Comments on The Atheist Missionary: Why won't Christians and Jews admit the immorality...

You are late matthew, i've asked him for such proo...

2009-06-05T07:17:46.103-04:00

You are late matthew, i've asked him for such proofs and he has nothing solid to offer. Of course, we know that is going to be the case before even asking him to present it.

He is happy to tear other religions limb from limb with regards to evidence, and the application of critical thinking. Yet when it comes to his own religion, he (like so many others) cannot apply the same reasoning.

It's a shame because he obviously has a fair degree of intellect.

I'm sorry if I am coming into this conversation la...

2009-05-28T13:12:58.151-04:00

I'm sorry if I am coming into this conversation late and maybe missed something however CHIP has made the same assertion that there are countless proofs that prove his religion and disprove others and I'm curious if he ever mentioned any specific ones or could please explain them without referencing the bible as the source of proof?

''Even if we did get it all wrong we certainly are...

2009-05-17T15:35:00.000-04:00

''Even if we did get it all wrong we certainly are not the latest.''

To true Chip.

All religions are wrong chip, not just yours. There is nothing special about your religion over mormonism for example. Sure, the book of mormon is full of ridiculous accounts. But so is the bible.

TAM hits the nail on the head by highlighting on your willingness to believe in the literal resurrection of jesus christ but none of the other equally silly stories he listed.

The words picking and choosing comes to mind again.

You constantly claim of proofs against other religions. Ok. Aside from critical thinking telling you that mohammed never flew to heaven on a magical horse, how do you KNOW it never happened? What proof is there against such events?

I just don't get it chip, i just don't see what claims your religion makes that is so different from the rest of them, or what 'proofs' other religions have against them, that aren't applicable to your own.

I just had to comment upon reading ''Even if we did get it all wrong we certainly are not the latest.''

Does that make christianity better because its not the latest religion? I thought you said age had nothing to do with it when i tried pointing out that thousands of religions predating christianity are wrong, so what makes it so special?

That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event ...

2009-05-17T10:05:00.000-04:00

That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history. However, the first written account (Mark 16) of the supposed resurrection was not written until around 70 AD. If you research this point, you will discover two pivotal facts:

1. Jewish prophets had ben promising for hundreds of years prior to the crucifixion of Jesus that a messiah would come.

2. In Mark's account, the earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 break off abruptly at 16:8, where the men at the empty tomb announce Jesus' resurrection, lacking post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. The modern text of Mark 16:9–20 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.

As Paul the Apostle fairly admitted: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" 1 Cor. 15:14.

Cellular regeneration is the most probable method....

2009-05-16T23:52:00.000-04:00

Cellular regeneration is the most probable method. Because if the cells did not regenerate then Jesus would have still been in decay. I did not suggest His cellular regeneration was the result of HUMAN doing. So the comparison with Muhammad and modern technology as the explanation for his flight versus Jesus cellular regeneration by God's hand is a poor one. God has all the power from the beginning, God does not advance only when we advance so is not limited with the contingency that we have made the technological discovery first. I was explaining that because cellular regeneration is such a possibility even within our own means how is it not possible that God has that ability in the first place?

Again the reason I don't agree with your examples is NOT because they are so implausible in and of themselves, but because the claims behind them, the claims of their religions or beliefs in their entirety have facts and proofs Against them that cause me not to be inclined to believe additional claims such as the ones you mentioned.

There would likely been an account of the crucifixion because they probably keep records of their executions. Maybe you should phrase it as Undiscovered accounts, in which case I would not be surprised at all.

Chip, suggesting that cellular regeneration can ex...

2009-05-16T21:22:00.000-04:00

Chip, suggesting that cellular regeneration can explain the resurrection is like suggesting that Mohammed's ascension could have happened because we now have the technology to fly to the moon. I agree with you - all of my #1 - 7 scenarios could easily be performed by an All Powerful God. What I find remarkable is why you are willing to swallow the resurrection of Jesus and not 1-7. Does it not cause you the least bit of concern that for the first 40 years of Christianity after Jesus' crucifixion, there was no detailed written account of Jesus' resurrection?

I may believe those things if they weren't accompa...

2009-05-16T20:05:00.000-04:00

I may believe those things if they weren't accompanied by the plethora of evidence against their religion/beliefs. Unlike Christianity which has none. Also Cellular Regeneration is not a concept which is beyond our grasp. People said the same thing about all sorts of scientific and medical capabilities we have now. Cloning for instance, landing on the moon (or simply being able to leave Earth’s atmosphere). So how is such a thing seemingly out of the capabilities of an All Powerful God?

Chip, I regret that you found the I wonder if Jesu...

2009-05-16T16:38:00.000-04:00

Chip, I regret that you found the I wonder if Jesus started to smell on Holy Saturday? post amateurish - it's one of my all time favorites. I guess we have come full circle. You are willing to believe that events occurred which violate all presently known laws of nature. If you are willing to believe in the literal resurrection, you are willing to believe anything. For example, you should be willing to believe:

1. That Mohammed flew up in the sky on a winged horse.

2. That an angel named Moroni (also resurrected, by the way) appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. and assisted him translate the Book of Mormon from ancient egyptian written on gold plates.

3. That 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans (i.e. souls) then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. You might recognize this as one of the beliefs of Scientologists.

4. Castrating oneself is the only true path to salvation - see the Skoptsy sect.

5. Transubstantiation and infallibility of the Pope.

6. Blood transfusions should not be used under any circumstances in medical treatment.

7. Everything and everyone (including me) are just figments of your imagination. You are God and you are truly alone.

Take your pick Chip or take them all. You are willing to believe anything.

"My assertion that you find other religious belief...

2009-05-16T15:58:00.000-04:00

"My assertion that you find other religious beliefs to be fallacious is obviously true"

I never said they weren't. We were discussing a specific event in the Islamic religious text. I never said I thought one way or the other about the ridiculousness of said event yet you claimed to know what I thought. That is pretty presumptuous of you. My point is whether or not that is actually what I thought, you would not know because I never said one way or the other. Even if you LUCKILY Guessed what I was thinking that is beside the point. So yeah you do lose credibility because that is not how an objective and logical thinker operates.

"more so than the quran is proof of islam"

This is a poor analogy as I have already explained that the Bible is not the proof of God.

"You're just a member of the latest addition of people who have got it all wrong in my opinion."

Even if we did get it all wrong we certainly are not the latest.

-AM "If you have time, please take a look at my p...

2009-05-16T15:49:00.000-04:00

-AM

"If you have time, please take a look at my post:"

Why would you think that having me waste my time reading that poorly thought out (and again) amateurish post, would logically convince me of anything? It was short and did not include any revelation inspiring or thought provoking ideas. All you did was point out (the already known fact) that resurrection is a recurring theme in different religions. Then with a failed attempt at a funny comment (regarding the meat section of a grocery store) to some how trivialize the event being discussed. Was that supposed to be some kind of convincing argument against Christianity?

"Chip, do you really believe that a dead piece of meat started to rot and then came back to life? If so, why? Please be specific."

Yeah I do believe cell regeneration is possible. I think even science will get to the point where it can be achieved in typical medicine. With the assumption that an All Powerful God is real then it isn’t even hard to grasp that he would have the ability to cause cell regeneration and in turn resurrection.

You know what Chip? I give in. I'm sick of you m...

2009-05-10T18:51:00.000-04:00

You know what Chip? I give in. I'm sick of you making out like i don't understand, that i'm not reading things, that you are being logical and i am not.

Just to support why i give up briefly:

“Stop being childish and awkward. I know you haven't said it chip, but i know that's what you think, just like all other non-muslims.”

Well if we are trying to be logical and use reasoning then NO you cannot know what I think unless I actually say something to that effect. So yeah you admitting that I did not make those statements actually do matter when it comes to your credibility as to what you claim to know about my opinions.

-- I've read that again and again. You have explained nothing - if the above isn't immature behaviour, then i don't know what is. You are clearly being pedantic. My assertion that you find other religious beliefs to be fallacious is obviously true. I lose no credability whatsoever.

There is no point talking to someone who concentrates more on belittling me than the argument at hand.

You claim you left atheism to become a christian due to evidence. There is none chip. None at all. You might think you have provided evidence but it's not evidence at all. No more so than the quran is proof of islam. Etc, etc, etc. You're just a member of the latest addition of people who have got it all wrong in my opinion.

'my only arguments are based from evidence logic and reasoning'

Really - I'm not going to even bother.

I've spent enough time on this debate with you. I feel like i spend more time reading about how stupid i am rather than any logical points for the existence of god. Have a nice life.

You'll no doubt have some wild explanation for TAM's point above.

Chip wrote: IF someone can provide legitimate evid...

2009-05-09T15:50:00.000-04:00

Chip wrote: IF someone can provide legitimate evidence disproving Christianity then I will stop believing ... and, with respect to Mormonism: I reject them because of the evidence against them. That is the only logical path to take.If you have time, please take a look at my post: http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/04/i-wonder-if-jesus-started-to-smell-on.htmlChip, do you really believe that a dead piece of meat started to rot and then came back to life? If so, why? Please be specific. When answering, please keep in mind the fact that the supposed event of a dead person coming back to life is far from unique to Christianity and was prevalent in several religious traditions which existed thousands of years before the birth of Jesus.

In my experience, some of the most apparently fervent and knowledgeable Christians have difficulty responding to this question.

The evidence which I offer you is that dead, rotting pieces of meat don't come back to life. That's the best one I can come up with off the top of my head and it goes to the core of what Christians believe.

Bias is unreasoned judgment that is formed without...

2009-05-09T14:59:00.000-04:00

Bias is unreasoned judgment that is formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge, and irrational attitudes of hostility directed against a group, race etc.

My judgment is reasoned and is formed on more sufficient knowledge of the religions involved than you have. Also as I mentioned before IF someone can provide legitimate evidence disproving Christianity then I will stop believing just like when I converted from my atheistic belief to Christianity. Any hostility I have against other beliefs is rationally derived from the concept that if my religion is correct then the followers of other religions will go to Hell and those religions are causing danger to those who believe them. What kind of person would I be if I didn’t have the desire to save people from that danger? Unlike some atheists (like the amputees one) is Irrationally hostile against Christianity because they claim that Christianity causes harm, which it does not, in fact it encourages love, compassion, and caring of others. So atheists would only have a rational attitude of disagreement with Christianity IF it were not hostile because there is no rational reason to be hostile against the teachings of Jesus only to disagree because you don’t believe it. Most rational atheists simply choose not to believe for themselves and they don’t fight against Christians spreading the Gospel because they know it does not cause harm. It is a rational motive for Christians to convert others because of the danger of Hell, but irrational of atheists to actively convert because Christianity does no harm, so atheists are not saving anyone from any danger or threat.

So there is no such thing as fair bias.

“I don't see why we need a millenia old book to provide us morals.”

God provides the morals not the Book.

“I'm not twisitng anythin chip, if you claim that god reveals himself in the world around us to people who have no concept of him, then you have no choice but to imply thats evidence of his existence.”

No that is not evidence to His existence but to His methods. Morality is the evidence of His existence. I can keep repeating what I actually mean while you keep twisting it.

“You are still being childish and awkward regarding your statements on whether or not i know what you think. I've already pointed out that i dont need you to tell me santa doesn't exist for me to know you think that. It's a trivial matter that my powers of deduction are more than capable of dealing with. - Unless, you actually do believe in the muslim stories too??”

I’m not sure “childish and awkward” means what you think it means because you keep using it out of a context that does not apply towards my attitude. You have repeated it several times and all I can imagine is that you are trying to subliminally imprint the idea that I am “childish and awkward” to (for some reason) convince the readers that I have this character flaw though it has nothing to do with the conversation. The rest of your comment I have already explained though you seem not to have read it.

“Plenty of people have ridiculed christianity as you did, go search around you'll find plenty. If you meant nobody has on here, then why dont you talk to Seth? He'll gladly tear your religion in two just as you did his, and he'll still think your wrong , and you'll still think he's wrong. Go to the, 'what to do nexst time mormons come knockinh on your door,' thread and challenge him. I don't want to be responsible for a, ' my religion is more real than your religion', debate.”

I meant competently and intellectually proved Christianity wrong. Not just made amateurish attempts at it. So no Seth has not done it just as I have. I have searched and searched because I enjoy the conflict and debate but I have yet to find anything legitimate, intelligent etc. What gave you the idea that that or anything he has written even remotely compares to the level or research I am capable of (or at least the level I have shown about Mormonism thus far). Frankly based on his sorry post I would think that even you are a more worthy adversary than Seth. Seth does not believe in Mormonism because of the evidence so when there is proof against the evidence then it changes nothing for him. He continually suggests he is only a Mormon because he finds that it is the most useful structure to use as a guide for social behavior. He has suggested that he would convert if another religion that had more appealing and useful framework not because it is true not because his religion is proven false it is all irrelevant to a person who is willing to follow a religion based solely on the guidelines it provides. I on the other hand follow Christianity based on the evidence for it and for God. Because I respect Mormonism to the extent that they encourage education they have a strong system and they are generally some of the nicest people I have met. BUT I reject them because of the evidence against them. That is the only logical path to take. The way Seth talks reminds me of the typical brainwashing Mormons have been subjected to. If you said you are willing to throw out evidence, reason, logic simply because you like your current belief then the conversation would end because my only arguments are based from evidence logic and reasoning and it would be futile and a waste of time to present evidence to someone already admitting they will reject it no matter what. Seth also misunderstands LDS’s stance on the perfection of the BOM and Smith. He ignores Biblical views (though Mormons claim to believe in the Bible). He misunderstands what constitutes Prophesies and whether or not they can be infallible.

Seth said

"It makes for a much more versatile handling of the doctrinal framework."

He is willing to believe in any religion not based on truth but what is most appealing and what allows him to distort doctrine to adapt to any argument against it. Solid Doctrine does not need "handling" (let alone versatile) if it is right then it will stand on its own. So if his religion needs to be adaptable then there is something wrong with what he believes.

I agree when AM stated

"Although you identify yourself as a Mormon, my sense is that when we get right down to it you are an agonostic with an affinity for the ontological argument supporting the existence of God. You like the idea of God. The supposition of God explains things that you feel require an explanation, such as "useful paradigm for viewing the universe or for contextualizing human ethics". "

He is very much like an undecided agnostic because he is not solid in what he believes. His attitude is that if he presents his beliefs as something he won't hold TOO strongly to then he can plausibly claim he never ACTUALLY said he believed this or that. That is typical of someone who cleverly makes it seem that he believes in something while having plausible deniability the whole way, so no one can ever say he is actually wrong about this or that. It is all smoke and mirrors. And all this says about him is that he is weak minded, that he has no real convictions or beliefs, he does not actually trust his own information enough to be able to make concrete claims. Much like agnostics who are very vague and general about their beliefs to avoid any real confrontation about their opinions. If they say I believe in some Being or Higher Power then of course I would agree with them but then they cut the rest off by basically saying that they won't elaborate or expand giving more specifics about this Higher Power there is not argument left.

"Priceless. Another classic example of the atheist not being allowed to use a certain type of argument because they are not qualified to do so, "

No it is what is in fact more logical. This is a hypothetical that applies to anyone not just Christians. Again Assuming God were real and He established His Word how does it makes sense that an all powerful being would more likely be wrong as opposed to flawed people? You don't have to be Christian to understand this. I am not suggesting (in any way) that you cannot attempt to use Biblical based arguments against Christians. If you found a real contradiction between the Bible and itself then sure you can use it. It has nothing to do with whether you believe in the Bible or not it has to do what makes more logical sense regarding an All Powerful God.

“If god exists, then the majority of people are in a dire position becasue they are in the wrong religion, or not in the correct one. I'd argue if there is a god then i'm an a better position than you, statistically speaking, you are probably worshiping the wrong god. At least if i have to go to the pearly gates to explain myself, your perfect god will surely understand why his intelligent creation examined the evidence and concluded he's not there. Better than trying to tell him you blindly followed the wrong religion.”

None of this line of thinking followed any type of logic.

Yeah, i do have bias against them? Whats your poin...

2009-05-08T08:20:00.000-04:00

Yeah, i do have bias against them? Whats your point? You have bias against every other religion except your own so dont go barking up that tree. I have bias because they all provide no evidence for their god's existence. Seems like a fair bias to me.

Morality is a product of intelligence, more intelligent animals work together in general. I don't see why we need a millenia old book to provide us morals.

I'm not twisitng anythin chip, if you claim that god reveals himself in the world around us to people who have no concept of him, then you have no choice but to imply thats evidence of his existence.

I dont see how i can interpret the story of moses parting the red sea any other way than literally. The ten plagues? All that jazz? Is there some metaphorical way i should somehow know to take such stories? Jesus rising from the dead? It's just all nonsense to me.

You are still being childish and awkward regarding your statements on whether or not i know what you think. I've already pointed out that i dont need you to tell me santa doesn't exist for me to know you think that. It's a trivial matter that my powers of deduction are more than capable of dealing with. - Unless, you actually do believe in the muslim stories too??

Plenty of people have ridiculed christianity as you did, go search around you'll find plenty. If you meant nobody has on here, then why dont you talk to Seth? He'll gladly tear your religion in two just as you did his, and he'll still think your wrong , and you'll still think he's wrong. Go to the, 'what to do nexst time mormons come knockinh on your door,' thread and challenge him. I don't want to be responsible for a, ' my religion is more real than your religion', debate.

Chip, what is this? 'Assuming God exists, then it is more logical that his Word is not the one which is mistaken but our understanding.'

Priceless. Another classic example of the atheist not being allowed to use a certain type of argument because they are not qualified to do so, yet the religiot can. It's ok for you to make a hypothetical point or argument, but oh no, when i do it, it is unacceptable.

If god exists, then the majority of people are in a dire position becasue they are in the wrong religion, or not in the correct one. I'd argue if there is a god then i'm an a better position than you, statistically speaking, you are probably worshiping the wrong god. At least if i have to go to the pearly gates to explain myself, your perfect god will surely understand why his intelligent creation examined the evidence and concluded he's not there. Better than trying to tell him you blindly followed the wrong religion.

That's a side argument in any case, and doesnt really matter.

Throughout our existence there have been thousands of religions, but no, they are ALL wrong with the exception of yours. What a load of rubbish, keep dreaming mate.

We should probably end this. Like i've previously stated you think i talk a load of crap and the feeling is mutual.

“you claim that god reveals himself to people who ...

2009-05-04T19:55:00.000-04:00

“you claim that god reveals himself to people who have no concept of him simply thorugh the world around us. How is that evidence? How can that possibly prove to someone that there is a god?”

Okay you are distorting the conversation. THAT was not the evidence for God it was the answer to the question of how can tribal people be subject to God’s judgment if they have not formally been taught about the Bible. That is a completely different subject. Morality is what I claim as evidence. Either way you are right that it is futile because you reject either as proof of anything so I suppose I am nit picking.

“You never seem to directyl adress the fact that biblical stories are actually trying to tell events that actually happen.”

No I am saying that while the Bible is ultimately not flawed our understanding and perceptions of its content certainly CAN be flawed because that is where the human error can apply. Your issue is you are suggesting that our some human’s understanding of God’s Word is perfect but God’s Word is flawed. THAT is not logical. Assuming God exists, then it is more logical that his Word is not the one which is mistaken but our understanding.

“Stop being childish and awkward. I know you haven't said it chip, but i know that's what you think, just like all other non-muslims.”

Well if we are trying to be logical and use reasoning then NO you cannot know what I think unless I actually say something to that effect. So yeah you admitting that I did not make those statements actually do matter when it comes to your credibility as to what you claim to know about my opinions.

“You already accept that evolution is gods method of getting us here... but morals cant be a part of that?”

Because it does not meet the criteria for the definition of evolution. You cannot fit a rectangle into the category of squares, because it fails to meet the specific criteria of what a square is. Evolution has criteria to be met and morality falls outside of that criteria.

“species that works together and look out for one another is more likely to survive than one that wrongs each other”

Then how can you explain the many species of animals that do not need morality to survive. We would survive without it. Thus it is not a product of evolution.

“If you can't explain something it must be god”

No I am saying that even everything that IS explained is from God. I do not believe God is a gap filler.

“The point i would now like to make, is that someone would be equally capable of writing a simliar piece against christianity.”

Yet no one has…

“Being the atheist, i have no bias towards either religion”

You just have a bias against them.

Chip, i give in. This debate is completely futile...

2009-04-29T12:26:00.000-04:00

Chip, i give in.

This debate is completely futile, i completely disagree with your line of thinking. You obviously feel the same about me. Our views of evidence are completely different.

You claim you are a christian because of the evidence for it. What you state as evidence, however, i disagree with. E.g. you claim that god reveals himself to people who have no concept of him simply thorugh the world around us. How is that evidence? How can that possibly prove to someone that there is a god?

With regards to how you intepret biblical stories, thats just sour as well. I've read over what you've written againc chip. All i see is that you don't believe god literally made the earth in 7 days, and that he actually used evolution to aid with the development of man and other creatures.

Again, i think this is simply rubbish! You never seem to directyl adress the fact that biblical stories are actually trying to tell events that actually happen. You PARTIALLY accept it for the story of noah. Partially?? So god didn't actually flood the planet as suggested then. Also, 2 of every animal? That didn't happen either then? Just goes back to this picking and choosing thing, i'm sorry, but it obviously does.

I'll try and state the age argument once more to try and make you see my line of thinking. I'm not saying that because christianity is relatively new in the grand scale of mankinds religions, that it is surely wrong. What i am saying is, that billions of people before christianity have came up with thousands of religions and they are all wrong. Today, you still dismiss other religions apart from your own. The reason you do this chip is by application of critical thinking. Obviously zeus doesn't exist, obviously ra doesn't, horus etc etc. Buy ypur god? Oh no no no no, he does. Definitely. You have 'evidence'.

I'm sure none of these other religions had 'evidence'.....

As for this:

'' “You find it ridiculous muhammed flew up to the heavens ona magic horse”

Can you please quote me saying this is what I think?

“I could go on and on like that.”

You can go on and on saying I think or said things I never said? I am sure you can. ''

Stop being childish and awkward. I know you haven't said it chip, but i know that's what you think, just like all other non-muslims. You don't believe in santa! Do i need to have that in writing for it to be confirmed? Of course not. I cannot see that as anything more than a childish attempt to aggravate me and disregard a fair point.

I also think you attribute something to god if it cannot be logically attributed to something else. By the way, i think morals can be attributed to evolution, why not? You already accept that evolution is gods method of getting us here... but morals cant be a part of that? Even though evolution is god's doing accroding to you? Get off. A species that works together and look out for one another is more likely to survive than one that wrongs each other, i don't see why this instinct can be carried on through generations.

You're line of thinking is just twisted. If you can't explain something it must be god? That's basically what you are implying.

Anyway chip, i think we should give this up, like i said, we are never going to agree, and none of us are going to convert the other.

Now. With regards to you breakdown on mormonism. At last, we agree on something. It really i a well pieced together screed of why mormonism is quite clearly fallacious.

The point i would now like to make, is that someone would be equally capable of writing a simliar piece against christianity. Pop on to the, What to do next time mormons come to your door, topic. Tell Seth, to come and read this, and he will frustrate you (just like you furstrate me) with what will appear to you as a bunch of non-sensical, closed-minded cop-outs that are devoid of critical thinking. But to him - it is the complete opposite.

Not only that, he is the type of person i talk about who could come up with an equally convincing case as to why christianity is wrong.

The overall point is that both of you would view each other as i do. Being the atheist, i have no bias towards either religion, and think they are both as silly as one another, i can then look at both of your evidences as to why each of you are wrong, and agree with both.

That video i showed you a while back, regarding the bubbles. You are well within the christian bubble. He is well within the mormon bubble. You's both highlight exactly what the video is trying to demonstrate.

I'm tempted to put a word in to Seth and see what he comes up with.

Some things I am including are BOM contradictions ...

2009-04-28T21:54:00.000-04:00

Some things I am including are BOM contradictions with The Bible, or scripture from the Bible to refute a claim that Joseph Smith has made. I realize you don’t accept the Bible as proof of anything but it is how I would present it to a Mormon who DOES believe in The Bible. But I have also included proofs of the general Archeological, Linguistic, Historical, and Anthropological nature.

Smith's community (60+ people) has attested to Smith and his family having habits of concocting schemes to cheat people. Which shows he propensity towards greed. So Smith created the Story of Mormon to exploit people. He had a history of using other methods to exploit people. (I can quote the refutation if you would like)

Joseph Smith lied about the “Reformed Egyptian” text. In the Pearl of Great Price Smith claims that Professor Charles Anthon proclaimed that the copy of the text from the magic plates were “Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphics”. When Anthon discovered this he wrote a letter to E. D. Howe refuting the claim. Anthon wrote “The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be ‘reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics’ is perfectly false”. Anthon also wrote “the paper contained anything else but ‘Egyptian Hieroglyphics’” (Ferguson Collection, BYU). (If you would like me to quote you the letter in its entirety to read Anthon’s full account of his denunciation, I will do that for you). For arguments sake lets assume that the text was in fact Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Anthon was mistaken or was not knowledgeable enough to make an educated statement one way or the other. Then Smith still Lied about it. Why would Smith continue to claim Anthon verified the text? Why not get a second opinion from a different expert and use his testimony? That is because the claim itself was a lie in the first place so Smith needed further lies to support it.

The BOM talks about Chariots (Alma 18:9). There is no evidence of actual wheeled vehicle usage in the 2,000 BC to 400 AD time frame in Ancient America.

The BOM mentions Bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), Brass (2 Nephi 5:15), Breast Plates & Copper (Mosiah 8:10), Iron (Jarom 1:8), Gold and Silver currency (Alma 11), Silver (Jarom 1:8), and Steel Swords (Ether 7:9). No evidence indicates that these items existed during Book of Mormon times. Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D."

The BOM mentions the following animals: Ass, Bull, Calf, Cattle, Cow, domestic Goat, Horse (the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies), Ox, domestic Sheep, Sow, Swine, & Elephants. None of these animals even existed in America during the era and timescale of Book of Mormon times.

Numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land". No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The BOM describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.

None of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived.

There aren’t any examples of "Reformed Egyptian" in Ancient America.

There is no existence of linguistically related correlation between any Native American language and ancient Egyptian or Hebrew.

The BOM language could not have evolved so rapidly into non-related Native American languages. Indo-European is much older than the BOM time period, yet vestiges of Indo-European exist through all of Europe and parts of Asia.

The BOM was cast into the KJV style. "...there is a continual use of the 'thee', 'thou' and 'ye', as well as the archaic verb endings 'est' (second person singular) and 'eth' (third person singular). Since the Elizabethan style was not Joseph's natural idiom, he continually slipped out of this King James pattern and repeatedly confused the norms as well. Thus he lapsed from 'ye' (subject) to 'you' (object) as the subject of sentences (e.g. 'Mos. 2:19; 4:24), jumped from plural ('ye') to singular ('thou') in the same sentence (Mos. 4:22) and moved from verbs without endings to ones with endings (e.g. 'yields . . . putteth,' 3:19)." (The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon, by Wesley P. Walters, 1990, page 30).

Mistakes that were changed from the original BOM to the Current BOM

In Mosiah 21:28 the name of the king has been changed from Benjamin to Mosiah. In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:

". . . king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 200)

In modern editions of the Book of Mormon this verse has been changed to read:

". . . king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, Mosiah 21:28)

According to chronology found in the Book of Mormon, king Benjamin should have been dead at this time; therefore, the Mormon Church leaders evidently felt that it was best to change the king's name to Mosiah.

Another change involving the names Benjamin and Mosiah is found in the Book of Ether. On page 546 of the first edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:

". . . for this cause did king Benjamin keep them . . . "

In the 1964 edition, Ether 4:1, we read:
". . . for this cause did king Mosiah keep them . . . "

Contradictions with the BOM and The Bible.

Church began in 33 AD Matthew 16:18 + Acts 2
Church began in 147BC, Mosiah 18:17

3 hours of darkness at crucifixion Luke 23:44
3 Days of darkness at crucifixion Hel 14:20, 27

“Indians wrote many official records” Hel 3:13, “scrolls” Mor 5:23 “and other writings” Mor 9:2; 2 Nephi 9:18
Native Americans never wrote but used simple pictures to communicate.

North American Indians are descended from Jews
Being "mongoloid", are descended from East Asia
Also genetic studies have determined that there is not even a fraction of Jewish DNA in ANY natives. If Jews were living in Central or South America there would be indicators in their DNA. Instead the DNA supports that they originated in East Asia.

God cursed Indians with dark skin. Anyone who marries Indian shall get dark skin too. 2 Nephi 5:21-23; Jacob 3:3-9; Mormon 5:15-17; Alma 3:6-10
If this were true, there would be no part Native American, only full-blooded Native Americans. The statement is genetically false.

When Indians accept Mormon teachings they will become, "white and delightsome people" 2 Nephi 30:5-7; 3 Nephi 2:15
This is white supremacist racism and implies a correlation between skin color and righteousness.

Anthropologists and geneticists have shown that the Mediterranean races from which the Jewish or Semitic race derive bear no semblance to those of Native Americans. It has been determined that they are Mongoloid in origin.

This is a quote from The Smithsonian Institute in Washington:

“There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon. Interpretations of archeological and ethnographic data, moreover, are quite unlike the American prehistory which the Book of Mormon describes…It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon…The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book…We know of no authentic cases of ancient Egyptian or Hebrew writing having been found in the New World. Reports of findings of Egyptian influence in the Mexican and Central America areas have been published in newspaper and magazines from time to time, but thus far no reputable Egyptologist has been able to discover any relationship between Mexican remains and those in Egypt.
With respect to some of the questions which you have raised pertaining to the story in the Book of Mormon relating to aboriginal occupation in the New World, I may say thus far no iron, steel, brass, gold and silver coins, metal, swords, breast-plates, arm shields, armor, horses and chariots, or silk have ever been found in pre-colonial archeological sites. It is not until after the conquest of the New World by Europeans that materials in those categories appear in association with aboriginal artifacts. As a matter of fact, there are not many such objects occurring in historic sites. Furthermore, cattle, sheep, swine, horses and asses, such as we know them were introduced in the Americas by Europeans in post-Columbian times. No actual elephants have been found in any archeological site…I do not know of any cases where an archeological site has been identified with any of the names of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The most likely ruined cities would be those in the Maya area, and they all have native names which do not correspond to those in your list. It is possible that some of the anthropologists at Brigham Young University who have done some work in the Maya area may have attempted such a correlation, but if so I have not seen it reported. None of the main workers if the field have made any reference to the possibility of one of the well-known ruins being those of a city mentioned in the Book of Mormon.”

- Smithsonian Institution, pg 35-36 The Book of Mormon Examined by Arthur Budvarson

Smith has prophesied things that clearly have come to be wrong. The Bible says a prophet that prophesies things that do not come true is not a prophet of God. Because Smith has falsely prophesied on many occasions it is clear that he is not a prophet of God.

Deu 18: 21 says:
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken"

Isa 8:20
“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Smith has prophesied about things that did not come true.

For instance the Jerusalem temple was never built in Smith's life time.

The Nauvoo House was never built and it says that the Nauvoo House would always belong to the Smith family but that site is now owned by the Reorganized LDS church.

“I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri...that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left.” The wrongs were never redressed.

Joseph Smith said that the coming of the Lord was “nigh — even 56 years should wind up the scene.” (Given in 1835)

Then there is the Patten failure. "he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto the world" (D&C 114:1). David W. Patten died before the next spring thus the prophesy was false.

The BOM and Smith have been disproved Historically, Linguistically, Archeologically, and Anthropologically, as well as what the Bible says, and what people's testimony say.

“The reason why i don't refer back to everything y...

2009-04-28T20:19:00.000-04:00

“The reason why i don't refer back to everything you have ever written, and the result being, you think i'm not reading/ignoring it, is because they are quite simply hollow statements.”

Incorrect. I am specifically talking about when YOU ask an already answered question. Even if you did not agree with my answer it would make sense to progress with the debate by rebutting my new point. HOWEVER you simply re ask the question making no reference to my answer to That question as if you did not read what I wrote. I am not referring to the times you simply don’t address a claim that I have made or when you ask a question and I answer and you never bring up that subject again.

“If you can't prove god exists then you can't use that to prove why they have morals.”

You asked for evidence. I claimed that morality was proof. You said it could be explained by evolution. And I said prove it. You never did and then stopped brining it up. My argument was that morality could not be explained by any natural occurrence explaining how it is not applicable to the definition of evolution, nor how it is applicable to instinct. You then say they are applicable without elaborating on how. That leaves my claim as more likely as I gave my case and you could not or would not refute it. So I moved on with the established evidence of morality and addressed a DIFFERENT point you brought up about how they have morality despite not knowing God. I did not use morality as my new proof I used the explanation in the Bible about God revealing Himself in nature as to the proof of how they knew God. ALSO I would not use morality as the proof because God instills morality in EVERYONE (not just the ones that had the opportunity to learn about God) so even IF God did not reveal himself in nature to them they would still HAVE morality. That is like saying that God give some people souls and others no souls based on if they know of Him. That is the whole reason we got into it regarding whether or not you asked a Biblical question because you refused to accept my Biblical answer (not my answer about morality as proof). So don’t skew the truth in an attempt to make it look as though I am using circular logic. My path is Morality Proves God, God Proves the Bible, The Bible Clarifies God’s Motives, and Actions (including revealing himself in nature).

“On the contrary chip, the age argument is perfect to demonstrate why there is probably no god. Humans havebeen around for thousands of years. Christianity cropped up well after we emerged as a species, and up until and including that point in time, there were many diffeent beliefs in gods.”

I already debunked this line of thinking. The age of a thing is not a valid tool used in official debate because it does not follow logical reasoning. If you were to attempt that line of thinking in an official debate it would automatically be thrown out. So I am throwing it out. Age has not bearing on the validity of a subject.

“You can't possibly state they all had errors, because to claim that means you have studied every single one of them.”

Try me.

“For a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, you'd think he'd make it clear from the start who to worship.”

Kinda defeats the purpose of free will doesn’t it? God could have made robots that followed His every command but instead He made humans.

“You don't like me using the hypothetical arguments, i don't understand why”

You keep making statements that I don’t like this or that. But I never said I didn’t want you using hypothetical arguments. Quote me ever making that statement. In fact the only way we have a discussion about God is to expect you to ask a question that in your eyes has to be hypothetical because you don’t believe He is real.

“You find it ridiculous muhammed flew up to the heavens ona magic horse”

Can you please quote me saying this is what I think?

“I could go on and on like that.”

You can go on and on saying I think or said things I never said? I am sure you can.

“How else do you interpret it?”

Did you not read what I wrote about how I interpret the Creation?

“Or that god flooded the earth and got noah to put two of every animal on a giant ark?”

I believe that the region that had people at the time was flooded. Their world was certainly flooded. And there is archeological evidence of a major flood in the Mediterranean area about the time of Noah. Also there is a boat like formation that matches the specification laid out in the Bible AND it is located in the same mountains as the Bible claims. And yes I am aware that some scientists don’t believe it and are trying to establish evidence against the claim. As well as scientists who do believe it but are striving to confirm it. It is unconfirmed and I understand that but it has yet to be officially confirmed as false. I believe that some events in the Bible can be explained by science on the natural aspects that allowed miraculous events take place. For instance science has attempted to explain how Jesus would have walked on water. It is something to the effect of precise temperatures of the sea and attributes of a river and salt that allowed formations of ice and other material to be walkable. As I mentioned before I believe that Science simply reveals God’s methods. I believe that extremely rare events that can be explained scientifically were put in motion by God. So events like the parting of the sea may yet to be explained by science but I believe that there is some scientific explanation for how something can happen as it did. Maybe the common thought that the sea was parted with great walls of waves on either side are not accurate, instead water receding away from something of a land bridge just below the water allowed them to cross and then the water level rising drowning the enemy. Maybe something to do with combinations of wind earthquakes or something I can’t fathom but if walking on water can be explained then I would not be surprised if others can eventually be explained.

“Your 'evidence' is the bible. That is it.”

Incorrect. But I suppose you will ignore the things I have said before.

“to try to control and maniuplate people”

Right to manipulate them into being good and kind people.

“Again, with regards to preconceived answers, you are just the same as me.”

Incorrect again. I base my faith on the evidence. If the evidence can be definitively refuted then I will change what I believe. I am so adamant for Christianity as I am now because it is what is supported by the evidence. I am adamant about whatever the evidence proves.

“For example, when you ask about the morality question, you have a preconceived answer too.”

No, I accepted the idea that morality is not a product of God. Until I realized that it cannot be logically attributed to instincts, evolution, invented etc. If it can be logically proven to be attributed to something other than God then I would change my thinking. The problem is no one has been able to do so yet.

“I'll reword this, as you obviously misunderstand me.

I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i don't believe in god.

I never said, and in fact have acknowledged many times that i cannot prove that, god doesn't exist. I just find the improbability of his existence extremely high and thus, dont believe in him.”

Again that is not hard evidence it is simply an opinion that there is insufficient evidence.

I would be glad to break down Mormonism in a following post.

AM Now you are the one not reading what I write ...

2009-04-28T19:16:00.000-04:00

AM

Now you are the one not reading what I write

“Prayer has been consistently proven to be sterile in an experimental environment.”

I already addressed that claim with Rab. There are tests on both sides that say prayer is not proven and that prayer is proven in test results. I see them both but it is interesting that you only notice the ones against prayer. Not very objective of you.

“I assume that you have visited the sites: Why Does God Hate Amputees? and God is Imaginary - they are priceless and thought provoking.”

I guess you aren’t paying attention. Yes I have visited the site. I addressed one video so far and intend on breaking apart the rest. None of it is thought provoking to someone who sees the amateurism in the “arguments” they make. It is so easy to debunk their “logic” I don’t even have to try, it is laughable. Even more laughable is that you guys cling to it while ignoring the glaring irrationality of the vids. They don’t make a good case at all and I Have seen atheists make good cases so it is not simply because I disagree with their point.

“If, by speaking in tongues, you mean that someone who does not know a language manages to speak it, I say with 110% certainty that has never been replicated in an experimental setting.”

Actually it is not someone speaking an Earthly language at all, so no, they cannot simply speak any language even if they don’t know it. You are thinking of Xenoglossy. It is a Holy language from God. I have personally heard it spoken multiple times. Studies Have been made about it, because it is not a rare unlikely to replicate act. I know you can do simple google searches and find information regarding studies. So it is interesting that you would say you are 110% sure when it is clear you have not made even simple efforts to backup your claim. Again not the sound of an objective skeptic.

“What do you mean by prophecy? If your God wants to get my attention, have him/her/it leave me a little note under my pillow tonight with the winning 6/49 (Canada's national lottery) numbers for the April 28, 2009 draw. Or better yet, if God has revealed himself/herself/itself to you, you can tell me the numbers.”

Prophesy is not the ability to see any future YOU choose or God as some kind of genie to grant wishes for you. It is about foretelling of future Significant events. A flippant and childish understanding of prophesy (like yours) is not at all an accurate or any where near a close honest representation of it. An intelligent person (even an atheist) would be less immature about their expectations regarding things of that nature. An honest and intelligent skeptic would make a serious search for evidence (or lack there of) of the adult understanding of claims like that. Because any idiot can demand that God tell them about lotto numbers to prove Himself and then irrationally feel they have made a sound conclusion against God when there is no result.

Oh, and also: “I'll say it again chip, i have evi...

2009-04-28T07:07:00.000-04:00

Oh, and also:

“I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i am an atheist.”

I'll reword this, as you obviously misunderstand me.

I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i don't believe in god.

I never said, and in fact have acknowledged many times that i cannot prove that, god doesn't exist. I just find the improbability of his existence extremely high and thus, dont believe in him.

And i'll warn you in advance iun case you ask. My evidences are basically based on the hypothetical existence of him, combined with the lack of evidence that he is there.

Chip, The reason why i don't refer back to everyt...

2009-04-28T06:58:00.000-04:00

Chip,

The reason why i don't refer back to everything you have ever written, and the result being, you think i'm not reading/ignoring it, is because they are quite simply hollow statements. The morality idea is not evidence. All that is is another claim that demands evidence. I tried to counter the morality claim by talking about that tribe. You respond my making ANOTHER claim that demands evidence in itself, that they already know right from wrong as it is already placed within them by god. If you can't prove god exists then you can't use that to prove why they have morals.

On the contrary chip, the age argument is perfect to demonstrate why there is probably no god. Humans havebeen around for thousands of years. Christianity cropped up well after we emerged as a species, and up until and including that point in time, there were many diffeent beliefs in gods. You can't possibly state they all had errors, because to claim that means you have studied every single one of them.

That is besides the point. The point is, they are ALL wrong. For a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, you'd think he'd make it clear from the start who to worship. You don't like me using the hypothetical arguments, i don't understand why. It's no different from saying, if santa is real, why doesn't he deliver presents to everyone at christmas?

There's nothing wrong with having a hypothetical viewpoint in a debate.

You state that christianity has no innaccuracies. Understand that for me, personally, it's not the innacuracies that i target. It is the sheer hocus-pocus factor of everything about it. This, is applicable to all religiong. You find it ridiculous muhammed flew up to the heavens ona magic horse, i do too, but i also find it equally ridiculous that jesus did the same thing, without the horse, after rising from the dead.

I could go on and on like that.

The whole argument about not taking the creation story literally is just a bit off to me. How else do you interpret it? I take it you also don't believe that moses escaped the pharaoh by parting the red sea? Or that god flooded the earth and got noah to put two of every animal on a giant ark?

I'm sorry chip, but just like the miracles of jesus, these things are supposed to have literally happened! 7 day creation included. It's a bit different from intepreting a metaphorical statement. If you genuinely think this, then surely you have to apply it to jesus too. He didn't really feed 2000 people with a few fish and a loaf of bread, it was actually only 20, etc etc. How can you expect us atheists to know what is liteal and what is not when christians as a whole can not make their minds up?

You also accus me of having preconceived answers. You know what? I'll admit to that. Bare in mind i was once christian though, and once upon a time those pre-conceived answers lay on your side of the fence. One day i examined the evidence as i matured in my early teens. Low and behold, i came to the conclusion i'd been foolish to believe such nonsense. Ever since i have thought this, so of course, to a certain degree i have pre conceived answers. The questions i ask you are indeed, designed to make religion seem stupid, or alternatively make the penny drop within your own mind. I make no apologies or reserve no shame for this.

Your 'evidence' is the bible. That is it. A book that i firmly believe is not the message of god, but a book made by our ancestors (a branch of them) to try to control and maniuplate people. So forgive me if you quote it at some point and expect me to buy it, cause i wont.

Again, with regards to preconceived answers, you are just the same as me. For example, when you ask about the morality question, you have a preconceived answer too. It's not exactly a crime. You have your bias, i have mine.

You note that when people grow up, they discard the belief in santa, but not religion. This is my problem chip. They don't believe in santa because they think critically about it, and know there is no evidence for him. Due to the nature of religion however, being well rooted into our society, the same rationale isn't applied to it. This is what i WANT people to start doing.

To finish:

'I am not insulted easily. But you Have made this claim several times. So for your persistence I will give you my opinion that I have withheld. You are not equal to me. We are not the same. Even if I lowered myself to atheism again, you would still not be equal to me. How is it possible to apply fallacies of other religions to a religion that has none? Because the fallacies of those religions are the reason I don’t believe in them and the lack of fallacies in Christ that causes me to believe in Him. I am sure it is easy for a person (like yourself) with preconceived results to apply errors of one thing to another just to fit your preconceived result. That is like a person saying that because they discovered that the sun does not revolve around earth then we should apply that proof to the moon.'

I'll start by politely pointing out that it was with regards to the belief in gods. I'm not saying we are the same, as a person, chip. I quite clearly state that we will be 'equal in this respect'.

'How is it possible to apply fallacies of other religions to a religion that has none? Because the fallacies of those religions are the reason I don’t believe in them and the lack of fallacies in Christ that causes me to believe in Him'

Christianity has no fallacies? Ok. Well, could you point out the fallacies in mormonism for me please? Islam too while you are at it. Show me how your critical thinking leads you to the correct conclusion that they are both wrong. Go for it, i'll respond afterwards.

Chip, I don't have time to respond to all of your ...

2009-04-28T00:16:00.000-04:00

Chip, I don't have time to respond to all of your points. However, I was interested by your comment: "That depends on what constitutes magic. Some people would call the ability to heal, speak in tongues, prophesy as magic."

I agree that the three examples you give would constitute magic. But here are your problems:

1. Prayer has been consistently proven to be sterile in an experimental environment. In other words, prayer cannot heal. Of course, the very notion of prayer healing is nonsensical. I assume that you have visited the sites: Why Does God Hate Amputees? and God is Imaginary - they are priceless and thought provoking.

2. If, by speaking in tongues, you mean that someone who does not know a language manages to speak it, I say with 110% certainty that has never been replicated in an experimental setting.

3. What do you mean by prophecy? If your God wants to get my attention, have him/her/it leave me a little note under my pillow tonight with the winning 6/49 (Canada's national lottery) numbers for the April 28, 2009 draw. Or better yet, if God has revealed himself/herself/itself to you, you can tell me the numbers. I will buy a ticket and, if I win, every nickel will go to Oxfam third world relief, I will shut down this site and your glorious Lord will have performed a very simple prophetic miracle. That shouldn't be too hard for an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being.

Oh and AM Don't play Michael Moore thinking that ...

2009-04-27T22:37:00.000-04:00

Oh and AM

Don't play Michael Moore thinking that you can simply say something and the people will fall in line. Anyone who has any remote intellect will not say "AM said Rab delivered a body blow so it must be so. I don't need to actually read it for myself". And if they had already read it did you really expect them to change their minds simply because you gave a hollow statement of support? Like your name holds that kind of weight, to irrationally sway the minds of all readers? Or were you only targeting the mindless drones that usually unquestionably agree with your posts?

To The Atheist Missionary: “intellectual body blo...

2009-04-27T22:28:00.000-04:00

To The Atheist Missionary:

“intellectual body blow to Chip that just might shake his faith.”

Lol body blow! Whew, I needed that.

Irrationality does not shake evidence supported faith. Have you nothing to say AM? Where is your KO to my supposedly easily shaken faith?

To Rab:

Nooo...

For mormonism it presented an argument about something that WOULD have left physical evidence but in no way did. So yeah technically they didn't actually present physical evidence. HOWEVER the Muslim and Christian examples were of happenings that WOULDN'T have left evidence whether or not it really happened. So it is less credible. Also I reject Islam but in the example I gave I identified with the fact that they screwed up regarding Both my religion And Islam throwing out me being irrational simply because I cling to a certain religion. Otherwise I would have blindly applauded the sorry attempt against Islam.

“Wheres your proof? THERE IS NONE.”

Again I presented the case of Morality yet you continue to “ignore” it (if that is how you want to phrase it). It has not basis in evolution because it does not meet the narrow definition of what is considered attributable to the process.

“I am reading it; it is you who keeps twisting things I say to make me look like a fool and give off the impression that I’m not understanding.”

Whenever I claim you are not reading something it comes when you ask an already answered question while making no reference to my original answer (even to disprove my answer) so it either means you are not reading what I write or you are being rude and ignoring it.

“All i was saying was it is just as silly to believe a supernatural being has implanted morals within you as it is that he created everything.”

The problem is when you are asking a question based on the assumption that God exists (for example “Why would God do such and such”) it is not logical then to refute the answer (regarding God’s motive) by saying It is silly that God exists. If that was going to be your rebuttal, then why ask the hypothetical motive of God in the first place? I assumed that is not what you were doing the first time so I figured the “silly” part you were referring to was actually the act of writing it in our hearts hence my response. Because if you were actually referring to the act of writing on our hearts as the silly part (and not God’s existence). Then you are mocking something similar to how God (or nature in your case) writes regular instincts into us.

“That is all, i didn't take it literally. The creation story however chip, cannot be interpreted any other way.”

Wow that is the pot calling the kettle black. So one ridiculous thing such as writing on our hearts can be understood as metaphorical but NOO the literal seven day Creation can not be interpreted in any other way? Why is that? Oh right you need to keep something on the ridiculous field so the entire Bible then falls like a house of cards. The reason you figured out the writing on our hearts was figurative was because a person’s mind usually has the ability to recognize that something that is being described in a non plausible manner is probably not being literal just like the 7 day Creation. We are supposed to use our abilities to reason, to think abstractly for some answers. Those are some things that make us better than the animals.

“Like I said, there is no other context or way to take the creation story in”

Except the context I described.

“The problem (again) is that you insist that the bible is 100% the word of god (except for how he actually made everything, of course),”

“God can utilize men to put to paper what His intended message is without corruption”

Oh and

“Actually it is God’s Word or message it is work inspired by God and there are insignificant clerical and grammatical contradictions the overall message does not contradict itself (assuming you are taking it in context)”

SO I guess you AREN’T reading every thing I write. So don’t cry about me insulting you when I am making fairly accurate assumptions.

That is my actual statement I made earlier. So nice try on suggesting that I have insisted the Bible is 100% the word of God.

ALSO it IS the word of God and I certainly have not rejected Gods Creation. I simply understand it correctly as opposed to your amateurish understanding.

“This is no different from me insisting that wizards are real, only to refer to harry potter.”

Actually it is different as I do not believe the author of Harry Potter claims her books to be of real events. In fact if I am not mistaken they are categorized under fiction. Huh interesting.

“The question i asked was NOT biblical!”

I already explained how it was. I guess you didn’t read that part.

“am NOT asking anything about the bible.”

So when you are asking about a Christian’s God it has nothing to do with the Bible? Interesting.

“The questions were regarding why a tribe who do not believe in, or who have any concept of god, have morals?

What does that have to do with the bible?”

Hmm I guess when you were asking why they had no concept of my God (the Christian God of the Bible).

“This is different from carbon dating, i cannot understand why you think it is the same argument. Carbon has a half life, from this you can demonstrate, scientifically, that things are approximately x years old.”

In this case you may have ready what I wrote but you severely misunderstand the point (which I reiterated). Maybe you never read my reiteration. It is about Asking a scientific question and expecting a scientific answer. You are hung up on the type of scientific answer example I gave. AGAIN if you ask a Biblical question expect a Biblical answer. Just like I expect a scientific answer to any scientific questions I have.

“YOU are not reading what i am saying. I never said, that because christianity was older than these other religions that it must be wrong.”

Actually my response proved that I DID read it but may have misunderstood. When I claim you have not read something is when you ask an already answered question without ever having indicating in any other way that you read it. Such as Q: What is 2+3?, A: 5, Q: But can you tell me what you get when you add 2 and 3?

“What I was trying to show was that these religions pre date your religion, and you accept them as wrong”

The REASON my response was (and still is) applicable to your question is that AGE has nothing to do with why one should accept this religion or that. I reject the predated religions because they have significant flaws and mistakes showing that they are lies. That is the same way I determine new religions are wrong. So if your point was not age then what WAS the point of even mentioning whether or not they pre date my religion.

“and should be applicable to your own”

Because Christianity does not have the significant flaws the others do. Why would you except any understanding. I could say to you Why don’t you reject that the earth is round because you rejected that the earth was flat?

“NO evidence for mormonism, the religion is most probably false.”

Actually I don’t believe in Mormonism because of the definitive evidence that DOES exist Against it. Unlike Christianity which (even if you believe there is no evidence for it) does not have legitimate evidence against it.

“When you stop insulting me by insisting non-stop that i am not reading what you write, and when you present your evidence for the existence of god (i know there is none, hence why you cop-out by attacking me),”

Nice try, I think I’ll go ahead and cop-out and attack. Again I have presented evidence but you must have not read it… okay, okay you read it but are ignoring it. Which is equally bad. Oh and I presented the evidence BEFORE your decisions to not read/ignore it and then I consequently called you on it, thus that throws your theory that I have no answer and I am compensating by attacking you. I simply have no desire to repeat myself (okay I do repeat the fact that you don’t read what I write) whenever you pretend that I have not given an answer to somehow smoke screen/trick the masses into thinking “Well Rab says he didn’t so I won’t bother reading back to see if it is true, I’ll just take his word for it”.

“I have stated numerous times that i KNOW i cannot prove that god doesn't exist.”

So what is with the line:

“I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i am an atheist.”

What is with all the “hard, logical, rational evidence” talk? Again Probable is not Hard evidence.

“But the onus is not on me to prove he doesn't exist. The onus is on you, who is claiming he does.”

You almost have the right idea. Except that ANYONE making Any claim has the burden to prove it. Even those making the claim that God does not exist. That is also a claim and you have the burden to prove it if you want people to agree with you. If you don’t want people agreeing with you (and changing from this delusional religion) then don’t make the claim or at least don’t act as though you are actually striving to change their mind because if you aren’t making a case then you aren’t really trying to change their mind at all. THAT is a copout to avoid having the responsibility to prove anything, it is your failsafe so that way if you end up being wrong you just have to say “I never had the burden to prove anything, so I was never actually wrong”. If you don’t think you can prove anything then go ahead and quietly sit it out while people who actually think they have proof have the discussion.

“It would be close-minded and arrogant of me to ask you to prove he doesn't”

It would be your choice not to. If I said “I’m not sure I believe your story”. Then I don’t have to prove it but if I said “No, you are wrong No spaghetti monster exists” THEN I am making a claim and if I want you to believe me then I’d better be prepared to prove it.

“I have presented my argument thus far by applying logic and rational to the concept of a god - an entity that you cannot prove exists, yet you claim that of course he does.”

No you have not. You have a preconceived answer in your head you have an expected answer (as shown by your comment). That is not the way logical minds work. They are skeptical and are willing to accept answers supported by proof. You are basically saying “It doesn’t matter what you say I won’t believe it”.

“I have presented my argument thus far by applying logic and rational to the concept of a god - an entity that you cannot prove exists, yet you claim that of course he does. You don't believe in magic chip, do you? If not, why not? Your logic and reasoning for this disbelief are equally applicable to the concept of a god.”

That depends on what constitutes magic. Some people would call the ability to heal, speak in tongues, prophesy as magic.

“This is exactly why children will believe in santa and the tooth fairy until they develop a certain level of critical thinking”

By that logic then everyone who grows up will automatically disbelieve in religion. Otherwise why are there not masses of people who still “suspend critical thinking” regarding such happy figures as Santa Clause? That is because there is actually God behind it. And logic in Christianity.

“Please, try not to accuse me yet again of not reading what you write when you respond to this, i know you read what i write, you just come to your own conclusions. I hope by telling you that you aren’t reading what i write has made you feel how i feel every time when you say this.. I do read what you write, you just twist my responses.”

If you read what I write then don’t pretend that I have never said something by re asking an already answered question. I may come to my own conclusions about what you say but you give no sign of having even made any conclusions about some things I write (twisted or otherwise)

“You can't provide me any evidence why god is any less fallacious than magic, so why should i stop treating god and religion as a whole as equally false?”

Again not the sound of someone who actually seeks the truth “You can’t provide me any ecidence” instead of “So far there is no convincing evidence”. And actually I am not offended if people consider God magic or supernatural because He is.

“I'll say it yet again chip, you are the same as me, i just believe in one less god than you. Not all religions can be right, but they can be (and in my opinion are) all wrong. The minute you understand why you do NOT believe in every other religion ever invented, and then apply it to christianity, then we will be equal in this respect.”

I am not insulted easily. But you Have made this claim several times. So for your persistence I will give you my opinion that I have withheld. You are not equal to me. We are not the same. Even if I lowered myself to atheism again, you would still not be equal to me. How is it possible to apply fallacies of other religions to a religion that has none? Because the fallacies of those religions are the reason I don’t believe in them and the lack of fallacies in Christ that causes me to believe in Him. I am sure it is easy for a person (like yourself) with preconceived results to apply errors of one thing to another just to fit your preconceived result. That is like a person saying that because they discovered that the sun does not revolve around earth then we should apply that proof to the moon.

Rabhimself, you just delivered an intellectual bod...

2009-04-25T18:46:00.000-04:00

Rabhimself, you just delivered an intellectual body blow to Chip that just might shake his faith. He's probably going to run away and hide. As for Mormon Seth .... that's an entirely different story.