An account of debating a creationist

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
because god is not proven to not exist and most likely, such a being could never be proven. an agnostic allows for a certain degree of uncertainty. the atheist on the other hand is certain while lacking proof.

So if I told you about this 5th dimension where beings live that talk sdrawkcab and are made of cheese, must you now be agnostic about whether or not that's true?

BTW, maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think Sonhouse calls himself an atheist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If only that was all it was. There is a coming Christian holocaust where Christians especially will be hunted down and made to accept the AntiChrist as God and to worship him or be killed. This is also called the Tribulation, laid out in the book of Revelations in the Bible. The ironic part of this is that the atheists will be the first ones to join him, ...[text shortened]... m will be the stormtroopers all too happy to convert the Christians or to kill them in his name.

Hey, look! It's a bunch of theists victimizing themselves! What a rare occurence!

Edit: an interesting video of Dutch funnyman Hans Teeuwen "debating" with three Dutch Muslim women. You can turn on English subtitles. This was part of a tv program that was made to discuss frictions between theists and non-theists. It was made sometime after Theo van Gogh was killed. Teeuwen and Van Gogh were close friends.

At 4.50 Teeuwen comments on theists feeling "offended" all the time.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p86KllYhG-s

Originally posted by Great King Rat
So if I told you about this 5th dimension where beings live that talk sdrawkcab and are made of cheese, must you now be agnostic about whether or not that's true?

BTW, maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think Sonhouse calls himself an atheist.

at the very best i won't go on shows saying how wrong you are to believe this. why is it my problem what you think.


it depends how you define your entity. if it is merely in the 5th dimension, we might be able to "see" there one day, and check your claims. until then, it doesn't bother me.


"Sonhouse calls himself an atheist"
anyone who is sure that god (any god) doesn't exist, is an atheist. if one mops the floors in a school for a living, he can call himself a sanitation engineer all he wants, he is a janitor.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
at the very best i won't go on shows saying how wrong you are to believe this. why is it my problem what you think.


it depends how you define your entity. if it is merely in the 5th dimension, we might be able to "see" there one day, and check your claims. until then, it doesn't bother me.


"Sonhouse calls himself an atheist"
anyone who is sure ...[text shortened]... a school for a living, he can call himself a sanitation engineer all he wants, he is a janitor.

I'm not asking if it's your problem and I'm not asking if it bothers you.

I'm asking if you must consider yourself agnostic about the situation I just described. It was really a very simple question.


I agree with your definition about atheism. I merely pointed out that Sonhouse doesn't consider himself an atheist (thus is not sure god doesn't exist). But he should comment on that himself if he wants to.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Please, this is a sensible discussion. Gandalf is a fictional character devised by Tolkien, and as far as I am aware there is no adult seriously postulating the existence of Father Christmas to other adults, outside of a loony bin.

tolkien could have been a dimensional traveler, went to middle earth, and based his books on actual historical events (from that world).


"Father Christmas "
<following minor spoilers about harry dresden files skip to end spoilers tag>
.
.
.
.






in one of the Harry Dresden books the character Santa Claus was based on makes an appearance. he is fat, jolly and has a beard. but he is a supernatural fae who is quite happy murdering humans. he was seen at some point in human history, and he became the Santa claus myth.


<end spoilers>

who could know for sure what myths are real, and what are distorted representations of actual characters?

let's revisit noah's flood. it is obvious his boat as presented in the bible would not be possible. a global flood is not possible. but who can say there never was a person named noah, who saw that he keeps getting flooded, and decided to build a boat, taking not elephants and koalas with him, but simply his livestock?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
tolkien could have been a dimensional traveler, went to middle earth, and based his books on actual historical events (from that world).


"Father Christmas "
<following minor spoilers about harry dresden files skip to end spoilers tag>
.
.
.
.






in one of the Harry Dresden books the character Santa Claus was based on makes an appearance. ...[text shortened]... and decided to build a boat, taking not elephants and koalas with him, but simply his livestock?

But certainly with god's help such a boat would be possible?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
But certainly with god's help such a boat would be possible?

With God all things are possible,

its only materialists who have limited their search for truth to unintelligent agencies

The Zen master

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
With God all things are possible,

its only materialists who have limited their search for truth to unintelligent agencies

The Zen master

So could he create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
But certainly with god's help such a boat would be possible?

Any person who seriously believes that an all loving God would wipe out the whole of mankind, and animal kind, apart from two of every animal, because he was a bit cross with the way things were going needs to have his head examined. A religion that advances mass extermination of innocent people and animals is wicked and twisted, and certainly no better than the fundamentalist jihadists of Islam.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Any person who seriously believes that an all loving God would wipe out the whole of mankind, and animal kind, apart from two of every animal, because he was a bit cross with the way things were going needs to have his head examined. A religion that advances mass extermination of innocent people and animals is wicked and twisted, and certainly no better than the fundamentalist jihadists of Islam.

The Bible does not say the people were innocent, perhaps if you read it you would understand why those people were judicially executed by God. It also does not say that two of every kind were preserved. If you are going to debate these matters, don't you think that you should take the time to find out what the Bible actually states on the matter? otherwise it becomes a battle against ignorance.

The Zen master

Originally posted by Great King Rat
So could he create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it?

hardly conceivable

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Any person who seriously believes that an all loving God would wipe out the whole of mankind, and animal kind, apart from two of every animal, because he was a bit cross with the way things were going needs to have his head examined. A religion that advances mass extermination of innocent people and animals is wicked and twisted, and certainly no better than the fundamentalist jihadists of Islam.

Whereas believing that an eternal being would *poof* create a universe, earth and human beings and then sort of sit back and watch what happens is completely normal?

So as long as one believes in nice things it's ok, but if one believes that maybe it isn't all moonlight and roses one is crazy.

Bit like I'm crazy if I believe I'm going to die of cancer tomorrow but I'm totally sane if I believe I'm going to win a million euros tomorrow.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hardly conceivable

So with god not all things are possible?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Whereas believing that an eternal being would *poof* create a universe, earth and human beings and then sort of sit back and watch what happens is completely normal?

So as long as one believes in nice things it's ok, but if one believes that maybe it isn't all moonlight and roses one is crazy.

Bit like I'm crazy if I believe I'm going to die of cancer tomorrow but I'm totally sane if I believe I'm going to win a million euros tomorrow.

As soon as one removes the divine element, nothing Biblical makes sense, make room for it and everything makes sense.

The Zen master

Originally posted by Great King Rat
So with god not all things are possible?

Yes I have already stated that all things are possible, it does not necessitate that all things are conceivable, especially silly hypothetical scenarios.

The Zen master