Conquer Club

stinkycheese wrote:

Aradhus wrote:This picture has probably been posted 100 times on this site(99 of those times in reference to Jay), but what the hell, what's one more.

Catholicism WOW!

I just thought this should be seen more frequently.

jay_a2j wrote:

vtmarik wrote:Your immune system.

End of line.

See, we can't have debate with answers like this.

Of course we can't, because this isn't a debate point. It's an answer to your request.

The human immune system is in a state of constant evolution. For example, when you were a child, did you catch chicken pox?

Let's assume you did, your immune system developed an immunity to that disease, you will never catch it again. Your immune system is distinctly changed from its previous form.

How about another example? Ok, i'll up the ante and mention Drug Resistant bacteria.

Some strains of different bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics, they are known as "drug-resistant." This is not an adaptation, because there are forms of the same bacteria that aren't drug resistant.

You'll often hear scientists refer to "drug-resistant" strains of bacteria, and then refer to that same kind of bacteria without the term ahead of it. They come from the same genus and species, however one strain of this same bacteria has evolved a resistance to the various chemicals used to kill its predecessors.

and that right there folks proves evolution exists. now if jay are jargo can absoutly once and for all prove god exists then we can keep arguing like this. otherwise i declare the non-believers the winners of the argument. thank you and goodnight.

for dummies wrote:and that right there folks proves evolution exists. now if jay are jargo can absoutly once and for all prove god exists then we can keep arguing like this. otherwise i declare the non-believers the winners of the argument. thank you and goodnight.

Hey, screw you buddy, I'm not a non-believer. I'm a semi-believer.

Get it right and I won't have to spank you.

You (jay) seem to be (deliberately?) confusing fact and theory. Evolution and gravitation are both. Theories can (very occasionally) change completely. Newton's theory of gravtation being replaced by Einstein's is a classic example of this. Apples didn't suddenly start floating instead of falling because of this. Gravitation remained a fact. More commonly, parts of a theory get altered when new data compromises some details of a theory. It is this that Scientists debate; the mechanisms of evolution. No credible scientist doubts that evolution is a fact.

Scientific, logical and mathematical facts are never absolute. It is entirely possible we will all float into space tomorrow when gravity ceases to exist. The fact that evolution occurs/ occurred is equally vulnerable. Neither possibility is worthy of serious consideration.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote:Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man.

The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

I pretty much agree with Mightyal.

I didn't vote in the poll because my reason is different to those.

I can give two separate answers to this question. The reason why I specifically pick on Christians is because they're the main religion in my country, on the forums I post on, and what I'm exposed to the most.

The reason I pick on religion is because I think it's false and I think it holds back human development as wells as putting forward views that I find irrational and immoral. A great example is the fact that there is even a debate about if evolution exists or not. The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. On the other hand the evolution in support of any kind of creator existing is basically non-existent. It makes no sense that people believe in a creator instead of evolution. Actually it does make some sense, there are lots of good reasons why people believe in religions. They're all based on evolutionary theory. For example kids that believe what they're told (ie. don't touch the fire) are more likely to survive, hence we have evolved to believe what we're told from a young age - hence the vast majority of people have the same religious beliefs as their parents (over 90%). Secondly if we can figure out what the intent of a tiger is (to eat us) quickly then we're more likely to survive. It can easily be proven that children assume intention in objects - for example if they are shown two objects following each other they will almost always assume that the second object is chasing the first. So we find it very easy to see intention in things where there is none. Things like the cargo cults show clearly how easy it is for religion to start from unexplainable events or awe inspiring events and how quickly the stories of those events turn into mystical and supernatural stories. They also show how once people believe something, they are prepared to attribute their personal experiences to that belief, even if, in the case of the cargo cults, we can clearly see that it's a religion based on a misunderstanding. There is every likely hood that all religions are essentially similar - it's just that with most we aren't around to see what causes them.

Ambrose: prove to me that Tintin In Tibet is not divinely inspired. Yours is a redundant question, and if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this argument.

Jay - keep on misusing whatever words you like. The difference has been pointed out to you over and over again... but i get the feeling you skip those posts (if you read this, prove it). Which is why this argument is such a red rag....

Creationism is a rejection of science, and at the end of every creationist line of argument comes the line "because the bible says so". Fair enough? Because apart from (benefit of doubt here) wilful ignorance - over what a scientific theory is, or how life may have come about - that is the bottom line for you. That's all there is. A belief that the bible is 100% literally true. Yes?

heavycola wrote:Ambrose: prove to me that Tintin In Tibet is not divinely inspired. Yours is a redundant question, and if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this argument.

No no, he claimed that he COULD prove the Bible was not divinely inspired. I'm asking him to show me how, and still waiting

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

heavycola wrote:Ambrose: prove to me that Tintin In Tibet is not divinely inspired. Yours is a redundant question, and if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this argument.

No no, he claimed that he COULD prove the Bible was not divinely inspired. I'm asking him to show me how, and still waiting

Not to split hairs here but I think if you check he said it was not the "word of God"...you picked up the gauntlet but chose to refer to it as "inspired by God"...there is a marked difference which I was surprised he let you get away with

vtmarik wrote:Hey, screw you buddy, I'm not a non-believer. I'm a semi-believer.

Not according to jay. If your not full-on brainwashed...then your going to hell. Get those water ski's ready for that lake resort of fire.

OnlyAmbrose wrote: I do hope that, based on my history of posting, you can trust me to remain rational in my debating.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that faith may be logically defended. As such, you will find me quite willing to logically defend it. In any event, I will answer what I can from what you have provided me.

There is a difference between logically defending, and defending logically.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Why are the old and new testaments so different?

A common enough question. The Old Testament is often quite violent, speaks of wars, and talks of God as often being angry with His people. And let's face it- there was plenty to be angry about. Remember how Moses descended from the mountain only to find his former followers worshiping a golden calf? Examples of such disloyalty to the God whom had given them so much pepper the Old Testament.

Does that mean God loved humanity less? Check this out: (Genesis 6:5-8 )

"When the Lord saw how great was man's wickedness on earth... he regretted that he had made man on earth and his heart was grieved. So the Lord said: 'I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created... for I am sorry that I made them.' But Noah found favor with the Lord."

He wipes out most of humanity, yet he allows Satan to live, the actual cause of teh big evol. Only a complete dimwit sees this as logical.

The world is the lead character in this little metaphor. Satan is the gun. We are the bullets. Take Satans bullets away, and he will find more. remove the gun, voila, the bullets are useless.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Humanity had let God down so much that God regretted His creation. But God loved us (and by that I mean US- the future of the human race) enough to give us a second chance- he gave us Noah, who salvaged humanity. Afterward, the Lord made a covenant with Noah- the world was now ours to do with it what we wished.

The book of Songs (also referred to as "Song of Songs") compares the Lord's love for his creation to the ideal marriage. This is a rather appropriate metaphor, I think, because it shows that even in the gravest of anger, there is always a willingness to give another chance which may grow, and grow into something amazing.

And lo, it HAS grown into something amazing. It has grown, according to the Bible, into the human race.

What's more, God was not only willing to give us a second chance, he was willing to send his son down to die so that sins may be forgiven. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son..." (John 3:16).

Forgiven by whom? The only being that can forgive us is God. Sending his son down to earth, so we can kill him, would now mean that our sins are forgiven? Are you kidding? Jesus.... Your faith is real logical.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:That's where the New Testament comes in. It is years after the fight between spouses has occurred, and the act of love which salvaged the marriage has led to such that one would sacrifice anything for his beloved. The New Testament shows us that sacrifice that God has made for us, and because of that sacrifice the marriage is forever sealed- thus its message is softer, it shows us how we may repay the Lord for the sacrifice He has made unto us.

I hope that is an adequate explanation, any other questions on it, let me know.

Moving on:

No, you completely ignored the actual question I was asking. Briefly explaining the two parts of the bible does not explain why they are so different.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Why does Jesus reject laws that are taught in old testament(God's word)?
Was God's word wrong? Was he teaching the wrong laws?!

Examples?

Are you serious? ‘God’ murders his enemies throughout the old testament. He sends them delusions to confuse them, he advocates slavery (he‘s all about free will, that god of yours…). The old testament sentiment is “an eye for an eye”. Jesus preaches the exact opposite. His philosophy is “turn the other cheek”.

God bless you Aradhus...oops..you know what I mean

Backglass wrote:

vtmarik wrote:Hey, screw you buddy, I'm not a non-believer. I'm a semi-believer.

Not according to jay. If your not full-on brainwashed...then your going to hell. Get those water ski's ready for that lake resort of fire.

Meh, I've got a VIP pass, I don't gotta worry about that.

Non-christians get to hang out in the non-stereotypical part of hell.

I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off on the "dimwit" and "moron" comments, they're uncalled for and unprovoked.

He wipes out most of humanity, yet he allows Satan to live, the actual cause of teh big evol. Only a complete dimwit sees this as logical.

The world is the lead character in this little metaphor. Satan is the gun. We are the bullets. Take Satans bullets away, and he will find more. remove the gun, voila, the bullets are useless.

The metaphor is somewhat incomplete- a bullet is destined to be loaded into a gun and fired. We have the God-given power to resist temptations- it was our fault for not exercising it. Satan has his punishment- he is in eternal torment and may never see the face of God again for the betrayal he chose of his own free will. We were given our chance in the stories of the Old Testament and failed. God started from scratch, despite the terrible disappointment he had with us; by all means wiping humanity from the universe would have been a proper thing to do, but he decided to give his creation another chance. We are NOT bullets to be fired from the proverbial gun of Satan. We only become such "bullets" by our own free choices.

Forgiven by whom? The only being that can forgive us is God. Sending his son down to earth, so we can kill him, would now mean that our sins are forgiven? Are you kidding? Jesus.... Your faith is real logical.

yes indeed, forgiven by God. Let me put it this way-

God is just. He laid down the law. People weren't following it. He punished them, because that was the law, and He can't break his own laws. But through it all he salvaged humanity. Each time, though, we returned to sin.

Finally, God had enough. He was sick of the cycle that was going around and around. But instead of wiping us from the universe, God sent Jesus, who is truly God and truly man, to suffer the punishment earned by humanity over the years past and over the years to come.

Our debt is paid, paid by God Himself because of His love for us. Jesus gave us a gift by dying on the cross- now all we have to do is ACCEPT that gift.

That is why the message of the New Testament is so much softer- our debt is PAID, and all we have to do now is love God.

I hope that makes a bit more sense, if not go ahead and post whatever you see as wrong with it, but please do so in the same respectful manner with which I am addressing you...

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
God is just. He laid down the law. People weren't following it. He punished them, because that was the law, and He can't break his own laws. But through it all he salvaged humanity. Each time, though, we returned to sin.

Finally, God had enough. He was sick of the cycle that was going around and around. But instead of wiping us from the universe, God sent Jesus, who is truly God and truly man, to suffer the punishment earned by humanity over the years past and over the years to come.

Our debt is paid, paid by God Himself because of His love for us. Jesus gave us a gift by dying on the cross- now all we have to do is ACCEPT that gift.

That is why the message of the New Testament is so much softer- our debt is PAID, and all we have to do now is love God.

BUt you can see how weird and arbitrary this all seems to people who don't buy it. God is omnipotent, but he can't build nice friendly people, so he drowns them all, then next time he gets fed up with our misbehaviour he impregnates a woman and has his only son killed barbarically so the rest of us can get into heaven. It doesn't make sense. Either make people nicer, or scare them into submission, or just open up heaven anyway. Why all the other stuff? Whose logic is he following? And why would a perfect being use such convoluted and obscure methods to get his own way?

Occam's razor again: what if, instead, god is imaginary, and our impulses - towards each other and towards religious feeling - are simply animal nature, as possessed by every other creature on the planet. This makes more sense, i think.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
God is just. He laid down the law. People weren't following it. He punished them, because that was the law, and He can't break his own laws. But through it all he salvaged humanity. Each time, though, we returned to sin.

Finally, God had enough. He was sick of the cycle that was going around and around. But instead of wiping us from the universe, God sent Jesus, who is truly God and truly man, to suffer the punishment earned by humanity over the years past and over the years to come.

Our debt is paid, paid by God Himself because of His love for us. Jesus gave us a gift by dying on the cross- now all we have to do is ACCEPT that gift.

That is why the message of the New Testament is so much softer- our debt is PAID, and all we have to do now is love God.

I hope that makes a bit more sense, if not go ahead and post whatever you see as wrong with it, but please do so in the same respectful manner with which I am addressing you...

Can you back up these claims with any evidence? Can you give us any reason to think that your ludicrous claims are true?

I don't want to disappoint you guys and gals, but all you've said is beside the point.

OnlyAmbrose, you said you could defend faith, by which I presume you mean "faith in god", logically. You have not done that so far, instead you have given some explanations as for why the bible contradicts itself in some points, always under two premisses you didn't state. Firstly that god exists and secondly that the bible is his word/is inspired by him/gives an accurate picture of god or similar.



I'm just pointing this out because I would REALLY by interested in reading a logical defense of faith in god, which would, logically, have to include a logical reasoning showing or at least strongly indicating that god exists.

MeDeFe wrote:
I'm just pointing this out because I would REALLY by interested in reading a logical defense of faith in god, which would, logically, have to include a logical reasoning showing or at least strongly indicating that god exists.

Like God, a reasoned argument of faith in God does not exist.

and i supose you can prove either something else true or that wrong

Jargo The Axe wrote:and i supose you can prove either something else true or that wrong

You're retarded.

Who is the antecedent of "you." You can clarify who you are talking to with a quote. Aside from that your sentence is grammatically incorrect. Do you actually expect to get an intelligent response to this jargon that you posted?

MeDeFe wrote:I don't want to disappoint you guys and gals, but all you've said is beside the point.

OnlyAmbrose, you said you could defend faith, by which I presume you mean "faith in god", logically. You have not done that so far, instead you have given some explanations as for why the bible contradicts itself in some points, always under two premisses you didn't state. Firstly that god exists and secondly that the bible is his word/is inspired by him/gives an accurate picture of god or similar.



I'm just pointing this out because I would REALLY by interested in reading a logical defense of faith in god, which would, logically, have to include a logical reasoning showing or at least strongly indicating that god exists.

All that you three have just said is beside the point at hand- Aradhus stated that he could prove that the Bible can be discredited just by evidence WITHIN it. That's what I'm debating at the present.

If you would like to read about cases for God, go to google and type "proving God exists". You'll get thousands of results to read. In the meantime, I'm talking with Aradhus on THIS specific topic.

Jargo The Axe wrote:and i supose you can prove either something else true or that wrong

Translation: "I cant answer any of your questions, because you have backed me into a logical corner. Therefor I will respond with more questions so I dont have to face up to that fact."

OnlyAmbrose wrote:If you would like to read about cases for God, go to google and type "proving God exists". You'll get thousands of results to read.

Thanks Ambrose. I did that search and found THIS GREAT PAGE of over 300, which sums them up quite nicely. Many of you & jay's arguments are in here:

#6 - TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#7 - ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#8 - ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#12 - ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to die.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#13 - ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#19 - ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#31 - ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY
(1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
(2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
(3) I propose that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#32 - ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#46 - CALVINIST ARGUMENT, a.k.a. TERTULLIAN'S ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#51 - ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS
(1) Ask Atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the Atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

#53 - ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
(1) The Bible is true.
(2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#60 - ARGUMENT FROM INSECURITY
(1) We have gone to absolutely berserk lengths to establish that Atheists are laughable morons.
(1.5) Actually, we did so in the hopes of curing our own insecurities about theism — but there's no chance in hell we'll ever admit that.
(2) Therefore, Atheists are laughable morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#79 - ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I've had religious experiences that can't be explained unless I'm insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#98 - ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#101 - ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#105 - ARGUMENT FROM NON-CONFRONTATION
(1) I am not here to argue with you Atheists.
(2) But come on, God obviously exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#109 - ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#110 - ARGUMENT FROM ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE (I)
(1) I once experienced something I can't explain.
(2) [Atheists offer several possible, natural explanations.]
(3) You're just guessing! I was there.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#115 - ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EYEWITNESS (II)
(1) No one's ever seen one species turn into another.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#126 - ARGUMENT FROM CRAZINESS, a.k.a. PERCHANCE'S SISTER'S ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I would go crazy if I didn't believe in God.
(2) I am not crazy.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#132 - ARGUMENT FROM CATCH-PHRASE
(1) There are no Atheists in foxholes.
(2) [Atheist points out Atheists in foxholes.]
(3) They don’t count.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#196 - ARGUMENT FROM SCIENTISTS
(1) Some famous scientists believed in God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#208 - The ARGUMENT FROM THE THRONE ROOM
(1) Would you stand in the presence of a mighty king and demand that he prove he exists?
(2) No?
(3) That's what you're doing with God, you arrogant bastards.
(4) I don't CARE that you can't see him!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

#216 - ARGUMENT FROM WIND
(1) You believe in wind.
(2) But you can't see it.
(3) God's the same way.
(4) It IS TOO analogous!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

#227 - ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (II)
(1) The Bible says the Bible is true.
(2) Therefore the Bible is true.
(3) The Bible says God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exist.

#236 - ARGUMENT FROM LOGIC
(1) There are some things in logic that you can't logically demonstrate.
(2) Therefore you have to take them on faith.
(3) Your faith in logic is the same as my faith in God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#259 - ARGUMENT FROM NOT-BELIEVING
(1) The New Testament says people like you would question us.
(2) You question us.
(3) Therefore the Bible is true.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#268 - ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE OPPOSITION
(1) Satan is bad.
(2) You don't want to be on Satan's side, do you?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#326 - ARGUMENT FROM ARTIFACT
(1) Archeologists found the remains of a boat from Jesus' time.
(2) So the Bible is true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#334 - ARGUMENT FROM FEELING GOD'S PRESENCE
(1) Atheists just haven't truly felt God's presence yet.
(2) If they had ever felt God's presence, they would not be Atheists.
(3) Theists have truly felt God's presence.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


Any more?

The bible can only be discredited if you take it seriously, so Aradhus is fighting to defeat his own purpose as I see it. Besides, his three original questions can be answered quite easily

Aradhus wrote:Why are the old and new testaments so different?
Why does Jesus reject laws that are taught in the old testament(God's word)?
Was God's word wrong? Was he teaching the wrong laws?! :shock:

The bible is a broken hallelujah.

1) They are different because they were written by different people at different times in different situations.
2) Jesus was effectively trying to reform his religion (he was a jew).
3) See answers 1) and 2)




And Ambrose, the problem with google is that you can't have a discussion with it since noone ever answers.

The problem with backglass's gem he found at google is that it is an ATHEIST site.

This is redundant. Scripture tells us "do not thow pearls to be trampled on by swine" thus, backglass, MeDeFe, stinkycheese, owheelj, heavycola, Marik, VTmarik and the others have been told. It is all we can do. I myself, am not going to waste my breath on this group anymore. They have made their decision, God willing they will truely seek God and find that He is real. May God reveal himself to you all.

jay_a2j wrote:I lost.

j/k





Jay you are supposed to argue with atheists and their propaganda! Not ignore them becasue they don't agree with you. There have been sound arguments for the existence of god for over a thousand years and atheists to dispute them. But pointing to the bible as the answer to every question or posting a winking smiley are not among them.