christian / atheist debates in school

[rainacorn]

Did you ever stone an unbeliever? Deuteronomy 13: 5-11. If you haven't done so, you haven't done your duty to your lord. That is a direct commandment.
Did you ever kill a Pagan, Asatruar, Druid, Bard, Ovate, or Heathen? If not, you haven't done your duty to your lord. Exodus 22:18 Suffer not a witch to live.
When Christians will start doing that, then I'll let them also call homosexuality an abomination. Until then, I think it's inappropriate to pick and choose whatever one wants in the Bible.

Why do you think Christians do not follow OT law the way (some) Jews do?

You've pointed out that Christians don't, but do you have any idea as to why? You seem to be crediting laziness or hypocrisy.

I could understand that because in the time, there were no words for mammal, the scientific classification of animals didn't exist, translation for cud is difficult, yadda yadda yadda. I just don't get why people who become pedantic about 'kinds' in the bible and invent baraminology are so vague about these issues, as though they are selectively choosing what is to be taken seriously and what isn't.

I'm not sure that it's 'what should be taken seriously,' but maybe what should be taken literally. Your statement was really vague, so I'll respond with something general. As you know, the Bible is a collection of books. They were written in different styles, at different times, by different authors and for different reasons. If you read them all exactly the same way, then there is no way you will get what each book is supposed to mean. You don't read poetry as you would a biography.

I'm just thinking that if the Bible were the inerrant word of God, then we shouldn't be having all these issues. One doesn't need to correct the mistake to understand the point, but wouldn't one think that a perfect being would divinely inspire translations of his holy book to ensure the message doesn't get corrupted down throughout the ages?

The message hasn't been corrupted. You simply refuse to 'get the point' because it isn't telling you as plainly as you demand, in the way that you demand it. I find it strange that you're putting so many requirements on the Bible and then accusing it of not meeting those requirements.

There is no mistake in the Bible that you need to correct, but there is a flaw in your thinking. That's the whole point. You conform your mind to understand the Bible, you don't change the Bible to suit whatever you like. That's the difference between honest and dishonest interpretation.

It doesn't exclude the possibility of there being a Bigfoot either. I'm not looking for something that would exclude God from the equation, I'm looking for something that would tell us unequivocally and without reserves that this could not have come about without God. I've been looking for three years so far (which admittedly isn't much) but I haven't come across anything that would support this position yet.

Two sides of the same coin. You want proof one way or the other.

You'll never get it, but don't stop looking. The journey is important.

 

[TomB_2012]

There is a fact about the Earth. I'm not sure if it has been scientifically explained though.

The Earth has an axial tilt of 23.44°. If it was more or less than that, we'd either freeze to death or burn alive.

A scientist might say that the gravitational pull in the Universe was responsible for this.
I believe that God put the Earth at that angle during the 6 Days of Creation (1 Day of Rest) in Genesis 1.

Where did you get this fact from?

I got it from a former pastor.

 

[Tethered]

I got it from a former pastor.

Even if it had come from a scientific journal, I would still be skeptical. It doesn't match up to what I understand about "Goldilocks zones" (the interplanetary search for inhabitable planets or extra-terrestial life), plus i'm ignorant of any mechanism of how axial tilt could so sensitively affect life.

That being said, I think it's fair the opinion holder admit the credibility of a claim to be contingent on the credibility of their source, or else demonstrate a mechanism.

Pastors are still people.

 

[HerrGeschichte]

There is a fact about the Earth. I'm not sure if it has been scientifically explained though.

The Earth has an axial tilt of 23.44°. If it was more or less than that, we'd either freeze to death or burn alive.

A scientist might say that the gravitational pull in the Universe was responsible for this.
I believe that God put the Earth at that angle during the 6 Days of Creation (1 Day of Rest) in Genesis 1.

If this were true, I'm pretty sure that every single earthquake would have burned us, or frozen us.

 

[theguy]

im really confused... how can they use science to disprove the bible when god uses science?

im guessing they say stuff like the big bang theory... thats just a theory and how do they know that god just didnt create the big bang?

also keep in mind that god uses alot of hard to understand speech (example: god hating homosexuality... god hates sin not sinners) so just make sure that you know what your talking about and theres no way they can win

 

[jimmydiggs]

(example: god hating homosexuality... god hates sin not sinners

The Psalmist seems to disagree.

5 Give ear to my words, O Lord;
consider my groaning.
2 Give attention to the sound of my cry,
my King and my God,
for to you do I pray.
3 O Lord, in the morning you hear my voice;
in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for you[a] and watch.
4 For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not dwell with you.
5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.

(Psalm 5)

The problem with atheists isn't intellectual.

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

 

[Willot]

how can they use science to disprove the bible when god uses science?

I'm quite confused here. No one uses science to disprove the bible, sure you can use science to promote different meanings in scripture so people do not take things 100% literally (theistic evolution being an example) but you can't disprove the bible.
It's like trying to use science to disprove the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster (which is a great book btw lol) or the invisible pink unicorn.
Atheists don't need to disprove all the possible gods. It's up to the religious to accept the burden of proof and prove their God(s).

Darth Vader's willing to accept the burden.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

Quoted from: Fallacy: Burden of Proof <--- click!


If you're arguing for something, you are to demonstrate your side. While maintaining a defense to counter your opponents arguments against you. (Pro)
If you're arguing against something, it is not just enough to demonstrate the other used faulty arguments, but also to demonstrate why your side is right. (Con)

You have to build up and tear down at the same time.

 

[Willot]

 

[Willot]

Well, the picture won't show now. But what I'm saying is basically this.
If I present to you that something exists, let's use the invisible pink unicorn as an example, I must prove to you that it exists otherwise you would think I'm insane or delusional.
The same concept applies to everything else that can be substituted in the place of X.
For instance, if I said that the easter bunny lives in a closet with santa claus somewhere in Russia you would not proceed to look throughout Russia to find the closet, I would show the closet to you.
I'm sure I could think of countless more examples but I'm not going to bother because they're all pretty much alike.

 

[chesser]

you know, on another chatroom, i once compared atheism to aeuropism (belief europe doesnt exist) got them so wound up because i was able to make parodys of all their arguments with it(problem of evil=problem of southern canadians,etc.)

 

[chesser]

also said they have no proof and "refuted" their proofs

 

[chesser]

willot, as for your siggy, "i contend we are both aeuropeans, you dont belive in dofinkelsburg, lalaland, hatlecaounty,or any of the countless other fake continents i could make up, i just go one further. once you understand why you reject those other places, youll see why i reject europe."

 

[HerrGeschichte]

willot, as for your siggy, "i conted we are both aeuropeans, you dont belive in dofinkelsburg, lalaland, hatlecaounty,or any of the countless other fake continents i could make up, i just go one further. once you understand why you reject those other places, youll see why i reject europe."

Child, are you alright? That made almost no sense at all. Nor does it have anything to do with the topic at hand

 

[chesser]

Child, are you alright? That made almost no sense at all. Nor does it have anything to do with the topic at hand

it was supposed to be a parody of willots signature showing him how ridiculous it is

 

[HerrGeschichte]

it was supposed to be a parody of willots signature showing him how ridiculous it is

Oooooooh. My bad. Sorry

 

[Dude653]

Debating with an atheist is futile. You cant convince to follow the teachings of bugs bunny, if i believe that bugs bunny doesnt exist