Quote:YOUNG EARTH does not mean YOUNG UNIVERSE.

Too be clear I'm not a YEC, because no where in the Bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old.

That does not make the idea any less  silly.

---

And does Beta even bother  to read past the title of the threads he sites . (ironic ) Because the answers are mostly disinterested mockery and heartfelt stories of people who's honest REASON has lead away from theism and are just asking to toss away the final pin of brainwashing . 

Without out doubt the "you just wanna sin argument " is a lazy personnel slander . That has no basis in reality and exists to allow theists a mental defense mechanism.

(March 15, 2018 at 4:52 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: YOUNG EARTH does not mean YOUNG UNIVERSE.

Too be clear I'm not a YEC, because no where in the Bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old.

Okay, I see what you mean. I knew you weren't a YEC btw, so we're on the same page there. But my argument does in fact stand against most if not all YECs.

Genesis 1 Wrote:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
...
9. And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. [the third day]
...
16. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So, according to Genesis, God made the stars on the fourth day, after having made the Earth. I placed emphasis on the phrases that speak to this point. Literalists will say that the stars were created after the Earth. So, to them, young Earth also means young universe.

I wish that non-YECs would speak up to their Christian brothers and sisters when they insist on such illogic.

I mean, I speak up about anti-theism. I understand where anti-theists are coming from, but I also point out that religion serves a purpose in people's personal lives, a purpose that a purely logical assessment of the universe fails to provide. Along the same vein, I'd appreciate it if logical theists would point out that denial of science does nothing to glorify God (who is, presumably the inventor of science/natural laws). Some theists do this, I know. Just saying I wished it happened more often.

You must have reasons for not being a YEC. So obviously you are sitting on some kind of debunk, some reason that you embrace old earth creationism... So what is it?

(March 15, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There is historical evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified.

[citation needed]

Quote:And to me, the rapid spread of early Christianity during a time without good means of transportation or communication further supports the idea that something truly extraordinary was going on.

At this time there was indeed a perfectly efficient means of transportation and communication, it was called the Roman army. After Rome became Christianised where its army went Christianity went, that's how Christianity spread so quickly.

Quote:It helps give credit to the miracles depicted in the Gospels.

Miracles do not; and never have happened. Miracles are magic, magic isn't real.

Quote:And not only is there historical evidence for Jesus' existance,

See above.

Quote:but for others in the NT as well - the deciples,

The disciples you say? Well let me thing about that...... No. Sorry.

Quote:John the Baptist, Punctious Pilot, Paul, etc...

The only mention of JtB outside of scripture is by Josephus but here believers paint themselves into a corner. Josephus' JtB is completely different to gospel JtB they can't both be true now can they? I'll let you decide which is which.
That Pilate was a real historical character was never in dispute but the fact that he was real in no way supports the existence of your god man.
There is no historical evidence for the bible character 'Paul'. Ok, somebody wrote that guff so we may as well call him Paul it matters not. But without knowing who he was we have no idea why he wrote what he did or when it was written, we have no idea who his intended audience was. Besides, Paul's Jebus is completely different to the gospel Jebus. Paul's Jebus is a celestial entity not an earthly one. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:There is historical evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified.

No there isn't and even if there was it does no support christianities mystic elements

Quote: And to me, the rapid spread of early Christianity during a time without good means of transportation or communication further supports the idea that something truly extraordinary was going on.

Accept it did not rapidly spread it was still an obscure cult by the second century . And yes there were good means of transportation developed by the Romans throughout their conquered lands .  

Quote:It helps give credit to the miracles depicted in the Gospels.

No it doesn't . The rapid spread of a cult does not give the cults claims credence 

Quote:And not only is there historical evidence for Jesus' existance,

There is not . nor would it matter if there was . 

Quote:but for others in the NT as well - the deciples,

Scant evidence at best . and again placing historical figures in a fictional does not make the world less fictional 

Quote:John the Baptist, Punctious Pilot, Paul, etc

Scant at best . And even if so it does not alter the facts above 

So over all this is a poor case

Yeah, the spread of Christianity took some time (a few decades at best). It didn't just happen suddenly/rapidly. So all arguments following from that are moot. And even so, rapid spread does not imply rapid growth per region.

And miracles are naturally going to have low credences assigned to them, so a proper and honest use of Bayes' theorem isn't going to be favorable to miracles, unless we actually begin to observe that miracles really do happen, particularly ones that clearly correspond to the supernatural position more than to the naturalist position. And, of course, we need to take into account our susceptibility as human beings to biases (individual and collective).

(March 15, 2018 at 3:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And to me, the rapid spread of early Christianity during a time without good means of transportation or communication further supports the idea that something truly extraordinary was going on. 

To me, the fact that there wasn't such a reliable method of mass communication back then leads me to believe that much of what came to be known as Christian Scripture was corrupted.  After all, even today messages become corrupt with our reliable methods of mass communication.

(March 15, 2018 at 11:18 am)Khemikal Wrote: "You do too care, you do too!"

Lolnope.  

I can accept that you do, that sin weighs on your mind and you live in guilt....that your panties would be hopelessly wrinkled up if you were me in all ways but the status of your belief in pixies and spirit blemishes.  Because you experience it, you imagine that others do as well..and I can understand why you would think that.  My panties, however, are doing just fine..despite whatever yours would be doing in my shoes.

I can't understand what this whole, "you just want to sin" thing is supposed to mean. I suppose it's a total failure to be able to see our side. Or projection. What they really mean is, "I just want to sin". They want to do those things they see atheists do, but they can't. (Most likely they do them anyway but feel really guilty about them.)

It makes as much sense as me saying, "you just want to upset Darth Vader".

(March 15, 2018 at 2:29 am)Joods Wrote:

(March 13, 2018 at 7:55 am)Little Rik Wrote: I guess that religious dogmas are as bad as atheists dogmas.
The two are located at the two extreme yet one extreme think that he is correct while the other is wrong.  

Not worth talk about it.  

Translation :
I have no reasonable argument to refute any of this,  so rather than talking about it,  let's move on.

The world will only be free when all dogmas will be eradicated.
It doesn't really matter where they come from.

You show me a dogma and I will knock it down in no time.
Promise Jo.  

(March 16, 2018 at 2:38 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't understand what this whole, "you just want to sin" thing is supposed to mean. I suppose it's a total failure to be able to see our side. Or projection. What they really mean is, "I just want to sin". They want to do those things they see atheists do, but they can't. (Most likely they do them anyway but feel really guilty about them.)

It always amazes me how you can see something and yet not see it at the same time.

"Most likely they do them anyway but feel really guilty about them."

You see it, but you don't.

People generally don't enjoy feeling guilty.

Guilt can be viewed as cognitive dissonance between an action, and a belief that the action is immoral.

The two most obvious ways to relieve such cognitive dissonance are:
- stop the behavior, or
- remove the belief that the behavior is immoral.

I'm saying the latter - removing the belief in God, and so removing the belief certain behaviors are immoral - is a dynamic present in unbelief.

We can test that idea. Christianity is the main religion in America, and Christianity largely condemns homosexual behavior. If I'm right, we'd expect gays to be more likely to be atheists and less likely to be Christians. If you guys are right that people believe just based on the merits of the evidence, we shouldn't see a difference, as gays and straights have access to the same evidence. Here's a study on that:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...iliations/

Atheist and agnostic make up 17% of gays, but only 7% of straights. Christianity makes up 72% of straights, but only 48% of gays. It's clear that people's desired behavior influences belief.

Plus, you guys should want to agree with me. You too often make a knee-jerk opposition to something I say without thinking it through. If people believe or not based on evidence, than the fact that most people have been theists of some sort shows that there's strong evidence for a creator god. So, you guys should readily agree that there are emotional influences on belief. (If you claim that unbelievers are unemotional in assessing evidence, but believers are emotional, you'll be called out for special pleading.)

(March 16, 2018 at 4:47 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 2:29 am)Joods Wrote: Translation :
I have no reasonable argument to refute any of this,  so rather than talking about it,  let's move on.

The world will only be free when all dogmas will be eradicated.
It doesn't really matter where they come from.

You show me a dogma and I will knock it down in no time.
Promise Jo.  

No you won't. Jor will come along and put you in your place. Besides, I have no interest in having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.