ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

[The Stars Tremble]

There's nothing dumb about pointing out that a poster is using far too many words to make a point. What this particular poster could have done is summarize in one sentence what he was going for.

It was a reply to @Gordy327 and @Daisy. Why should your opinion about its length matter to anyone?

 

[Overitall]

It was a reply to @Gordy327 and @Daisy. Why should your opinion about its length matter to anyone?

I have no expectations that it would.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I'd like to repeat my claim that being a Christian is not a free choice. The concept of free choice requires that the person reasonably expects a certain outcome, and knows also the outcome of choosing otherwise. We go to the shops at night, instead of putting it off until the daytime, knowing that there is a higher risk of being robbed at night. But we accept that, it's a reckoning of something which is unknown in advance, but we sometimes choose the riskier option because the anticipated gain outweighs the unlikely downside.

What of a Christian who believes that by having faith (accepting Jesus, not sinning too badly, maybe praying) they will almost certainly go to Heaven? Is it a free choice when the positive consequence is beyond reckoning and in fact inconceivable and infinite? Suspend belief in God and Heaven for a moment. Imagine if someone offered you the chance to remove all suffering from the mortal world, so everyone loved everyone else and we would live in "heaven on Earth." How could you NOT accept? Wouldn't it be actually evil (assuming still that there is no God whose plan you are usurping) to say No to that?

Of course, you might well think the offer was too good to be true. If some other being could make the world "heaven on Earth" then what do they need your permission for? Would it blow your mind that atheists and agnostics are suspicious of the mutterings of men long dead, offering them individually the same power to choose? What does God need with our puny limited beliefs? Isn't it actually subhuman rather than superhuman, to desire worship?

And so to Jehovah's Witnesses, and other Christians who don't believe in hell. At least this is a half free choice. One can believe, and perhaps go to heaven. Or one can reject and suffer no worse fate than the non-believer expected anyway. It comes down to trust, aka faith.

Far more pernicious are the churches which promise vast (or infinite) punishment for "rejecting God's word." This isn't a free choice of any kind: it's coercion. And when this is applied to children, it permanently distorts their sense of right and wrong. Right and wrong are a social contract, which each individual makes with many others. Some religious principles are good, they can contribute to the child's growing moral sense. But neither the empty promise of heaven, nor the empty threat of hell, is necessary or desirable. They make "morality tales" into blunt commands, and teach nothing so much as obedience to authority.

And finally I will say, it is obvious why "Honor they father and thy mother" made it into the Commandments. Women in Biblical times were nearly the bottom of the heap: men got put to the sword (and presumably went to heaven) whereas women were kept as slaves and brooding mares. Women were bought and sold, like slaves. Women who had sex outside marriage were damned as whores. BUT, women were superior to their own small children. The Elders had to give something back to the primary carers of the children they wanted inducted into their own bully hierarchy (with God at the top.)

 

[The Stars Tremble]

By the way, when I say "Biblical times" I don't mean the far more civilized Romans, or even the Persians or the Chinese. Though they were all barbarous compared to modern people, they were nowhere near as bad as the people of the Middle East.

Just look at how many "crimes" were punishable by stoning. Did Christians use toy stones made of sea sponges and mud? Or did they disobey the Old Testament?

 

[tosca1]

Trying to push scientific beliefs on others, is far less blameworthy than trying to push religious beliefs. Because religious beliefs are supported only by other religious beliefs, so they're incapable of demonstration or any degree of proof. Pushing a scientific belief is an invitation into a much wider world of belief, all of it founded in observable facts.

Take for example @tosca1 's explanation of where the flood waters went when they receded:

The Bible

Goddess is right, your fake god is wrong. this is pretty easy. I don't have to support a thing. Thanks for showing me this. dumb dumb

debatepolitics.com

"Back where they came from" under the oceans. The provided source (livescience) claims the aquifer off the East coast of the US has a "huge" volume of 2,800 km^3

Now that may be huge by freshwater standards, but the Atlantic ocean itself has a volume of 310,410,900 km^3 ... a hundred thousand times more than the aquifer cited.

That's not even considering that removing that water to make the flood, would cause the sea floor to subside, for zero net increase in sea level.

Over and over again, @tosca1 misuses science to try to disprove science. If it was that easy, why didn't a scientist think of it first?

It is necessary to take fringe views from biology, from genetics, from paleo-ontology, from geology and even from human history, to sustain a pseudo-scientific explanation of the Great Flood Lie.

Did you read all I had to say about it?

I said......the SIMPLEST answer would be back from where they came from!
That's a logical answer!



here, read what I said in that post:

Where Did The Great Flood Water Go?


The simplest answer: back to where they came from.


Where does rain come from? I'm talking about the water cycle here. How does water cycle works?

Rain water went back where it's supposed to go.
What about the other excess water?

Not all water that flooded earth came from rain.



posts #622 and 623

The Bible

Goddess is right, your fake god is wrong. this is pretty easy. I don't have to support a thing. Thanks for showing me this. dumb dumb

debatepolitics.com

Remember - we're talking about NOAH's Flood!
What does the Bible says? Where did water come from?
Not only from rain!



- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth,


The springs in the ocean burst forth and spew out water that was under the ocean floor.
Why do I assume it's water under the ocean floor, you might ask.

Because of the the term SPRINGS!
You have to understand what springs are!

Here's what science says about springs:


A spring is a place where water moving underground finds an opening to the land surface and emerges, sometimes as just a trickle,
maybe only after a rain, and sometimes in a continuous flow.

Springs and the Water Cycle

A spring is a place where water moving underground finds an opening to the land surface and emerges, sometimes as just a trickle, maybe only after a rain, and sometimes in a continuous flow. Spring water can also emerge from heated rock underground, giving rise to hot springs.

www.usgs.gov

Pushing a scientific belief is an invitation into a much wider world of belief, all of it founded in observable facts.

What I gave is a scientific fact!
Science supports and reaffirms what the Bible claims: that, there is water UNDER the ocean floor!

That science happens to reaffirms that biblical claim is not "pushing" a scientific belief on anyone.
It's simply a matter of providing SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION!








Lol - you guys better understand what's actually being said.

 

[tosca1]

I'd like to repeat my claim that being a Christian is not a free choice. The concept of free choice requires that the person reasonably expects a certain outcome, and knows also the outcome of choosing otherwise. We go to the shops at night, instead of putting it off until the daytime, knowing that there is a higher risk of being robbed at night. But we accept that, it's a reckoning of something which is unknown in advance, but we sometimes choose the riskier option because the anticipated gain outweighs the unlikely downside.

What of a Christian who believes that by having faith (accepting Jesus, not sinning too badly, maybe praying) they will almost certainly go to Heaven? Is it a free choice when the positive consequence is beyond reckoning and in fact inconceivable and infinite? Suspend belief in God and Heaven for a moment. Imagine if someone offered you the chance to remove all suffering from the mortal world, so everyone loved everyone else and we would live in "heaven on Earth." How could you NOT accept? Wouldn't it be actually evil (assuming still that there is no God whose plan you are usurping) to say No to that?

That the consequence is such, does not negate the fact that we all have the free will to choose - that includes you! - whether you'd believe the warning or not.
Of course, it makes it harder for the non-believer. There's the big hurdle of "not believing," to overcome.

That the consequence is eternal or short-term, doesn't matter!
It's still a consequence!
What you expect doesn't matter! Reasonably or not!
A consequence, is a consequence. It is a result.
Some people think something bad only happens to others. Why do people play "Russian Roulette" with their life?

Lol - someone decides to take the risk of running across a freeway, and he gets killed!
Well? That's the consequence of his choice. And, it's permanent! Flat as a pancake!
See what I mean? He had the choice. But - obviously, it was the wrong one.
A very costly one. Result: GAME OVER.




But, just because you'd chosen not to believe..................... doesn't rob you of any choices.


Atheists are having a hard time grasping that.

 

[watsup]

There's nothing dumb about pointing out that a poster is using far too many words to make a point. What this particular poster could have done is summarize in one sentence what he was going for.

Once again your bias is showing by accusing an atheist of too many words when it is DrewPaul that has had verbal diarrhea for months.

 

[watsup]

Rain water went back where it's supposed to go.
What about the other excess water?

Not all water that flooded earth came from rain.

Do you write fiction for a living, like you write fiction here in DP?

 

[Overitall]

Once again your bias is showing by accusing an atheist of too many words when it is DrewPaul that has had verbal diarrhea for months.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[watsup]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Seems like you only ever mention one.

 

[Overitall]

Seems like you only ever mention one.

So.

 

[watsup]

So.

Just pointing out your obvious bias. As such, your criticisms simply cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Overitall]

Just pointing out your obvious bias. As such, your criticisms simply cannot be taken seriously.

My point stands.

 

[BabaVoss]

Just so you know, and in case you missed it while reading the thread, the poster who was told to STFU wasn't proselytizing.

CAn you point to it? There are more than 60 pages…

 

[rahl]

They're are and it's why I've presented them ad nauseum.

but you know you haven't presented them. If you were able to present them, you would instantly become the most famous human being in recorded human history.

 

[watsup]

but you know you haven't presented them. If you were able to present them, you would instantly become the most famous human being in recorded human history.

We have chatters coming in here all year long with their personal interpretations of their God. They’re all quite trite, really, when unraveled a bit. And lots of them use quantum theory in some manner as a part of their claims. There’s nothing really new with DrewPaul. It’s just a reworking of the watchmaker argument that has been effectively rebutted eons ago. But that doesn’t stop DrewPaul from hijacking every thread and from launching into his long and tedious “explanations” every time a NEW victim arises in the forum. I don’t suppose that he will ever learn that repetition is not reasoned and honest debate.

 

[watsup]

My point stands.

Leaning severely to one side.

 

[Overitall]

Leaning severely to one side.

The side that's against you. Your only defense is acknowledging that two wrongs don't make a right. My not pointing out to Drew that his posts are excessively wordy (although substantive) is irrelevant to the point made.

 

[Overitall]

CAn you point to it? There are more than 60 pages…

Post in thread 'ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE' https://debatepolitics.com/threads/answers-to-atheist-nonsense.511966/post-1078040151

 

[Daisy]

It's an attack on a person's beliefs,

If that were true, I can think of a few posters who'd be banned by now...but they're not...so not true...

 

[Daisy]

It seems to me that it's a general statement in keeping on the topic expressed in the OP. I see nothing in your statement specifically addressed to an individual and you have no control over who decides to wear the shoe and takes it personally.

Exactly...not aimed at any one specific person but a group...

 

[Daisy]

It was a reply to @Gordy327 and @Daisy. Why should your opinion about its length matter to anyone?

Daisy knows what she said and LM lied by leaving out the clarification...my comment was about nobody but him...

The discussion topic is "two daughters raping their father." Keep your pie hole shut about my family members.

No, it is about...lol

whose male appendage would most certainly have been as flaccid as a limp biscuit

 

[Daisy]

There is no "lie" @Gordy327, and here is the 'proof' there is no "lie" as is clearly demonstrated via linked DP posted history. You and I were discussing Lot's 2 daughters raping him in post# 169 as presented below.


My response to your post.

I'm wondering how an old, passed-out, drunken man, whose male appendage would most certainly have been as flaccid as a limp biscuit, was able to penetrate his daughters' vaginal cavities to plant his seed to perpetuate the family lineage. Did those girls use some sort of ancient 'pecker' splint to bring that bad boy to attention, and be capable of 'saluting the flag"?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Daisy intervenes into our conversation at post# 170 with the belowposted to 'me.'

lol...speaking from personal experience?

Last edited: Monday at 4:17 PM

Monday at 4:17 PM


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the word "personal" in the above post# 170, as well as the 'edited at 4:17 PM'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I respond to her post# 170 with 'my' post# 174 below:


Pull your hate-filled brain out of the gutter trash, @Daisy. My daughters would never attempt to 'rape' anyone. Neither would they willfully hide any type of sexual abuse from law enforcement like the Jehovah Witness Organization is notorious for doing. - And shame on you for insinuating my 2 daughters would ever contemplate raping their own father. Attacking family members is a no-no here at DP. Second time you've personally attacked my 2 daughters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice the word "personal" has now been deleted from post# 170: Hence the 'edit' at 4:17 PM.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In @Daisy's post# 170, one of two things is taking place. - Option#1 - She is asking me if I have "personal experience" with my 2 daughters raping me while I'm "drunk." - Or, Option# 2 - She is openly soliciting for "personal" knowledge of my penis in a public debate forum. - Neither of which is consistent with another of her previous posts, as presented below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Daisy/Elora said:
I serve Jehovah because I love Him and I want to please Him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the posts above are linked. None have been altered in any manner whatsoever.
Where is the alleged "lie" @Daisy is claiming I put forth?

Comments taken outta context, having nothing to do with said comment...

The discussion topic is "two daughters raping their father." Keep your pie hole shut about my family members.

No, it is about...lol

whose male appendage would most certainly have been as flaccid as a limp biscuit

 

[DrewPaul]

I claim the universe was intentionally caused to produce life and you note the universe contains an abundance of the elements needed for life to exist. Its not evidence of course but it is a fact which favors my claim.

Yes, we know.
And since it's not evidence, you claim is summarily dismissed.

Its a fact that makes my claim more probable than not, that's what evidence is and your counter claim it isn't, is dismissed.

Multiple 3rd parties have already debated and countered your claims in similar discussions.

I don't have a problem with claims being countered or debated. I counter the counters and impartial people who check out our debate can decide for themselves.

You are correct, due to very specific laws of physics explained in mathematical equations stars going supernova produces the ingredients necessary for life. What a lucky break (for us I mean). But the lucky breaks don't stop there. For second generation stars to emerge from shadow of a supernova and create rocky planets like earth with the ingredients for life they have to be inside of a galaxy. But there's a catch. Galaxies like the milky way couldn't exist without the existence of a huge amount of unknown invisible matter. Stars might exist but the matter they blow out in a supernova just keeps trucking into interstellar space. I know you and most atheists are content to think it was just one colossal coincidence. After all, all the conditions for our existence must have occurred or we wouldn't be here.

That's simple reality as we observe and know it. You're the one trying to introduce extra factors into the mix.

No different than scientists who are adding cosmic inflation and multiverse into the mix for the same reasons.

Because there is none. You're simply inventing "evidence."

No, I'm stating facts that make my claim more probable. Something you should try doing to make your belief we just got astronomically lucky more probable.

 

[Daisy]

It was a reply to @Gordy327 and @Daisy. Why should your opinion about its length matter to anyone?

Probably for the same reason you commented...he wanted to...