quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
...Fair dos. Where did the pressure come from? I guess it couldn't be one violent earthquake. Where did the heat come from? I guess we're not talking normal, life supporting temperatures which the whole rock strata thing is meant to support (triassic, jurassic periods, etc).

It could be either way! My argument does not negate yours, and visa versa. It's merely a question of judgement on which one's true. And as we weren't there and have no way of observing it we can't make a definative judgement either way.

Not true. The science behind all this isn't just made up. It starts with known facts and observations and derives new facts and theories and laws which fit the observable evidence. It knows where the heat came from. Same with star-gazing (for example). Most of the stuff we know about the universe out there is because we've *seen* it through telescopes and spectroscopes. It's real stuff, not made up. It's discovered, derived and calculated by clever people.

On the other hand you don't actually have an argument at all - all you have is a statement: goddidit. You don't know why he did it, or how, or even if it was the third god before last who did it in the style of your particular god. Your argument is simply an arbitrary statement and has no more merit than saying "fairies did it" or "an army of unicorns did it". Which you top off by saying "prove it wasn't so". This is the inane argumentation of a child.

quote:

And as to the Bible being literal. Why would it not be literal? Is it not possible? I'd have said inerrant is less likely too!

If God wanted us to have his inerrant word, how come we don't have the original manuscripts? How come the errors in translation and copying of the NT amount to more than the number of words in it? Granted that most errors are typos, but still, hardly the work of a diety interested in inerrancy! Not to mention the various verses and alterations inserted during the middle ages.

quote:

Why would there be parables, prophecies and poetry in the Bible if the historic wasn't meant to be taken as just that? What did the author intend to convey when he described a worldwide flood? A flood perhaps? Peter treats it as literal when he references in in 2 Peter 3:6. It's quite clear which bits are historic, not from the content, but from the lyrical style.

So why no archeology to back it up? E.g. where's the evidence of millions of people wandering from Egypt for 40 years? Where's the evidence of a global flood?
Cor blimey, so you must believe Lord of the Rings as fact then, or pretty much any myth-n-monsters story book. What a confused life you must lead!! The bible is a collection of myths and stories for a bunch of desert tribes who wanted to entertain themselves and keep a record of their culture, heritage and identity. It was never meant to be taken literally! Just like all the other stories of yore. Get a grip!

quote:

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist:
I'll give you one proof of God: That we are having such discussions, that we debate, that we care about what is true, that we discern between right and wrong. All of this is evidence that human beings are made in the likeness of God. Animals don't do that, humans do. Animals don't sit in judgment and in courts ruling over right and wrong, humans do, and why is that? Because God is a God of justice, and he put that in us. People may deny His existence while with every breath for every denial, they are sustained by the God they deny. He truly is very patient with men.

Wow, you're almost as good at reasoning as CS Lewis. Ever read any of his stuff? Sounds right up your street.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
I do hold that there are facts, absolutely.
If God is real, He's real and you're wrong. If he's not then I'm wrong. So yes, facts exist absolutely.

Excellent!
How does he act on the world? Sure he's a supernatural being outside of space and time etc but if he's going to interact with the world, there ought to be physical signs. Instead we live in a universe that looks exactly as it would if it had evolved from hydrogen soup. Of the infinite number of ways at god's disposal, why did he pick the way that makes it look like he wasn't involved?
When it comes to answering prayers, how come he only ever makes things happen that might have ordinarily happened anyway? Why is he not able to tell you, for example, the registration number of my car? Why can he not heal an amputee, no matter how deserving the case and no matter how much you pray? In fact, why can't he do any impossible stuff? Is it because he is imaginary?

quote:

And radioactive decay is fine by me, that's one of the proofs of the age of life on earth if you rate the decay in the sun's radiation and extrapolate backwards - it gets unlivable if you go more than a few thousand years.

Huh? What are you talking about?

quote:

(don't start on carbon dating by the way, it's is ridiculously unreliable and demands that we assume we know the C12 to C14 ratio present in the creature's body when it died. You don't even have to believe in the flood to negate that, I'm sure coal burning in the 19th century did that enough! He he!)

Oh I see, I guess the carbon dating labs around the world ought to be told that there was an industrial revolution. Gosh, I wonder if they ever thought of that?

quote:

...I then see the strata of rock in the grand canyon that are bent with no crack and I know that rock doesn't bend, so all the strata must have been pliable at the same time when the movement occured. Again, it fits nicely with this flood I read about!

Geologists know what deposits a flood leaves behind and how it should look in the geological record. There is no evidence of a global flood.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
No-one made God. That's the eternity past concept that we just can't get our heads round - no beginning?! Yeah!!

Using your argument, no-one made the universe.

quote:

Suffering? Seriously, has no-one ever answered that one for you before? Smokescreen alert!! You have a sugar coated view of God, His love's clouded your view of His justice. And in Heaven there won't be suffereing...

I already know you have no answer for that one (as it's an unanswerable absurdity at the heart of your religion); I was just interested to see what your take on it was. Believe me, your answer doesn't begin to make sense.

quote:

Prayer? Not sure what you mean, but I prayed for Salvation and He's changed my life!

Woopee do. How about praying for and end to, oh I don't know, AIDS? Or is that a bit too worldy for your little God to get his head around? Or is your answer to that that He created AIDS, so why should he put an end to it?

quote:

Healing, er, who cares about your limbs, He offers healing for eternity! You know the story in Mark 2, the paralytic on the mat? Jesus forgave His sins first.

Oh boy, the wheels have really come off now! I'd like my healing now, please, not when I'm dead.

quote:

Evidence outside of my head, we were going so well! Creation? No? You don't see design in nature?

It's *apparent* design, sometimes really bad design (e.g. the eye). Only makes sense when viewed from an evolutionary standpoint.

quote:

Jesus' parentage - Matthew gives Jesus' father's line from the exile as Matthew's focus is on Jesus' kingship. Luke goes with the mother for Judaism's sake and as a doctor would.
And what's that about the year He was born? I've not heard of that one before.
Contradictory resurrection accounts - you're gonna have to give me a clue here, which ones? I didn't think there were any....
Zombies, er, no. They weren't rotting, they didn't eat flesh, they looked quite normal and spoke to people. So I guess it's a yes, but I'm gonna be picky on the details!!
Eclipses, please, don't discount things that aren't possible as far as we know when we're talking about the miraculous. The only thing we can go on there is whether it actually happened or not, it's obvious it's not possible and it's obvious that to God that wouldn't matter.

Who cares whether any of it is impossible or actually happened? You'd apparently believe anything!

quote:

And the best of all! F F Bruce, professor of history at Ryland University, Manchest said it's not the historians who propogate the Christ myth. I'm no expert, I believe the words of those who have read the sources and know history who say that Jesus was a real, factual person. I doubt we'll sort that one out here either unless you want to accept my sources and quote some of your own. You say it's wrong, I say it's right, stalemate I think!

Er, no, that's not how it works. I say there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. I therefore cannot provide any evidence. That is my point. You may refute my position by providing some. Go ahead. Except you can't, because cleverer people than you and I have looked, and found none. For someone so literal minded, that's a serious hole in your myth, don't you think? If you're basing your life on this, don't you think you owe it to yourself to make at least some cursory enquiries?

Firstly, I'd just like to thank CH4 for broadcasting controversial programs like Dispatches. I hope you continue to produce more programs exposing the hateful views of the true-believing religious fanatics.

I didn't know whether to laugh at the crackpots and the hypocrites in the program or worry over the fact that our governments actually listen to and encourage those people by supporting faith-based education. Of course, I ended up doing both.

Watching Andrea Williams (the former barrister who supports the very same faith that once denied women the rights to vote, earn a wage. own property and preach), not only got my goat, but also confused me. Andrea rabidly protested against abortion, whilst one Christian guy desperately wanted to prevent people from being tortured in hell for eternity. If this is the case, then shouldn't these Christians be supporting abortion? You know! Abort for Jesus, save a potential child from the very possible threat of being tortured for eternity in hell. Considering the pros and cons where the Christian belief system is concerned, surely abortion would be the moral option. When you think about it, what moral person would go ahead and have a child knowing it stands a high risk of being tortured for eternity....hmm

Hell - it really dose amaze me that in this day and age our governments permit these religions to continue using psychological threats and abuse to attract gullible and vulnerable (including children) adherents. I'm quite sure our governments wouldn't tolerate the average criminal using threats of pain and suffering to get what he or she wants from the victim, so why on earth should religion be allowed to use the same methods.

I won't really comment on the hatred the Christians showed towards homosexuals. But I do find it strange that they don't show the same rabid bigotry toward figs, shrimp, crab, lobster, clams and mussels - abominations according to the Bible (odd that you don't see Christians waving their placards of hate outside the markets).


Anyway, thankfully most Christians in the UK - the token Christians (the good ones who don't practice the faith) - aren't like the fervent ones featured in the program. Of course, that'll probably change if good people don't stop pandering to these state endorsed cults soon. I just hope I'm not around when or if people of that mentality take control.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
The apostle Paul said that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then we are to be pitied above all men, our preaching is useless and so is our faith. Christianity stands and falls on that point - it has never been disproved.

But the fact that you can't disprove that I didn't have 200 african elephants in my house this morning doesn't make it true. And if I wrote the claim in a book that wouldn't make it true either. And if my book added that there were 7000 witnesses to the event that wouldn't make it true. And if I chastised you for not being able to disprove my claim, that wouldn't make it true either.

So - do you believe that I had 200 elephants in my house this morning? If not, why not? And why do you believe the bible - something that makes extraordinary claims that are not supported by evidence - yet don't believe me. THAT'S the question you need to understand the answer to.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
You must concede that if God is who the Bible says then it is all potentially true. Within itself the whole argument works. And I have found nothing outside of it to contradict it or prove it wrong.

I concede that it is possible that a God created the universe and initiated the processes that resulted in life appearing within it. But I do not accept that the God of the Bible can exist. The doctrine of the bible just doesn't make any sense in the context of the God being all knowing and all powerful. Just try to explain the concept of why God had to create a man/god hybrid of himself and sacrifice him to redeem a sin that God knew in advance would be committed and which all subsequent humans he created would inherit until he did the pseudo self-sacrifice which he would have known before he created Adam that he'd have had to do. Setting aside just how stupendously unlikely it is that any miracles really happened, the doctrine itself just doesn't make sense.

No need to get back to me on this as it's clear that we're not going to agree. The key point remains though that using religious superstition, that cannot be distinguished from something that is completely made up, is no basis for setting the law of the land.

quote:

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist:
Also I think that if you do your research you will find that Christianity is certainly not the enemy of rational thinking but the closest friend of it. Many of the greatest scientists, such as Isaac Newton and Michael Farriday were Christians who believed the Bible is true and found their inspiration from it.

This is true to a point in that these people wanted to know more about how God did it. The problem now is (especially after Darwin), there is no need for God at all in any of the explanations.

This programme sickened me. A religion purporting an afterlife is essentially denying the present, and is thus inherently anti-nature. Indeed; what is the point of our current existence if the next one is perfect bliss? Is it all just a crude audition for an elite destination created by a sadistic and mocking 'Creator'? If that's how 'God' works then I really don't want to know...

quote:

Originally posted by Tempest #12:
This programme sickened me. A religion purporting an afterlife is essentially denying the present, and is thus inherently anti-nature. Indeed; what is the point of our current existence if the next one is perfect bliss? Is it all just a crude audition for an elite destination created by a sadistic and mocking 'Creator'? If that's how 'God' works then I really don't want to know...

...which is exactly the grotesque, distorted (mis) interpretation of the Bible which Satan would want us to make.
On the other hand, if you were to read the Bible as it was intended to be read, then you would see a very different, loving and just God.
Your raging will not change the eventual truth of the situation, however distasteful you might believe it to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Whizz:
Try to explain the concept of why God had to create a man/god hybrid of himself and sacrifice him to redeem a sin that God knew in advance would be committed and which all subsequent humans he created would inherit until he did the pseudo self-sacrifice which he would have known before he created Adam that he'd have had to do. Setting aside just how stupendously unlikely it is that any miracles really happened, the doctrine itself just doesn't make sense.

No need to get back to me on this as it's clear that we're not going to agree. The key point remains though that using religious superstition, that cannot be distinguished from something that is completely made up, is no basis for setting the law of the land.

Thanks for the debate, I've enjoyed it. I'll leave you saying that to me, who got into Warwick university to study maths and has an IQ over 140 (I've done a load of tests, got results varying from 135 to 159), the doctrines do make sense. I know it won't make a difference, but I hope we can both leave at least accepting that both standpoints are valid ones. Even if we think the other of us is wrong I hope we have that much respect.
And just to show the difference in our thinking, why would God set up a world that would require the sacrifice of His Son? Love. His love is so great there is no way to fully express it without allowing the suffering in the world and the sacrifice to rescue us. A rescue wouldn't work without a peril. A sacrifice wouldn't work without a cost. Again, I see no reason to doubt it at all from that, and as I understand it if you do, then you're not understanding and appreciating the full picture and using one piece to show another to be false whilst ignoring the third that explains it all.
It's all so simple, it's probably far too simple for someone who won't believe it. And at the end of the day, if you won't accept the God of the Bible then we're not on the same page when the debate begins.

So thank you, it's been a pleasure and God bless!

quote:

Originally posted by Tempest #12:
If that's how 'God' works then I really don't want to know...

If that is the way God works then you need to know. If you walk away and just wait to find out you're screwed! If this is an audition as you understand it then you don't want to fail it when the alternative to perfect bliss is the exact opposite!
I know you mean that you don't for a second believe that He does work that way, but just the way that was phrased, I couldn't leave it be! It was akin to saying "if I've got cancer and it means a painful death unless I get treatment that's just too horrible to think of, I'll just live in denial and ignore it all!"
You see if your reasoning is that God doesn't exist, fine. If it's that you can't believe He'd be that way, fine. But if it's that He might be but you just don't want to think about it, well, which is what it looked like, that's kinda dumb...

quote:

Originally posted by Forethought:
I just hope I'm not around when or if people of that mentality take control.

What is the problem with Christians having influence?
Are we barbaric? Will people be killed and oppressed?
Jesus did away with the eye for an eye principle and replaced it with turn the other cheek.
Christians are exhauted to live in peace with everyone.
Justice for all, treating everyone as you would want to be treated yourself, not doing things out of selfish gain but doing it for the good of others (especially applied to leaders) are all Biblical principles. How would that be a bad thing?!?
Show me one Biblicasl principle that would be detremental on society....

And I am ashamed when I see Christians displaying hatred to anyone - that is utterly wrong. I apologise on thier behalf and I hope I will never act like that myself.

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AlanC83:
(don't start on carbon dating by the way, it's is ridiculously unreliable and demands that we assume we know the C12 to C14 ratio present in the creature's body when it died. You don't even have to believe in the flood to negate that, I'm sure coal burning in the 19th century did that enough! He he!)

quote:

Oh I see, I guess the carbon dating labs around the world ought to be told that there was an industrial revolution. Gosh, I wonder if they ever thought of that?

Which is why carbon dating isn't used for anything that is less than 150 years old.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Chairmaker:
Which is why carbon dating isn't used for anything that is less than 150 years old.

Apologies! It was still a hot topic when I last debated all this with anyone!

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
When it comes to answering prayers, how come he only ever makes things happen that might have ordinarily happened anyway?

There are two people in my church who used to have incuarble diseases who don't anymore. One of them only recently went onto an experimental drug designed to slow down the effects of his leukemia. The other 4 people in the trial saw effects slowing it down - he's in total remission.
Again, the priority is not this life, heaven and eternity are the focus. But God does still act on the temporary things on occasions.
Compare 70 years and eternity, the 70 years doesn't look so long or important...

quote:

Huh? What are you talking about?

This one is an actual claim by me, some evidence you can check out if you like. A rarity it seems, we're mostly talking about ideas. Interesting that your reaction to my first actual mention of something tangible is that of ridicule.
The radiation emitted by the sun is decaying at a standard rate - the same principle all dating is based on. Use the same principles with the figures, go back a bit. Or just ignore it coz a Christian said it and they don't do science....

And there are a lot of geologists who would think your statement about the flood is a little odd. As they are geologists and they believe the Bible. Again, using Google I found a couple of good sites on the first page, one that did not believe the usual line that Noah's flood caused all the sedimentary strata and the like, but they still put forward Noah's folld as factual. Try it!

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:

quote:

Originally posted by The_Chairmaker:
Which is why carbon dating isn't used for anything that is less than 150 years old.

Apologies! It was still a hot topic when I last debated all this with anyone!

Wait a second, I read that the wrong way round!! The assumption that we know the C12-14 ratio when it's not consistant across the world makes the whole area innacurate and potentially unreliable.
I need a little more than carbon dating to convence me of vast dates and there is my reason. Anyone want to do more than tell me that's ridiculous? An actual, factual reason would be good, else anyone truly impartial would recognise the last real argument came from my side.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:There are two people in my church who used to have incuarble diseases who don't anymore. ....

well nature does work in mysterious ways.
& how do you define "incurable"? is it incurable to scientists as they understand it today? considering they don't have all the answers, "incurable" diseases will occur, that is until they are understood and only then if a cure can be found.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
I'll leave you saying that to me, who got into Warwick university to study maths and has an IQ over 140 (I've done a load of tests, got results varying from 135 to 159), the doctrines do make sense.

1. Is this an attempt at a "my dad's bigger than your dad" approach to trying to convince me that your God exists?
2. Having big IQs and being very clever is worthless if you haven't read or had exposure to alternative explanations to things - presumably you were indoctrinated into believing in your God when you were very young and couldn't think for yourself, rather than having moved away from science based world view to a biblical based one in your adult life.
3. What makes you assume that my IQ is any less than yours (I haven't done an IQ test for years but I do already have a degree in maths (and computing science) rather than just studying for one)

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
I know it won't make a difference, but I hope we can both leave at least accepting that both standpoints are valid ones.

This is a really tricky one. Do you accept that someone that believes in fairies has a valid standpoint? Do you think that someone that believes I had 200 elephants in my house yesterday has a valid standpoint? I would be willing to say that your standpoint is "valid" if you understand why you've rejected alternative standpoints and can articulate why you believe what you believe. But "valid" in this context doesn't mean "likely to be true".

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
And just to show the difference in our thinking, why would God set up a world that would require the sacrifice of His Son? Love. His love is so great there is no way to fully express it without allowing the suffering in the world and the sacrifice to rescue us. A rescue wouldn't work without a peril. A sacrifice wouldn't work without a cost. Again, I see no reason to doubt it at all from that, and as I understand it if you do, then you're not understanding and appreciating the full picture and using one piece to show another to be false whilst ignoring the third that explains it all.

Again, I think you are underestimating my understanding and appreciation of the biblical message. It's one of the most contrived pieces of doctrine and wish thinking that I've studied.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
Show me one Biblical principle that would be detremental on society....

Only one????
Here are a few:
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Timothy 2:11-14
Numbers 31:14-18
Judges 19:24
Judges 21:8-10

I'll stop there for now as, returning to the original point, these are good enough as an illustration of why it's dangerous that believers in this religious superstition want to influence the laws of the country.

quote:

I'll leave you saying that to me, who got into Warwick university to study maths and has an IQ over 140 (I've done a load of tests, got results varying from 135 to 159), the doctrines do make sense.

Now I'm finding that a little difficult to reconcile with someone who (as pointed out) in their first post was unaware of the scientific definition of the word "Theory".

Care to explain this contradiction?