophecies, e.g. :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/daniel/intro.htm
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/comment/daniel.shtml

Backslider:
@drbelloim


Just make sure you will have the wikpedia that you are quoting today to present Before Jesus at the end of time. make sure you have GOOD DENIAL OF THE writing of Josephus, then make sure you DENY the rulers at that time like

The quote by Josephus is a later date insertion by a Christian copyist, it carries no evidentiary weight

Backslider:
1 PONTUS PILATE
2 NERO
3 FELIX
4 ALL THE CEASARS THAT EXISTED

MAKE SURE YOU HAVE FACTS TO DENY THIS RULERS.

What does the existence of these rulers have to do with the validity of Christianity? Anything flies for an argument these days

Backslider:
People tend to want to block their minds from the coming Judgment from God.


May the peace of God that passeth all understanding Find you and your soul be converted.

It always fills my heart with joy to hear the wonderful inclusive message of my Christian brethern Not quite enough fire and brimstone though

@ stranger12
If all arguments fail, just throw in some personal insults. You are truly a real intellectual.

I must say that I definitely don't think all other persons are stupid, but I gladly make an exception for you though. The relative rate of stable patterns resulting from your synaptic reactions is too low to detect coherence; either that or you have some kind of motor impairment, RSI in an advanced stage.

stranger12:
OK,

enough of my ranting.



Believe it or not, God might exist, and might not. If I can create, I can be created if I am not supreme. But what proof do I have that I am supreme or not.

answer that question first before you question the existence of GOD.

You are really not making much sense. Are you asking a question?
You also presuppose that the existence of God is established and that it's up to me to refute your assertion. Why?

stranger12:
but am I making sense at all? I just don't want you to go about thinking that people who believe in God are not logical.

The existence of God is actually probable.

Don't you think so?

No I don't.

stranger12:
An intellect can educate himself/herself to the point of believing in God.
In the same way, you can educate yourself to the point of not believing.

When you're saying something you need to define your terms first before any meaningful conversation can take place. I have no idea what you mean with intellect, educate and God.

stranger12:
Logic fails sometimes.

And green is a different colour.

stranger12:
you put your water in a cup, on a table, in a continent, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy
. . . who says it ends there?

Yes, who says? And your point is what exactly?

stranger12:
and who says you are the most supreme in your one little corner called earth? There might be another.

Define supreme, you and the context of that sentence. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

stranger12:
In a million years from now where would man be? Man would be God to the present.

It's very unlikely there will still be 'man'

stranger12:
Currently, we are Gods to the past. It's only God that can fly in the sky and create quakes with atomic bombs.

Yes, all sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic for those not posessing it. Doesn't that sort of invalidate your premise about the need for a God?

stranger12:
You don't even need proof of life eternal if you can't count from 1 to the last digit in infinity

Have you been using the Dilbert Mission Statement Generator a bit too often? It has affected your ability to construct meaningful sentences.

stranger12:
. . . logic falls flat without logic to sustain logic.

Meaning?

@ Backslider
Hallowed are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_%28Stargate%29]the Ori [/url]

stranger12:
I don't understand you guys sometimes.

I think the feeling is mutual

stranger12:
Statistically and scientifically the probability that life exist elsewhere is not 0.

indeed

stranger12:
The probablitity that something more superior to humans is not 0

Yes, and? Could you define superior and how it relates to humans?

stranger12:
Therefore common sense that is not so common suggests that a being very very powerful to the point of being supreme is not 0.

Once more, your point?

stranger12:
GET THAT?

NOT ZERO. (0)

GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK SKULLS AND STOP THINKING EVERY OTHER PERSON IS STUPID!!!

You are in the process of demonstrating that you don't have a fricking clue what I was getting at with this thread. Where did I imply that every other person is stupid?

stranger12:
**I WOULDNT BE THIS PISSED OFF IF YOU GUYS WERENT THINKING YOU WERE TOO SMART.**

Short fuse, heh? Another strawman big bang in the making?

@ stranger12
And your point is what exactly?

The last one from Russel's Teapot

Seun:
Hmmm. Wow! I guess all those years of being in Belgium (not surrounded by you-know-who) have paid off in a way.

Up to a certain level, maybe, but it's really a mixed blessing. Being separated from the majority of your family isn't always easy.

Ka:
Nferyn,

I don't do heated religious debates any more. The best I can hope for as a result of dialogue is to better understand the workings of the believer's mind - which itself isn't a bad thing if I want to understand how to communicate with them. But I believe that it is only a severe emotional experience that can detach someone from a religious belief - and usually, the more entrenched the belief, the more severe the emotional experience must be.

True, we're creatures of habit and changing our ways or thoughts can have significant emotional and physiological impact due to the nature of information storage in the brain.

Ka:
In fact, I wouldn't detach someone from their religious belief, even if I could conclusively and irrefutably prove it was false. I might end up doing more harm than good.

In real life I'm far more gentle when discussing these matters precisely because of the emotional consequences. Online, there's no need to sugarcoat things as the emotional context is very different.

Seun:
They probably don't talk about it much.

As I said

Seun:
As long as she gets to indoctrinate the kids, she's happy. (just guessing!)

No, actually you're very wrong here. She does take the kids to church sometimes, but she never tries to indoctrinate them (they're too young to understand anyway). We've agreed before that this is a no-go and that they'll make up their mind themselves when they're older. I've explained to her that this would probably result in them becoming atheist like myself, but she seems comfortable with that. She actually thinks her position has merit and that the children will come to follow her way of thinking.

sisimose:
hmm i wonder how your wife copes

Pretty well, thank you for asking. Anyway, I really don't discuss religion all that much with her. It's a non-issue.
Fortunately, she's not the typical "God-head" and doesn't need to profess her religious beliefs at every occasion but keeps it private. There are some people in the family though that , , ,

Ka:
Nferyn,

So you've given up? You've finally realised the gap between believer and infidel is too wide to be bridged? Oh dear!!!

That isn't necessarily true, I'm married to a believer, after all
I'm just having fun debating those true believers. I usually give the unsophisticated ones the [i]rough [/i]treatment, but sometimes there are people with whom you can truly dialogue and then the exchange is enlightening to both parties

Seun:
Hehe. I liked them all. My Christian sibling says he doesn't understand the story about Hank's Ass, though.

Why am I not surprised

While we're at it

Another one

Ka:
Nferyn,

You should know that in matters like this, either you're preaching to the choir or you're uttering unintelligible nonsense.

A humorous interlude for the choir isn't entirely out of bounds, I would hope

Ka:
The clip was amusing, although it doesn't quite capture some of the subtleties of religious belief.

Have you ever seen satire capturing the subtleties of any belief? I never meant this to be a start of an [i]intelligent [/i]debate anyway. I wonder if that's even possible.

Here's another funny cartoon, let's keep this thread sufficiently low brow, shall we

sage:
Hey Nferyn

Why i said you should get acquinted with those dates is because those prophesies were made, written and completed in advance and hundreds of years before. I know you would want to discredit the bible even in the face of truth.

I'm really not planning to do anything like that, I'm not not even going to debate the time in which specific books of the Bible were written. What I am looking forward to is that you present some very specific examples of prophecies that can only be attributed to foresight. More specifically, those prophecies need to be precise enough for it to be impossible not to have been inspired.Either a very specific prediction or a clear pattern of less precise predictions that together establish a clear case of divine inspiration. When establishing that pattern though, those predictions cannot be isolated from all other predictions.

sage:
For example, do you know when Jeruselem was destroyed by Babylonians and when Cyrus ruled in Medo-Persia and When the Bible book of Isiah was written and Completed?

No I don't, but I could look it up

sage:
I have many examples of bible prophecy that got fufilled hundreds of years after it was written. I know in a bid to discredit the truth you will start to argue that the only explanation would be that those bible passages must have been written hundreds of years after they were actually completed because you just wont believe that it happened just as it was prophesied.

Again, that is not my intention, the specific dates are less relevant to me.

sage:
But guess what? it did because the prophesies were inspired

So you say. Can you bring your evidence to the table now?

davidylan:
.
Funny how this so called mathematical theorems are nothing but abstract thinking invented by mere men like you. How tangible is the pythagorase theorem?

You can of course choose to ignore those abstract theorems. I wonder e.g. how many bridges would get built without all these [i]abstract [/i]ideas from geometry. Your point?

davidylan:
You agree that oxygen is essential for life yet you have never seen it?

I definitely expect better from you, davidylan. It seems that, when religion gets a satirical treatment, you just forget about the intellectual rigor you aptly apply to other subjects.