Discussion: Does Yahweh really love us?

[2dimes]

Hey natty let's change it up and presume you are correct, that will still cease when you die. Then no one is right or wrong. Did you win?

[2dimes]

Ok, if you make your position so vague that you can always claim people are misrepresenting you... seems really convenient for you, that's all...

I don't know if I'd go as far as "always claim people are misrempresenting" me. Convenient? I like convenient. I am a lazy North American that loves some flame broiled whoppers with coke.

Whether you accept it or not... The argument for a 6000 year old earth is so wrong, there's not even enough words in existence to describe the wrongness. It's not a matter of debate, there's no controversy there, it's simply untrue.

If it's only a billion years old you're even more wrong, 3.5 or 6, billion versus 4 399 994 000.

Plus you definately lack the entertainment value of some young earthers. Especially ones that go as far as setting up a physical museum. Your smug bitterness will cause you to miss out on so many oportunities to check them out.

My stepfather inlaw was a Havard educated research scientist that taught at Columbia for a while, like a decade or so. I've had a chance to hang out with some pretty solid scientists. I've been exposed to them telling each other they're right and the other guy is all wet. It's not much different from this discussion. Maybe you're just easier to overwhelm. The honest ones were still looking for much more conclusive evidence to support their theories on the actual age of the earth.

Apples and oranges. Sure there might be some debate about the exact details, like if a certain piece of evidence proves the earth to be 4,4 billion or 4,5 billion years old. But just because we can't tell the exact age with a 1 year accuracy, it doesn't mean you can just claim that a 6000 (or 10000, or one million, or any such figure) year old earth is equally possible.

Actually the spread is much bigger even though your's is 99 999 999 more than a year. That's a pretty big number, if you had that many cents it would be pretty good money. Further I am claiming that respected scientists in the same field are debating it.

You should go tell them about the "overwhelming evidence" that it's "rilly" close to 4 billion. I think straightening them out would be the right thing to do. Quick phone harvard and book a lecture hall.

[natty dread]

Well, Allah is the what the Muslims call God. Muslims, Jews, and Christians are just believers in the same religion but are just huge denominations. I like to say you're my brother in Christ, but yes, you're my brother in Allah as well.

No, I'm actually not. But go ahead and believe so, if you insist. It seems like believing things just because it feels good to believe them is your schtick anyway.

Hey natty let's change it up and presume you are correct, that will still cease when you die. Then no one is right or wrong. Did you win?

It's not a contest to me, I don't care about winning or losing.

And here's a question for you... a purely hypothetical question: Can you see the inherent fallacy of someone who says "hey, what we say in this debate doesn't really matter, so why not just admit I am right because it won't make any difference to you"?

I don't know if I'd go as far as "always claim people are misrempresenting" me. Convenient? I like convenient. I am a lazy North American that loves some flame broiled whoppers with coke.

Gotcha. Are you also lazy intellectually?

If it's only a billion years old you're even more wrong, 3.5 or 6, billion versus 4 399 994 000.

No, that's a fallacious statement. If, for argument's sake, the earth would turn out to be only a billion years old, then the idea of a 6000 year old earth would still be more wrong than a 4,5 billion year old earth. You know why? Because the 4.5 billion was a reasonable theory, based on observable evidence, while the 6000 year idea was based on nothing but mythology.

At least 4,5 billion and 1 billion are on the same order of magnitude.

But that's neither here nor there, since we have evidence of the earth being more than 4 billion years old:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 175A0.html

Plus you definately lack the entertainment value of some young earthers. Especially ones that go as far as setting up a physical museum. Your smug bitterness will cause you to miss out on so many oportunities to check them out.

I can live with that.

Also, I'm not really bitter about anything, but I can see how you would like to believe that I am... You are free to believe that I'm a bitter, miserable person because I lack your faith, if it makes you sleep better at night.

Actually the spread is much bigger even though your's is 99 999 999 more than a year. That's a pretty big number, if you had that many cents it would be pretty good money. Further I am claiming that respected scientists in the same field are debating it.

Who are these respected scientists? Can you show me some of their work? I'm very interested.

[shieldgenerator7]

Ok, now that we've straightened up the matter of you and I being brothers in Christ, let's talk some more. Were you always an aetheist/ agnostic? Or did you start out a believer and then turn away from religion?

[natty dread]

Ok, now that we've straightened up the matter of you and I being brothers in Christ, let's talk some more. Were you always an aetheist/ agnostic? Or did you start out a believer and then turn away from religion?

Do you believe the Earth to be 6000 years old?

What is your position on evolution?

Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

[shieldgenerator7]

are you uncomfortable answering the questions I asked you?

[natty dread]

are you uncomfortable answering the questions I asked you?

I just offered to answer them, so what do you think?

[john9blue]

I know you are, but what am I?

[shieldgenerator7]

well, you imply you are not afraid to answer the questions, but you don't answer them

[safariguy5]

Ok, now that we've straightened up the matter of you and I being brothers in Christ, let's talk some more. Were you always an aetheist/ agnostic? Or did you start out a believer and then turn away from religion?

I started out atheistic, started going to church with my parents and brother about 2 years ago, still think it's nothing special, and still believe in free will and self determination. As I said, whether or not God exists is a moot point because I believe he has no effect on my life.

Ok, now that we've straightened up the matter of you and I being brothers in Christ, let's talk some more. Were you always an aetheist/ agnostic? Or did you start out a believer and then turn away from religion?

Do you believe the Earth to be 6000 years old?

What is your position on evolution?

Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

No, the Earth is about 14 billion years old.

Evolution is the best theory for skeptics and backed up by the fossil record, genomics, and hard science to the point that I believe it to be valid.

[BigBallinStalin]

Lionz 2.0?

[shieldgenerator7]

so, safari, you've been an aetheist all your life despite having gone to church?

[safariguy5]

so, safari, you've been an aetheist all your life despite having gone to church?

Yep, based on personal experiences and beliefs. You don't need God to tell you to be a good person to actually be a good person. After all, religion is a form of control for the less educated to keep them from causing trouble. Comforting to some people, unnecessary for others.

[shieldgenerator7]

I see. cool. I disagree with that definition of religion but as long as you're alright with it. To me, religion is the glue that holds our minds together to keep us from becoming insane (not that I'm implying I'm on the verge of going crazy). you get the jist. Interesting to hear your perspective

[BigBallinStalin]

I see. cool. I disagree with that definition of religion but as long as you're alright with it. To me, religion is the glue that holds our minds together to keep me from becoming insane (not that I'm implying I'm on the verge of going crazy). you get the jist. Interesting to hear your perspective

Fixed.

[natty dread]

well, you imply you are not afraid to answer the questions, but you don't answer them

I have stated the conditions of answering the questions. It is up to you to fulfill those conditions.

I will not take part in a one-sided discussion.

[shieldgenerator7]

Ok, natty, if you wish to not answer the questions, I will respect your decision.
Although I don't understand how it is a one-sided discussion if we are both talking to each other (or writing to each other since this is the internet)

[natty dread]

An one-sided discussion is one where you ask the other party to contribute to the discussion without contributing anything yourself.

You've refused to answer my questions, yet you want to ask your own questions from me. That is one-sided. I see no reason to engage in such a discussion.

To me, religion is the glue that holds our minds together to keep us from becoming insane

I see. Why aren't all non-religious people insane, then?

[shieldgenerator7]

I see. Why aren't all non-religious people insane, then?

define "non-religious"
And, I have been contributing to this discussion, otherwise you wouldn't have found anything to quote me on.

[natty dread]

"Non-religious": someone who is not religious, ie. does not have a religion.

[shieldgenerator7]

"Non-religious": someone who is not religious, ie. does not have a religion.

ok. Are you "non-religious" as an agnostic/aetheist or does that make you religious?

[natty dread]

"Non-religious": someone who is not religious, ie. does not have a religion.

ok. Are you "non-religious" as an agnostic/aetheist or does that make you religious?

Is "bald" a hair colour?

[shieldgenerator7]

ok, then. So I guess that means you're non-religious. To petrify my definition of religion, if religion doesn't "keep you from going insane" then what does?

[natty dread]

ok, then. So I guess that means you're non-religious. To petrify my definition of religion, if religion doesn't "keep you from going insane" then what does?

Who says something needs to "keep" us from going insane? Why do you assume "insane" to be the default state of our being, that we will revert to immediately unless we have some kind of safeguard preventing it?

I posit that it's the other way around: We are sane, unless something happens to make us insane.

Do you often fear for your own sanity?

[shieldgenerator7]

you know what, you're right. "insane" may not be the right word. When I used this word in my definition, "sane" meant the having and keeping of your morals.