Evidence for God - SPLIT STOPIC

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

dotree:
You're the one who worships a genocidal child-slaying maniac.

A nonexistent one at that... which kind of tells you something, doesn't it? It would be one thing if the genocidal child-slaying manic lived on your street and gave you the stink-eye while stroking the handle of his machete every time you stepped even slightly out of line. Following an imaginary rape and slavery promoting genocidal loony because somebody told you to and you're too lazy and stupid to question their ridiculous claims? That's a whole other bit of nasty, and people attracted to that sort of faith are of questionable character to say the least.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Please try to read more carefully. I said atheisM which doesn't necessarily mean atheists.

I read perfectly well, thank you. It has been a requirement throughout my adulthood that I do so.

So, who are the people who aren't atheists who are part of "atheism"?

I have repeatedly and specifically said that there are moral atheists. But atheism indisputably harms and has harmed people a HUGE amount, esp. the atheists who follow it, and deprived them of much good in this life.

This is utter fucking nonsense! :lol:

Show this HUGE amount of indisputable evidence that atheism harms and has harmed people. Bullet list please, no links to Christian propaganda unless you want to be laughed at some more.

Atheists don't "follow" atheism, you're confusing it with your own cult. It's probably that language barrier you banged your head on at some point.

Let's have a look at the paragraph where you say it doesn't necessarily refer to atheists, but some group of other non-atheists who nonetheless rely on atheism.
[showmore=The paragraph]

The problem for me is that it is certifiably insane

Certifiable by whom?

and 100% irrational

100% eh? So, if someone shows a view we can say atheists proponents of atheism hold is even 1% rational, you'd admit you were wrong? Be careful, now...

to give up something that has 1000s of lines of evidence

The word you're looking for is thousands. We know you're always in a rush (but able to respond for hours at a time - only two today), but there's really no need to abbreviate that. Unless, of course, you think seeing figures is somehow more impressive...

This is one of your mantras, yet in the (I'm gonna go with) millions of words you've spewed on this board and YouTube, you'd think someone would be able to point out a few and verify them for us, non? It's not surprising that they haven't.

with literally billions of confirmations

Literally? Are you sure? Really sure? Billions?

that has astronomical benefits in this life

Unquantifiable hyperbole, what a surprise!

(this is a fact about Christianity)

No it isn't. Stating it over and over to yourself might convince you, we here are a little more discerning.

for atheism which asserts that it is rational

No it doesn't. Didn't you state that "atheism is yet again built on fallacies and straw men of the worst order"? Why yes, I think you did. Atheism is an answer to a single question; not all atheists proponents of atheism answer the same, except in one key detail: the answer is never yes.

Any dictionary, philosophical treatise or conversational discourse will tell you exactly the same.

So, now that we've highlighted your strawman, are you going to admit your hypocrisy and apologise to your readers?

but has no evidence (meaning it can't be rational)

Your inability to honestly represent what atheism (non-atheists included) is blinds you. It's quite pathetic, really.

is demeaning to life

Lying for your faith is demeaning to all those honest Christians I've met in my life.

has caused immeasurable harm to life

Hyperbole.

to science and to rational thinking and is based almost entirely on fallacies.

Which ones? Just a bullet list, thank you.

It just makes absolutely no rational sense to give up any view with lots of evidence for something with less evidence.

Yes, we know you were easily convinced by charlatans (or you're one yourself). Asserting the above doesn't make it true.

That's what atheism is asking people to do.

Atheism doesn't ask anyone for anything. You are asserting that atheism is something other than it actually is. You should zip up, your fallacy is dangling out, and while hilarious, is also rather embarrassing for all to observe.

But, it is anti-science, anti-rational and anti-life to do that.

No it isn't. It's probably about time you learned how to use English effectively.

Sorry, but I'm not ever, ever, ever, ever going to give up 1000s of lines of confirmed evidence

Which no one has seen to verify

in favor of something that has little or NOTHING.

You assert the Christian deity and its man-made pamphlets are true, the burden of proof is yours.

I don't care what topic it is, doing this can NEVER EVER be rational.

Yet ironically you do it, and here's an accurate use of the word literally, literally every time you post on these boards.[/showmore]




So after all that, the question remains: where in this does it suggest you're referring to non-atheist atheism proponents?

 

[nudger1964]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

dotree:
You're the one who worships a genocidal child-slaying maniac.

which is a good point, because even if it were proven to me that it did exist, i really hope that i would have courage of conviction and not worship it.
the fact that it feels it should be worshiped, alone is sufficient to make me think its a real douchebag. More reason to disregard the pascals wager argument (as if it were needed)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

It is interesting, because doucheree is insisting on a standard of evidence for "God" that no one applies to anything else that they claim actually exists in the present day real world. Certainly, no one would claim to have a personal relationship with any other entity based on such flimsy assertions. More importantly, if anyone besides dogcatcheree made that sort of claim about a real person existing, upon request they would and could provide actual evidence that the person exists, instead of just repeating the assertion that the evidence DOES exist without actually showing any of it.

It is silly, and becomes stupid when he then turns around and claims that rejecting the belief in such a poorly supported idea is irrational and dangerous.

 

[WarK]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Evidence? Where we're going we don't need evidence.

Destination religious faith.

which is a good point, because even if it were proven to me that it did exist, i really hope that i would have courage of conviction and not worship it.
the fact that it feels it should be worshiped, alone is sufficient to make me think its a real douchebag. More reason to disregard the pascals wager argument (as if it were needed)

The god of the bible likes to play tricks on people and mislead them. How can we even know if that god wants to be worshipped? There was this line flying around few months ago: How do you know that atheists aren't the only ones who go to heaven and the rest of the gullible folk end up in hell for not using their god given brains?(paraphrased). Not sure who said that first.

 

[Snufkin]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Oh god TruthIsLife...

:twisted: This is a rant :twisted:

I'd say you were having a laugh, but you seem to have put far too much effort into it for me to believe that.

Atheism is the most anti-rational philosophy on the planet that I am aware of because it asks people to reject and dismiss evidence and choose to follow no evidence and tries to stack the deck by claiming that evidence isn't evidence and constantly tries to keep people from even knowing about the evidence. This violates all academic standards of integrity, yet atheism constantly does this. It is just dumbfounding to see people blindly agreeing that this is somehow rational.

:roll:

Here is why my position of not having a belief in god is rational:
I have not found a logical reason to believe that god exists.

I accept that this doesn't mean there isn't a good reason to believe god exists somewhere, but I have predictably become very sceptical after observing the abysmal arguments that are presented by theists.

Arguments such as, 'because the bible says so', 'because how could the universe exist?', 'because loads of other people believe!', 'because I had an experience'. Sorry no, those aren't good reasons for me to believe.

But it's funny, because they try so hard to give a good reason yet the majority of theists didn't reason themselves into their position, they were simply influenced so much by their family and immediate society that they accepted it without any real questioning.

The most honest and logical theists I respect are the ones who admit "I believe because I want to".

You spew streams of text without giving any good reasons for belief in god: generalisations, mischaracterizations, logical fallacies, misdirection, pretty much every thing you can do besides give a reason to believe in god and I think you are so blinded by your emotions that you don't even realise it. Do you even understand what confirmation bias is?

Why don't you bring a single good (succinct) rational reason without demonizing the people who don't believe? I'd love to see one.

 

[Inferno]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Inferno,
Please refrain from lying. Pragmatic evidence IS evidence whether you like it or not and ALL people use pragmatic evidence to determine truth in real life, ALL, including you and it's a major way that truth in science is determined as well.

Funny enough, I can't find any evidence of me suggesting that "pragmatic evidence is not evidence". I never said that. Care to show me where I did say it?
Number two, I don't lie. Everything I write on these boards can be tracked and re-created (which is why I normally don't edit my posts, unless there's some problem with the coding) which also means that if anyone were to find out that I lie, my credibility would go down the drain pretty fast. So here's my challenge: Find me any time in the history of this board where I've lied. If you can, I'll immediately back down.

You may say it's not convincing to you. Fine. But, to say it's not evidence is an explicit falsehood. If you want to destroy science then you can claim that pragmatic evidence isn't evidence.

Now at least I know what you're talking about... it's this, isn't it?
"Uh, what? You have yet to provide evidence for this but then again, we've already stacked the deck and dismissed your evidence."

Well no, I didn't state that pragmatic evidence is not evidence, I did state that you had yet to provide evidence, that's a difference. If you had actually provided evidence, we could talk about the veracity of the evidence, but since you haven't...
The only time where I could agree that you've provided evidence is in one place in the debate, namely concerning the Adventist education. Then I did a quick search and from what I can tell the organization doing the assessment is made up purely of Adventists themselves, so I can't really take their word for it, can I?

our 5 senses

Just a nit-pick, but we have more than five senses. Anywhere between nine and seventeen will be accepted.

That you claim that I didn't list any evidence is an intentional falsehood on your part, sadly. I listed only a tiny bit of it and your post in the debate completely distorted the argument.

Did I now? Well I'm sure you'll correct me. Until then, how about you don't use known forgeries (prehistoric space-crafts and such) as evidence? It makes you look silly.

You categorically fail to understand Pascal's wager as all atheists do. I'll list several quotes from his Pensees in the debate soon, much of which I've read.

Awesome, do that. I'll read it in the original French version, that way his arguments may seem clearer.

Yes, I know about duality/contradictions. Many scientists have spoken of this problem as a contradiction though. So, you need to educate them before telling me that it's only a duality. You could be right, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some cases where contradictory things are both right. Here's an interesting article on that.

I don't know of any scientists saying that it's a contradiction but please quote them, I'd be eager to learn on this as physics has never been my strong point. However, what you see as a contradiction is only seemingly a contradiction.
And as for the article... there's no contradiction in science listed, as far as I'm aware.

The Bible verses you listed do not say ONLY one woman, ONLY two women, etc. If friends come to a party at my house, I may not list all of them when talking to someone else. I may just mention that Bob came since we both know Bob and not talk about others. This is not a contradiction of any sort. Just a choice of what to emphasize.

Oh you have got to be kidding me. This isn't even grasping at straws any more...
In John 20, the two angels and Jesus only talk to one person, Mary Magdalen. In Matthew 28 there's one angel to two women. You might think that such an important event was at least written down coherently and without contradiction, but apparently that's too much to hope for.

No, methodological naturalism doesn't have anything to do with science and science worked perfectly fine without it for literally centuries. NOWHERE is it mentioned in the scientific method. NOWHERE. It's an a priori fallacy of the highest order. Using that same reasoning, I can prove that no atheists exist as you will see in my next debate post.

Funny, cuz I'm here. Unless you want to pull a magic trick on me and make me disappear in a puff of smoke, something I highly doubt.
Now as for science, when has it ever worked when we've assumed a supernatural explanation over a natural one? In other words, name me one instance in the history of human beings when we've ever concluded that something was a supernatural event.

No, that most certainly was not a typo. Please stop misrepresenting me.

I'm not misrepresenting you, so please stop accusing me of that. What you said simply didn't make any sense and it still only makes sense if I put your two comments together. The first comment seemed to suggest that atheists follow the evidence where it leads (which I'd agree with) while your second comment would suggest that atheists who follow the evidence become religious.
Not a misrepresentation, but either a badly worded comment from your part or I simply didn't read it correctly.

Unlike atheists and methodological naturalists, I don't use a priori assertions and decide on conclusions and misrepresent evidence as not being evidence (we really need to go over Kuhn's ideas of using evidence to determine truth as well) and falsely malign evidence that points to concepts that are rivals of mine.

And I do that? Again, show me where.
I've already shown that "there is no God" is not an a priori assertion of mine, while you have admitted that it is for you. Once again, are you possibly projecting?

This is where atheism completely loses the rational contest and completely fails to follow the accepted standards of science.

What you continuously fail to understand, and this is why I find your accusations of straw-manning so amusing, is that atheism is the null hypothesis. With which do you start out, the belief that there are unicorns or the belief that there is not enough evidence to suggest that unicorns exist? Obviously the second.
Now then, does the null hypothesis, that there is not enough evidence to suggest that unicorns exist, need any evidence? Well I don't know how you could disprove the existence of unicorns, as far as I'm aware you can only ever disprove the various bits of evidence that supposedly point to unicorns.

By the same token, atheism doesn't have any positive evidence (that a God does not exist) but rather can only ever disprove the various claims by the religious.

Nothing I know of even challenges Pascal's 700 page Penses written centuries ago, much of which directly deals with evidence of different kinds.

That's specifically the point though: Pascal himself says that he knows of no evidence for God and his whole argument is "in the absence of evidence, how do we decide?". Logically toward the null hypothesis, but then again Pascal wasn't really a logical man.

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

I have given definitions of evolution that all scientists accept as well as universal common descent.

Maybe you have elsewhere, but not on this forum as far as I'm aware.

Universal common descent claims that all life descended from a few cells or even one. This is the massive disagreement.

I take it you're referring to "all life descended from a few cells or even one" when you talk about a disagreement? How so, exactly?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Why don't you bring a single good (succinct) rational reason without demonizing the people who don't believe? I'd love to see one.

We asked for that about 10 million words ago. No luck then, and I'll bet no luck now.

I know I asked that specifically a long time ago: present your single best piece of evidence. Present it in as simple and concise a format as possible. One paragraph, 5-6 sentences. You can expand on it later, but start by actually making a single evidence-based claim.

He's too much of a dishonest coward to do that, preferring to spew word salad at us and pretend he's made a case.

 

[nudger1964]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

The god of the bible likes to play tricks on people and mislead them. How can we even know if that god wants to be worshipped? There was this line flying around few months ago: How do you know that atheists aren't the only ones who go to heaven and the rest of the gullible folk end up in hell for not using their god given brains?(paraphrased). Not sure who said that first.

yes i am aware of the argument, which still makes it a win win situation for me as per pascals wager. I think David Mitchell on an episode of QI was the first to put forward the argument

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Inferno,
Please refrain from lying. Pragmatic evidence IS evidence whether you like it or not and ALL people use pragmatic evidence to determine truth in real life, ALL, including you and it's a major way that truth in science is determined as well.

Funny enough, I can't find any evidence of me suggesting that "pragmatic evidence is not evidence". I never said that. Care to show me where I did say it?
Number two, I don't lie. Everything I write on these boards can be tracked and re-created (which is why I normally don't edit my posts, unless there's some problem with the coding) which also means that if anyone were to find out that I lie, my credibility would go down the drain pretty fast. So here's my challenge: Find me any time in the history of this board where I've lied. If you can, I'll immediately back down.

Inferno,
I already demonstrated in the debate how
--Christianity built the foundations of modern science (often directly inspired by specific Bible statements and/or principles) and most historians of science agree and cited books and presentations that have reams more evidence (in order to try to shorten things for readers).
--I showed secular evidence that following Bible principles adds 10+ years to life.
--I cited professor Guenter Lewy, an atheist/humanist and his book that lists MANY research studies that show that religion/Christianity significantly improve moral behavior (and will rebut the ones you cite easily in my next post as misuses of basic and accepted science). I can scan them all and post them if needed since I have the book.

And it It is a lie that Adventists did the work on education themselves. I cited the secular national testing agency that did the tests and from which you can order the results yourself if you wish, Riverside Publications(http://www.riverpub.com/), a division of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company. Yet you here claim it was done by Adventists, which is a falsehood.

These and many others others are all pragmatic evidence and indisputably so. Yet, you claim that I haven't provided evidence. Either you have amnesia, you don't understand what counts as evidence in science or you are lying. I hope the former ones are true. Again, this is ONLY pragmatic evidence so far. We'll have evidence of many other kinds and YES billions of confirmations, as well as some more in the pragmatic evidence area.

I've already shown that "there is no God" is not an a priori assertion of mine, while you have admitted that it is for you.

I've consistently and repeatedly stated that assuming theism is just as bad an a priori fallacy as assuming methodological naturalism. Here again, either you have amnesia or are lying. I'll hope the former.

Did I now? Well I'm sure you'll correct me. Until then, how about you don't use known forgeries (prehistoric space-crafts and such) as evidence? It makes you look silly.

Yep, I will be correcting you as soon as possible similar to the above and more.

I didn't speak about prehistoric space craft anywhere. Amnesia again? I did speak about possible prehistoric flight referring to ancient artifacts in the Smithsonian and a video test proving they were airworthy. There are quite a few evidences of impressive ancient technology. These and many other things challenge Darwinian fallacies that that the ancients were all less intelligent than we are, one of the more harmful delusions to historical fact of both Darwinism and many atheists. I'll give links to some others. You should watch some of the "Ancient Discoveries" program on the history channel and what the professors in that field are discovering.

our 5 senses

Just a nit-pick, but we have more than five senses. Anywhere between nine and seventeen will be accepted.

Yes, good point. 14 and 20 are what this site says:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/perception/question242.htm

I don't know of any scientists saying that it's a contradiction but please quote them, I'd be eager to learn on this as physics has never been my strong point. However, what you see as a contradiction is only seemingly a contradiction.
And as for the article... there's no contradiction in science listed, as far as I'm aware.

Physics is also not my strong point (because of moving I unfortunately missed taking a class in physics in high school that I wanted to take). But, look here for a couple examples.
http://knol.google.com/k/waves-or-particles-or-both#The_Unresolved_Contradiction
"The seemingly contradictory wave and particle natures of light are reconciled by quantum field theory...." http://www.physnet.org/modules/pdf_modules/m246.pdf

It could be that for scientists in the past it was a contradiction, but their knowledge improved and it is now a duality. However many scientists referred to it as a contradiction and some still do. See also:
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/str114.html

There are a number of other things in science that are contradictory and scientists refer to them as such. And out of science there are quite a few other contradictions as the article I cited pointed out. I don't think there are a lot of contradictions in science, but there are a few. But, in other areas there are quite a bit more.

One writer choosing to comment only about 1 person's words and not everyone present has NOTHING to do with contradiction or incoherence. It's done all the time in real life by real authors (to save space, to emphasize a certain point, etc.) and no one mentions it. There is no requirement for authors to list all people present if their point does not need it. NONE. You are confusing taking a census with writing history. Many historians do not list all details that they could about a situation for different reasons. This has nothing to do with a contradiction at all. But, I don't actually claim though that the Bible has no contradictions. Life has a number of contradictions.
Here's another one from linguistics:
--Too many cooks spoil the broth but
--Many hands make light work.
See also: http://mysuperchargedlife.com/blog/i-confess-i-live-a-life-of-contradictions/

Examples of evidence pointing to supernatural will be coming in both the historical and science sections of our debate.

No, that most certainly was not a typo. Please stop misrepresenting me.

I'm not misrepresenting you, so please stop accusing me of that.
--
Yes, you explicitly have in several cases. I'm still trying to give you the benefit of the doubt (amnesia, since I'm also forgetful at times), but it's becoming more difficult.

Some atheists follow the evidence they have, but have been deprived of MASSIVE amounts of evidence. Atheism as a philosophy consistently rejects following the weight of evidence in many areas and leads many adherents to do the same, using fallacies. It is this practice that causes atheism to harm millions of atheists.

When the alternate hypothesis fails (it never has for Christianity), that does not mean the null is accepted as fact/true/default, etc. Scientists explicitly reject this falsehood of atheists.

Nothing I know of even challenges Pascal's 700 page Penses written centuries ago, much of which directly deals with evidence of different kinds.

That's specifically the point though: Pascal himself says that he knows of no evidence for God and his whole argument is "in the absence of evidence, how do we decide?". Logically toward the null hypothesis, but then again Pascal wasn't really a logical man.

This is one of the most gigantic straw men in history.

Pascal wrote: Pascal wrote, "Theology is a science, Man is obviously made to think. It is his whole dignity & his whole merit;...We must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true."
See also Pensees 563.

And the point of his whole book was doing precisely this, proving that Christianity is true and trying to remove their prejudices against it, which only harm them in this life.

There is much evidence that Christianity is true. Pascal did a very admirable job for his time which was interrupted by his death of listing the proofs from philosophy, logic, explanatory power, science, history, prophecy, miracles, law, realism, Jesus divinity & resurrection, moral values, etc. In one area, nature, he didn't consider the evidence very conclusive. His remarks about this one area are the phrases that atheists constantly cherry pick & lie about, claiming that they constitute his whole argument. They most certainly do NOT & this is one of the biggest & most flagrant lies in the history of knowledge. But, Pascal considered the evidence from many other areas quite conclusive.
See Penses 289

He wrote referring to agnostics/atheists, "But, say you, 'if He had wished me to worship Him, He would have left me signs of His will.',He has done so; but you neglect them. Seek them, therefore; it is well worth it... This resting in ignorance is a monstrous thing"

He wrote very strongly on several different lines of evidence in different chapters. But, said that even if you limit it to just the pragmatic evidence Christianity&Christianity brings many benefits on this earth as well as a chance to live forever, so you can't lose by being a Christian. So, the most rational choice by far is to be a Christian.
Pascal writes, "I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, & that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain & infinite, for which you have given nothing."

I have not seen ANY atheist represent this accurately. There are many more quotes in support of this from Pascal, but far more important than Pascal is what the Bible said.
"Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come." 1 Timothy 4:8

Again, just like pseudo science harms science and people, so too does pseudo religion harm religion and people. But that does nothing to change the fact that genuine science and religion have both been astronomically valuable to people and I'll post a bit more on that in my next debate post.
Bryan

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Why don't you bring a single good (succinct) rational reason without demonizing the people who don't believe? I'd love to see one.

We asked for that about 10 million words ago. No luck then, and I'll bet no luck now.
--
I haven't demonized people. I have criticized the philosophy of atheism which is indisputably harming you.

Look at my last post in the active debate for some pragmatic reasons and the next one will have more. Then we'll finish that overview of a small bit of the pragmatic evidence and go to the historical evidence. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm going to be presenting evidence mostly in the debate first since Inferno deserves to see/hear it first as he is the one who committed to the debate.

Science doesn't make decisions about facts based on 1 piece of evidence. It makes them based on the weight of evidence. But, for me it's easy.
1) Following the principles of the Bible adds decades of years to life, improves sexual enjoyment, improves happiness, improves marriages, improves morality, improves success (see my next post in the debate) and much more (note that these are general statistics and of course there can be exceptions due to criminal activity, wars, etc.). Much secular research documents this. Anyone who cares about life should not use fallacies to discredit evidence for God as atheism consistently does.
2) We have 1000s if not millions of people of the highest integrity and sanity who have had personal experiences with supernatural beings in ways that are impossible to explain in any other way than there really being supernatural beings. This includes sometimes hardcore atheist scientists directly observing supernatural powers in action that they had been very sure did not exist.

We gain many benefits in this life from Christianity and there is strong evidence from many other fields beyond pragmatics that God exists. In any other case, the evidence would be considered conclusive and no argument about it, and taught to every student in the world. But, because it's in a religious area, there is prejudice against it, prejudice like methodological naturalism, separation of church/state distortions and other things.

Should we ban people from learning about science because of the errors of pseudo science and people who misused science or because scientists differ on some points?

This is the principle that people use to try to argue that people shouldn't learn about the evidence for religion. It's deplorably irrational in this or any area to try to keep people ignorant about evidence.
Bryan

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

improves marriages,

Really?


http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

The god of the bible likes to play tricks on people and mislead them. How can we even know if that god wants to be worshipped? There was this line flying around few months ago: How do you know that atheists aren't the only ones who go to heaven and the rest of the gullible folk end up in hell for not using their god given brains?(paraphrased). Not sure who said that first.

yes i am aware of the argument, which still makes it a win win situation for me as per pascals wager. I think David Mitchell on an episode of QI was the first to put forward the argument

--
Pascal's wager IS a win-win for Christians as explained above some and in the debate. The atheist argument above is a lose-lose proposition, esp. for life on this earth because for 1000s of years, atheists who refused to follow the Bible's principles lost out on longer life and better health, more happiness, many human rights, education, success of different types and many other areas (again see my last debate post and the upcoming one for more details on this).

God doesn't play tricks on people or mislead them, PERIOD. God explains what he wants in places like this (after criticizing hypocritical religious celebrations):

Amos 5 :
23 Away with your noisy hymns of praise! I will not listen to the music of your harps.
24 Instead, I want to see a mighty flood of justice, an endless river of righteous living.
--

First and foremost God wants people to use the life,talents and minds He has given to them to maximize the quality and quantity of life He has given them. The philosophy of atheism is in consistent rejection of this and some theists also do wrong in this area as God pointed out many times in the Bible. There will be people from all groups in heaven and hell...but basically, those who follow the truth that they have come into contact with, esp. in important areas of life, morality, science, God, etc. will be in heaven. Those who have rejected the truth using fallacies, falsehoods, prejudice, emotional reasons, etc. are in big danger of losing in both this life and losing out on hell and ending their existence. Read Romans 2:12-16, Acts 17:21-30.

One of my favorite writers wrote,
"Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. . . . Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. How surprised and gladdened will be the lowly among the nations, and among the heathen, to hear from the lips of the Saviour, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me"! How glad will be the heart of Infinite Love as His followers look up with surprise and joy at His words of approval! "

This is referring to those who didn't have the opportunity to study the Bible and follow it's truth. It does NOT excuse people of any sort from refusing to search for and follow truth when it is brought to their attention, esp. Bible truth. To refuse to search for and follow known truth is very harmful.

Bible truth has benefited ALL of you enormously already, esp. if you are not from the ruling class. It built modern science (see my last post on the debate page). If you studied at a university or have benefited in any way from public education, that's due directly to philosophy of the Judaism and Christianity that because God created every person, all people had a right to be educated and enormous potential if rightly educated. For nearly all other cultures, it was only the ruling or wealthy class that got any education, esp. higher education. And much more.

YES, cosmicjoghurt it does improve marriages, esp. WHEN PEOPLE FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES:
Professor W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia analyzed data from three national surveys and published the results in "Is Religion An Answer? Marriage, Fatherhood, and the Male Problematic" He compared secular marriages to Christian marriages and found these results for people who attend church regularly (this is only ATTENDANCE, imagine what it would be if it counted people who followed God's principles as all genuine Christians are supposed to do):
"¢ 11% more Christian men are very happy in their marriages.
"¢ Christian men and women are 35% less likely to divorce.
"¢ Christian father spend about 2 hours a week more with their kids and are ~65% more likely to praise and huge their children ofen compared to fathers who don't have any religious affiliation.

"[R]eligious men (and their wives) enjoy happier marriages, they are less likely to father a child outside of wedlock, and they are more likely to take an active and affectionate approach to child rearing, compared to secular or nominally religious men," Wilcox wrote. "Therefore, any effort to strengthen men's ties to their children and families must acknowledge and incorporate the important role that religious institutions play in directing men's hearts toward home."
http://www.crosswalk.com/marriage/11579251/

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

"Three national surveys"

Names and links or it didn't happen.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

"Three national surveys"

Names and links or it didn't happen.

Are you unable to click links? I gave you one:
http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/christian-and-religious-families-happier-less-likely-to-divorce-11579251.html

Read the article there summarizing the results of the General Social Survey, the National Survey of Families and Households, and the National Survey of Family Growth. The research also drew partially from data in Wilcox's book, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands.

You can go deeper and read the original peer reviewed research if you wish as well. And by the way, just because you don't know about something or are not willing to click a link, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

--Christianity built the foundations of modern science (often directly inspired by specific Bible statements and/or principles) and most historians of science agree and cited books and presentations that have reams more evidence (in order to try to shorten things for readers).

The hell?
No, you didn't. You spewed a good bit of nonsense without a single relation to anything within the Scientific Method at all!
Give this a gander here for a quick reference to your irrelevance to the discussion:

--I showed secular evidence that following Bible principles adds 10+ years to life.

*cough*
We lived longer than even those who grew up in Biblical Times, or even those whom have devoted their life to studying God and His Word a number of years ago by around 30-40 years. If what you're saying is true, then baed upon your presupposed evidence, why didn't the people from those times live 10 years longer than we live today? Certainly the people who heard it as it was going on should have been given this blessing. Those who have studied the Bible should meet a minimum age standard of modern-day proportions, and then some, for the Bible to hold any bearing in Scientific Marvel.
You also, in your discussion, talked about other *cough* features.

I've met some drop-dead ugly Christians. Drop-dead ugly atheists. Hot Christians. Hot Atheists. - I would like to think that in any faith system it's a pretty even spread based upon population.
But, just a quick note:
Booze has demonstrably been shown to increase the size of women's breasts (trust me, a trip to Germany will do you some good). What is keeping you from saying that this "biblical trait" wasn't simply caused by a nice, hardy drinker?

--I cited professor Guenter Lewy, an atheist/humanist and his book that lists MANY research studies that show that religion/Christianity significantly improve moral behavior (and will rebut the ones you cite easily in my next post as misuses of basic and accepted science). I can scan them all and post them if needed since I have the book.

You don't know a damned thing about statistics, do you?
What was the sample group's location? Sample size? Time period the samples were taken in? Circumstances of that time period?

I have a faith, but I'll be damned if anyone says that religion makes one man more moral than another simply because they believe in what can be boiled down to fairytales and iron-age mythology. The Old-Testament Jews stoned homosexuals, raped women, disobedient children, and so on. During the conquest of Canaan, the Bible records them to have ripped the babies out of pregnant women's stomachs, slaughtered women, children, sons, daughters, old men, old women, cattle, live stock, and so on and so forth.
Name me one secular society that has done that, and I'll videotape myself eating my own shoes and post it ITT.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I did speak about possible prehistoric flight referring to ancient artifacts in the Smithsonian and a video test proving they were airworthy.

The video you provided comes from Erich von Daniken, who proposes that aliens gave the technology to us. Furthermore, the video did not prove the artifacts could fly. It proved that something in a similar shape to the artifacts, made from modern material, and modern knowledge of wing adjustments, and using modern engines and propellers (both were not seen on the artifact) could fly. For all you know, children would throw around those as toys.

These and many other things challenge Darwinian fallacies that that the ancients were all less intelligent than we are, one of the more harmful delusions to historical fact of both Darwinism and many atheists.

Someone has obviously never read a book about anthropology in his life. The idea that ancients were barbaric savages is far older then Darwin. It is a Victorian idea about how they believed they had achieved the pinnacle of civilization. Thus, all former civilizations were inferior. Sadly, some of these ideas persist with us today.

Evolutionary theory teaches that the genus Homo is very ingenious, starting with H. erectus creating the first hand axes and inventing fire. Modern anthropology has also shown that hunter/gatherers are some of the smartest people on earth (Kaplan et al.) and for most of human existence we were hunter/gatherers.

So where you get this idea that "the ancients were all les intelligent than we" coming from evolutionary theory is beyond me.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

"Three national surveys"

Names and links or it didn't happen.

He quoted a bunch of lies. Yay for him, he can always find someone as stupid as he is to back him up.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I did speak about possible prehistoric flight referring to ancient artifacts in the Smithsonian and a video test proving they were airworthy.

The video you provided comes from Erich von Daniken, who proposes that aliens gave the technology to us. Furthermore, the video did not prove the artifacts could fly. It proved that something in a similar shape to the artifacts, made from modern material, and modern knowledge of wing adjustments, and using modern engines and propellers (both were not seen on the artifact) could fly. For all you know, children would throw around those as toys.

Citing authors who say that God is an alien as evidence for God.

Fascinating.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

A couple of you seem incapable of figuring out how to click links or do even the most basic searches on the internet. If you did know how to do that, you would not be posting fiction. Here's a bit from the debate and there is MUCH more besides this proving the point.

CHRISTIANITY BUILT MODERN SCIENCE (and some of ancient science too): The direct implementation of biblical faith & principles like the above inspired Jews & Christians to build the foundations of science. Daniel performed the 1st modern scientific experiment in history in ~600 B.C. in trying to prove to the Babylonians that God's diet was best (note that he didn't appeal to the Bible to prove his point since they didn't trust it. Paul also didn't start from the Bible when talking to people such as the Athenians).

"Around 600 BC, Daniel of Judah conducted"¦the earliest recorded clinical trial. His trial compared the health effects of a vegetarian diet with those of a royal Babylonian diet over a 10-day period. The strengths of his study include the use of a contemporaneous control group, use of an independent assessor of outcome, & striking brevity in the published report." Dr. David Grimes, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7501328,

Of all the 1000s of cultures in history, it was the Biblical & Judeo/Christian & creationist views that built the foundations & infrastructure of modern science & pioneered most of its branches as well as:
**the peer review process (Henry Oldenburg, a theologian, creationist & founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, pioneered this in 1665. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History)

**The first peer-reviewed publication may have been the Medical Essays & Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History)

**The first scientific society in history, The Royal Society, was started by John Wilkins & other creationists. Wilkins published ideas on how speciation must have happened based directly on the Bible account of Noah's flood, Genesis references to variations within kinds & observations of nature.

**Falsification was pioneered by G. K. Chesterton (but again there were hints of it before him..and explicit cases of it in the Bible. See for example, Malachi 3:8-10 where God tells people to test His promises.)

**John Ockham, a theologian, pioneered Occam's razor, the idea that the simplest explanation is often the best one (although we see hints of it before him going back to the Greeks & before them in the Bible.)

**Many science & research magazines were founded by Christian scientists, historians & scholars. Scientific American for example was founded by Rufus Porter (1792-1884), who thought that science glorified the creator God. In the very first issue, his editorial stated:
'We shall advocate the pure Christian religion, without favouring any particular sect "¦'

In 2011, Dr. Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) published, "The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution" This is hghly recommend by both New Scientist & Nature.
"Well-researched & hugely enjoyable". New Scientist

Dr. Hannam gave a presentation on this at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-k24Q01vck

Dr. Hannam summarizes his vast research this way:
"Until very recently, almost everyone believed scientific progress has been held back by religion. But today's historians have realized that, if anything, the popular perception is the opposite of the truth." http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additi ... ml?print=1

David Lindberg, Hilldale Professor Emeritus of the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin states,
'Despite a developing consensus among scholars that science & Christianity have not been at war, the notion of conflict has refused to die.'
See also: http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

Peter Harrison, (Andreas Idreos Professor of Science & Religion at the University of Oxford) writes,
"It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world." Harrison, P., The Bible, Protestantism & the rise of natural science, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Maybe even more than reading the Bible in a new way is the fact that they were able to read the Bible at all. For centuries before this, the only people who had access to the Bible under the Catholics, were the scholars since this helped keep people blind to Jesus' principles that traditions of churches & pastors never had the right to change what God had said (see Mark 7:5-13).

Prof. Harrison states further:
"Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. "¦Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible & the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible & its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science." Harrison, P., The Bible & the rise of science, Australasian Science 23(3):14-15, 2002.

Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science & Technology, University of King's College, Halifax, Canada, writes similarly:
"Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, & the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I'm not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther & others (including Newton) championed."

And Prof. Snobelen explains that the reason is because scientists started to study nature how nature really did work rather than accepting on faith philosophical ideas about how it should work (from Greek philosophy for example). This was similar to their focus on what the Bible really said, rather than imposing pagan & Catholic philosophies & traditions upon it.

"It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories & metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive & empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians & biblical literalists." Snobelen, S., "Isaac Newton & Apocalypse Now: a response to Tom Harpur's Newton's strange bedfellows"; A longer version of the letter published in the Toronto Star, 26 February 2004.

Even Einstein who had strong tendencies towards intelligent design but was not a Christian, wrote that, "The most beautiful & most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder & stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom & the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness." - Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit & Science

Could this be why Jews & Protestants together won ~86% of the Nobel prizes from 1901-1990 (http://middleeast.atspace.com/thread2238_1.html).

Due to biblical principles, religious, Bible believing scientists & intellectuals pioneered the majority of the fields of science & countless other concepts in science. Here are a tiny few.
** ENCYCLOPEDIA, SCIENTIFIC. The first scientific encyclopedia featuring articles, pictures, alphabetical entries--was prepared by a minister, John Harris.
** PHYSICS. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Thompson (Kelvin), Tait, Lemaà®tre & MANY more.
** SCIENCE&ROCKETRY: Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of space science, 1st NASA director most responsible for putting men on the moon.
** GENETICS: Gregor Mendel
** COMPUTER SCIENCE. Blaise Pascal, Charles Babbage, etc.
** ANTISEPTIC SURGERY/BACTERIOLOGY VACCINATION. Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Anton von Leeuwenhoek, Edward Jenner
** RELATIVITY THEORY. Einstein built his theory of relativity on the work of three men, two of whom were Christians: Bernhard Riemann & James Clerk Maxwell. He also used the work of Michelson-Morely & Morley was a Christian.
** CHEMISTRY: Robert Boyle is called by some the Father of Chemistry. Michael Faraday, John Dalton, a Quaker, gave us the atomic theory behind chemistry
** SYNTHETICS: George Washington Carver
** ANESTHESIOLOGY. Crawford Long, James Young Simpson
** GEOLOGY. Nels Steno the Father of Geology.
** THERMODYNAMICS. James Joule & Lord Kelvin
** WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT. Thomas Young, Augustin-Jean Fresnel, etc.
** FIELD THEORY. Michael Faraday first envisioned field theory.
** OPTICS. George Berkeley idealist philosopher & Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye.
** Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): Dr. Raymond Damidian
See more at: http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

Could all these Nobel prize winning benefits all have come from something that was just made up by "bronze aged desert shepherds". This claim requires more faith than almost anything else imaginable & is quite laughable. This is esp. true when you realize that these "shepherds" got 1000s of things right the 1st time with NO trial & error & sometimes with no higher level education. This is a better accuracy rate than any scientific establishment at any time in history.

To demean Christianity as atheism constantly does is like demeaning Thomas Jefferson who pioneered democracy or to be a base ingrate & disown the parents that lovingly sacrificed everything for you.

Atheism/materialism,etc. malign history to suit their dogma & immorally try to exclude Christianity from what it built. Only people who hate science & rationality will mock & lie about the very worldviews that pioneered so much science & continue to contribute to it. It's like cutting off the legs you are standing on.


I know Von Daniken. But, as I've pointed out to Inferno already, you can agree with someone's evidence but not their conclusions. The golden airplanes are factual. The man who made the model airplane is an expert in flight engineering and the only thing that makes sense to him is that they were flying vehicles. But, of course, this isn't proof that they actually did fly, just like if a cell ever in the future is shown to come into existence without intelligence, it will do nothing to prove that's how life did originate in history. At present the only thing atheism can use in the area of the origin of life is blind faith and refusal to follow the weight of evidence which is 100% on the side of biogenesis, a creationist prediction 1000s of years ago and pioneered by the creationist Pasteur who correctly predicted that Drawinism and universal common descent would be falsified and abandoned, etc. He was right, MANY times. The only problem is that new theories kept evolving to waste the time and money of scientists on useless research that continues to get falsified and does no one any good at all. Even Harvard professors of biology lament the fact that evolution is not involved in other fields of science in any hard science way. I'll be posting that soon in the debate as well.