The Anti-theist Thread

[Andúril]

and the earth is not yet 30 years old.

Don't you think that's a bit too young for your young earth theory?

Sometimes, it worries me if I don't hear things like this from theists...

[Andúril]

AAARRRGGGGHH!!! I can't get this damn song out of mine head!!

*Knocks head against brick wall. Continuously.*

See what theism does to you? I will regret, for eternity, those mornings at Sunday school...

At least when I went to church I didn't have to sing this song: *Points down at sig*

[Cirdan]

JD nice devil

Afro-elf very brave... just make sure you keep your hands

Anduril:

How do you reject something that you have no belief in? You have to acknowledge the existence of God before you can reject/accept him. Therefore, atheists are not evil.

This is why greece was popular with the bible writers (the paul who wrote the gospel was not paul the apostle). The sophistry of there arguement says that everyone is evil but only those that have been saved can be judged good (by god, of course). Nice bit o' trickery, that. If an individual acted in parallel with every "good" act of someone like, say mother theresa, but was not saved, they still go to hell (see sig ).

This simplifies the complex concept of good and evil. For example, we can all agree that killing is wrong; yet can we say that all the soldiers that fought, killed, and died to defeat the nazi regime (easy to agree on example of manifest evil) are buring in hell? The christian answer is, "not the saved". The atheist answer; if they are dead they are dead and they did what they had to do (and many thanks, by the way).

The next attack will be that I am arguing for moral relativism. And that is exactly how we all live our lives. My uncle killed many enemy soldiers, but would never kill any one outside of war. He has nightmares about it to this day. Again, this is we they use salvation. Killing IS evil (ten commandments, etc) so he must be saved. Sorry, but the man is already a saint.

Emplynx.... You are confused about radiometric dating because you are reading creationist anti-science literature as a source of information. Please, at least attempt to learn the science before you try to de-bunk it. Paintings Where did you get this stuff?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Anduril
AAARRRGGGGHH!!! I can't get this damn song out of mine head!!

*Knocks head against brick wall. Continuously.*

See what theism does to you? I will regret, for eternity, those mornings at Sunday school...

At least when I went to church I didn't have to sing this song: *Points down at sig*

How 'bout:

Onward christians soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of jesus, bwah bwah, bwaahhhh, bwahbwaaaahhh.

*copies head realignment procedure of anduril*

Hey, you don't have to regret for eternity, just until your dead.

[Andúril]

Michael row the boat ashore - Halleluiah!
Michael row the boat ashore - Halleluiah!

Michael got thrown upon the shore - Halleluiah!
Michael hit his head on the jagged rock -Halleluiah!
Michael's concsiousness ended - Halleluiah!
Michael thought he'd go to heaven - Halleluiah!
Michael's corpse rotted instead.

Um......ah well.

[afro-elf]

Afro-elf very brave... just make sure you keep your hands

I don't know if its brave per se but its a form of quiet defience

[Lelondul]

Man - some great debates here! I'll do my best, though it fall short of the brighter intellects here (Wayfarer, I thought you were undecided on creationism vs. evolutionism?)

First - regardless of your beliefs, there can be no doubt that the Bible's historical accuracy is unrivalled of the ancient texts. When subjected to the same tests that other ancient texts are, the classic theological works (Socrates, Plato, etc.), are laughable in their potential for innacuracy when compared to the Bible (in all its translations).

Given the Bible's accuracy (proven by believers and non-believers alike), I personally find it pretty amazing how non-believers/athiests/etc. simply close their ears to the miracles Christ performed during his life. Miracles which, were witnessed by his friends and devout foes alike (who never made any claims to the contrary, mind you). You can hide behind your 'unproveable theories' of creation all you want, but it just so happens the most accurate historical refernce in the history of the world spells it out pretty clearly. You claim that God never makes himself known in a physically proveable way - yet you refuse any creedance to his own words. He was physically present and walked with men, and did Godly things, it just so happend it wasn't in the present (though his holy influence is far from missing in the present). You're right - we are at a disadvantage not having this concrete, visuall proof, but a little reading is all it takes.

It does take faith too - but a good deal less than to believe the earth is x-million years old because we've 'proven' it.

Also, is there no room to suspect that the earth functioned on a different timline during it's creation? The only reason dates have any importance to us today is because humankind has adopted the Gregorian calendar in the last couple thousand years. The only reason a day equals twenty four hours is because that's how we choose to define it. Who's to say a Day wasn't akin to a year in ancient times? It's these principles of time that all scientific theories are based on.

Now, I don't claim to know how old the earth is, but suffice it to say it is very old, and that while interesting to explore and experiment on, we are only ever revealed an compounding complexity to the fabric of the universe. We know enough now to know we don't know anything, and it seems much more of stretch to believe that it all happened by pure chance of evelutionary magic than to discerdit the possibilty of a divine creator...

[Andúril]

God is Benovelent in his judgement. He has made it quite clear that no human can pass on thier own merit, and he has made it equally clear that anybody can pass if they ask ahead of time.

We can see this more clearly not by looking at it in relation to crime but to debt (btb, did you just use a metaphor? For shame! ) If bill gates decided to pay all your bills for the rest of your life, he could. But he's not going to pay them if you tell him you don't want him to. God is like that. He'll let you off the hook, and be overjoyed to do so, but only if you ask ahead of time. If you wish to be judged (or if you have convinced yourself that you will never be judged) then you will be.

Firstly, a judgement can only be benevolent if according to the law, the judgement is lenient. If a particular aspect of the law appears lenient, that does not make the carrying out of the judgement lenient as well. In this case, the judgement is neutral, or lawful. For a judgement to be benevolent, it would have to be carried out in a more lenient manner than is required by law. Clearly, this is not the case, seeing as God is carrying out the exact punishment/reward that is deserved by the person. If God was trully omnibenevolent, he would act in a lenient manner toward all people. This would require that those who adhere to his requirements, actually receive a better reward than they deserve, and those who do not would receive less punishment than they deserve. Likewise, a perfectly just god would issue rewards that are neither greater, nor less than deserved, and would issue punishment that is neither harsher, nor more lenient than deserved.

Hence a god can be either just or benevolent (or, all-just or omnibenevolent), but not both. You cannot issue punishment that is both lenient and neutral, or issue a reward that is neutral and better, at the same time. I could posit a formal argument regarding All-justness vs Omnibenevolence, but I don't think it is necessary (on the other hand, if you wish to see and refute it, I will submit it upon request...).

I find it strange that you would need to divert my attention to a different type of case (debt). Surely a benevolent judgement can be performed in any case? But lets look your analogy. Firstly, what is the situation if I don't have a belief in the existence of Bill Gates? What if I believe that the existence of Bill Gates can be shown as logically impossible? Okay, that's way besides the point. Another issue would be, why pay debts? Is paying debts good or bad? Also, why would God be overjoyed upon someones submittance? Surely, if God (in all of his "outside-of-time-ness") knew that person (a) would "ask" to be "purged" of "debt", he would not show a marked change in emotion? If (a) was an atheist for the majority of his life, and then became a "true" christian, would God become suddenly overjoyed? No, that's inconsisent with his nature, surely? God would be in a state of constant joy, regarding (a), even before he created (a).

When you say "ahead of time", what do you mean? Ahead of what point in time - death? How are we supposed to know exactly when we are going to die? So, instead of saying ahead of time, shouldn't it be ASAP? Give yourself to Jesus ASAP, 'cause you could go anytime! I won't pursue this anymore.

You suggest that some "convince" themselves that they will never be judged. I could easily say that others convince themselves that they will be judged, but I won't.

Here's an interesting thought: Is a being truly omnibenevolent if in any event (x) a more benevolent action is possible? For example, the reward that God chooses for someone could be a recovery from an illness in five days. But could that person recover from an illness in less than five days? Yes. Then there is a more benevolent action than the one that God chose. God, therefore, did not act in the most benevolent manner possible. But, before persuing this any further, I'd rather listen to the Christian's definition of omnibenevolence. I will, however, add the following: Is God perfect? Yes. Is God benevolent? Yes. So, is God perfectly benevolent? He must be...

It is not a matter of god doing a, b, and c in order. He does them all at once, but we see them in that order.

Do you have any biblical evidence to support this claim? You are assuming that God does not exist in his own time-dimension....again. How do you know how an entity will act if it is outside of our time? More specifically, what makes you think that if an entity is outside of our time-dimension, it would be able to do all things at once (relative to itself)? And relative to us, for that matter? You are assuming that an entity, which is outside of our time, becomes a constant, or static, relative to both us, and itself. Why would an entity that is outside of our time, not operate in it's own time, if it has the ability to operate?

I.E. God did not 'create light on day one' he created 'light on day one'. A small distinction, to be sure, but an important one. God is not at point XYZT when he is pleased with event N, he is simply pleased that event N is happening at point XYZT.

There is an issue of relativity here. You say that God created light on day one. Is that relative to us or him? Us, obviously. Seeing as you have no experience or observation of an atemporal personal action, you have no grounds to make the assumption that God's actions are atemporal relative to himself, as well as us.

Since evil is against god's will, then for god to have created a universe in which no creature could perform evil actions would be to force every creature in accordance to god's will. Since God wishes that we would all choose to do his will, he cannot force us, and thus he allows evil to exist.

Now what about those natural disasters? Those are not the result of free will, are they? Of course not. Then whose will is it? It must be God's, surely. Once again, the causation of natural disasters is a non-benevolent act. Thus God is non-benevolent.

Or, looked at in a diferent way, God did in fact cause natural disasters, and it is not against his will, because we, as humans, have a differing moral code to God. We think that unnecessary deaths are bad; God thinks they are good (or at least the ones caused by himself, and not the "free" actions of other humans). That sounds like an entity worthy of worship, doesn't it?

It seems that God values the unhindered exercise of free will over all of his other desires. Between the two, which one does he want more, free will or worship? Free will. This brings me to another point: can God make somebody worship him? Can God make somebody do his will? No, because then there is no free-will involved. Therefore, God cannot do something, which is logically possible in its own right, so he is non-omnipotent. And don't go into the It's not in his nature thing - it's not possible for an entity with the Christian God's nature to exist in the first place.

Besides this, how can a perfect being have desires? Even if a perfect being can have desires, it must only have perfect desires. Can there be more than one perfect desire? Well, assuming God has only perfect desires, there must be more than one perfect desire, because it is claimed that God has more than one desire. So, lets look at the desire for free-will (1), and the desire for humans choosing his will (2). Being perfect, God must desire all things perfectly - he cannot desire one thing more than another. However, in this case God desires (1) more than (2). Therefore, God does not desire (2) perfectly, which makes (2) an imperfect desire. This means that God has a combination of perfect and imperfect desires (if not merely one perfect desire). If God
does not have only perfect desires, then he is not perfect. It is the nature of the christian God to be perfect, therefore the christian God does not exist.

Actually, adam, eve, and satan were perfect up to the point where they chose to defy god's will. Then they stopped being perfect.

If they were indeed perfect, they would have been perfectly loyal. They were not perfectly loyal, because they defied God's will. Therefore, they were not perfect.

This implies that either God could not create perfect things, or God chose to create imperfect things.

Another thing, how can there be two perfect things that are definably different? God is perfect, and Adam and Eve were pefect, as you claim. Surely you would think that God is more perfect than these two humans? How can one thing be more pefect than another? This implies that the thing that is more perfect, is merely perfect, and the other thing is imperfect. You should say that God is a perfect god, the devil is the perfect angel, Adam was the perfect man, etc.

But I must try and explain this... Satan did not become the Devil he is now because god created him to be a filthy creature, but because he was in the beginning the most powerful created thing. And the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Angels are better or worse than men, and adults are better or worse than children. The greater the stature, the more potential to do either good or evil.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall? Self-refuting, because you claim God is the biggest. Why hasn't he fallen the hardest?

[Andúril]

The more potential to do good or evil? Surely a perfect being is inclined to behave perfectly? If we look at Satan's level of loyalty to God on a scale, we see that he does not have absolute loyalty. A perfect being that is not perfectly loyal? Can't be perfect, can it? Or, if we introduce the issue of perfect in type, we can say that if Satan is perfect in type, then he must be the perfect angel. Still, this shows that disloyalty was a trait of his perfection. And it follows that God intended that a perfect angel would be pefectly disloyal. And then we can conclude that God intended the results of Satan's actions. Ironically, it would seem that he intended that human's decisions be influenced by Satan existence. Strange that God would create a perfect angel, which becomes the most evil being possible, then creates the perfect humans, which disobey him. Doesn't look like God is very good at creating perfection, does it?

Also, how is it possible that a perfect object can "lose" it's perfection?

What i am trying to say, is that evil is not beyond god's power, but he has not performed evil acts.

I'll agree with you that god could not be omnibenevolent and perform evil acts, because omnibenevolent is the state of having not done any evil acts. Since he could have done B but did A, he is omnibenevolent.

In that case, an entity should only be described as having performed benevolent actions - we only know of its past actions. We have no accurate knowledge of the future, therefore extrapolating mannerisms is prone to failure. Hence, if we were to guess the nature of God's future actions, on a scale of benevolence, if we said that all God's future actions would be benevolent, what possibility is there for non-benevolent actions to be performed by God? Zero. So from this, we can say that God won't perform evil acts, but we cannot say that God cannot perform evil acts. This is where I agree with you.

However, look at the two attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence in this way: With omnipotence, there exists the possibility to perform any logical action. With omnibenevolence, there exists zero possibility to perform evil actions. If there is zero possibility of a being performing action (a) will or can that being perform action (a)? No. As you said earlier about God creating the possibility of evil, or indeed the potential for evil to occur, if God had not done so, would or could humans perform evil acts? No. These are the answers you will get if you define God with an unchanging attribute of omnibenevolence; with zero possibility or potential to perform evil acts, can God perform evil acts? No.

So, God, being omnibenevolent, can not perform evil acts. Or, we could say that the possibility of God performing evil acts is non-existent. But if he is omnipotent, he can. Then again, if he is perfectly good, he can't. Ahh well...

Just because I Can fail does not mean that I have Failed or even that I will fail.

But if it is your nature to only pass? Can you fail then? No. I think that you are confusing prior mannerism of God with essential nature of God.

Also, you have chosen to use the nature of God's omnipotence in your arguments about his omnibenevolence, and not his omnipotent behavior. You can't chop and change. You have been saying that God can do this, and can do that (which refers to God's nature); but when referring to his omnibenevolence, you say that God will do this, and will do that (which refers to his behaviour). Behavior is changeable. Nature is not. You claim that God is unchangeable, and that necessarily means that all of God's behavior that has been observed will never change, and is synonomous with his nature. But you can get around all this by just saying Omnibenevolence is God's nature (which is seems you are trying to avoid). You can only speak of prior actions and behavior, unless you are make it clear that these attributes are part of God's nature. If omnibenevolence is in the nature of God, then there exist zero possibility of performing evil actions. Hence evil actions cannot be performed by God.

Oh, remember Isiah 45.7? I said I would find the relevant verse, and here it is:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Firstly, the creation of evil is an evil act in itself. Some say the existence of evil is necessary - if it is, that just changes to form of the act to a neccesary evil act (which is also a necessarily evil act). Therefore, in order to provide humans with the potential to perform evil acts, God must perform a necessary evil act. Even though the act may be necessary, it does not change the essential nature of the act, which is evil. So, God performs an evil act - this is against God's nature.

Secondly, the implications of the peace-making aspect is disastrous. The state of a nation, whether at peace, or at war, or whatever state inbetween, is a result of the collective free will of the nation. Since free will is the most seemingly important thing to God (although it has been shown in the bible that he can and will override this allowance, in order to fulfill his wants/needs), how can he create peace? To create peace would necessitate certain decisions made with free will, to be those exactly needed for peace as the end-result - God stipulates the decisions, hence no choice is made.

[emplynx]

I got this out of a book I have been reading.
The man who developted Radiocarbon Dating (leary, I believe) also devloped the rated at which Carbon-14 is forms and breaks down. Scientists used these rates along with the amount of Carbon-14 in the present atmosphere to backtrack to where there was no Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (I.E. at the formation of the earth.) Using these stats from the guy who came up with radiocarbon dating these scientists found that there was no carbon-14 30,000 years ago. So the earth is 30000 years old.

[BeardofPants]

Riiiiiiiight.... and about here I will insert my charming personality and say, "Bollocks!"

I have explained this before, I am not going to explain it again.... okay, yes I am.

Carbon dating can be used on material which was living in the last few tens of thousands of years, and which got its carbon from the air. The method has become more accurate in the last few decades.

Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It is produced in the upper atmosphere by radiation from the sun.

Land plants, such as trees, get their carbon from carbon dioxide in the air. So, some fraction of their carbon is C14. The same is true of any creature that gets its carbon by eating such plants. We can measure this in living things today.

The C14 will undergo radioactive decay, and after 5730 years, half of it will be gone. Eventually, all of it will be gone. So, if we find such a body, the amount of C14 in it will tell us how long ago it was alive.

Carbon dating doesn't work on things which didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures, since their carbon might (for example) come from dissolved carbonate rock.

We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.

We can't date oil paints, because their oil is "old" carbon from petroleum.

We can't date fossils, for three reasons. First, they are almost always too old. Second, they rarely contain any of the original carbon. And third, it is common to soak new-found fossils in a preservative, such as shellac. It is also standard to coat fossils during their extraction and transport.

We also can't date things that are too young. The nuclear tests of the 1950's created a lot of C14. Also, humans are now burning large amounts of "fossil fuel". As the name suggests, fossil fuel is old, and no longer contains C14. Both of these man-made changes are a nuisance to carbon dating.

If you hear of a living tree being dated as a thousand years old, that is not necessarily an example of an incorrect dating. Trees only grow on the outside. Wood taken from the innermost ring really is as old as the tree.

Carbon dating has been calibrated against the rings of California bristlecone pines, and Irish bog oaks, and the like. When this was first done, it turned out that carbon dating had been giving too-young dates for early civilizations. Apparently, the production of C14 by the Sun has changed by several percent across the last 10,000 years. We know (from other measurements) that the Sun hasn't fluctuated by more than 10 percent in the last million years.

Since then, several other calibrations have been done, which confirm and extend the tree-ring one. Some were done by finding lakes with atmospherically derived carbon in their annual layers of silt (called varves). In those particular lakes, the varves can be counted, and the varves can also be carbon dated.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by emplynx
I got this out of a book I have been reading.
The man who developted Radiocarbon Dating (leary, I believe) also devloped the rated at which Carbon-14 is forms and breaks down. Scientists used these rates along with the amount of Carbon-14 in the present atmosphere to backtrack to where there was no Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (I.E. at the formation of the earth.) Using these stats from the guy who came up with radiocarbon dating these scientists found that there was no carbon-14 30,000 years ago. So the earth is 30000 years old.

Carbon 14 has never been used to determine the age of the earth. The geologic record shows a much greater age of the earth than 30,0000 years. I'm sure the book that you are using as reference is anti-science theologic bit of propaganda. ...just a guess.

One more time:

Superposition: Rock formations show that one event occurred prior to another. (e.g. Layer of sand;layer of carbonate (coral, etc);layer of silt;sediments lithified into rock (sandstone;limestone;siltstone); layers deformed by orogeny (mountain building episode... think of waves, the layers bending up and down); episode of erosion (cut the tops of the waves);volcanic activity cuts through the deformed layers and pours lava over disconformity (eroded surface)

I have seen places where the evidence for this activity is in plain site. In some cases you can find evidence of seven orogenic events. Because time is related to the temperature and pressure at which rocks melt, it is not reasonable to project such an extreme change in the rate of events to change the age of the earth from 4.5 billion years to 30,000 years. The whole surface of the earth would melt and be very difficult to live on.

Geomagnetic reversals: The ocean floors are made of a rock, derived from the molten mantle, called basalt. Basalt contains iron which inherents the magnetic orientation of the poles at the time the molten rock hardens. In the oceans of the world there are great ridges the run the lengh of the ocean. At the center of the ridges there are "spreading zones" where new lava moves up from within the earth, pushing aside the subterranean montains. This new sea floor then continues to move out from the ridge at 1 - 2 inches a year. A much higher rate would require higher temperatures and the whole melting problem occurs again. In addition, the bands of alternating magnetism of the rocks indicate that magnetic reversals have occurred throughout the earth's history. The oceans themselves are millions of years old just based on facts easily visible. Not since the discovery of magnetism has a reversal occurred. (don't fly on the day that it does ).

The rocks on top of Mount Everest, five miles above the surface of the earth, were once on the bottom of an ocean that no longer exists. There are fossils up there. The Himalyan mountains didn't just pop out of the ground one day. They are also still rising at 1-2 inches per year (measurable with laser precision).

The chalk formations of Dover in England are made up entirely of the skeletons of microscopic creatures that died in a part of and acient ocean which was so far from any land that there is no sediment deposited with them.

10- 100 million years per ocean, hundreds of different oceans represented in the geologic record. Do the math. No radioactive dating required, although the Uranium-Lead series of radiometric dating agrees very nicely with the dates estimated using the geologic record.

Thank you. come again.

[emplynx]

I don't seem to read anything that disproves the buildup and decay of Carbon-14 leading back 30000 years? How do you argue with that?

Cirdan - The book I am reading is by Richard Milton who is not a Christian and who does not seem to support any religion (as far as I can tell). The book is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. You should read it.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx
I don't seem to read anything that disproves the buildup and decay of Carbon-14 leading back 30000 years? How do you argue with that?.

We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.

Because, that's why. We use other dating methods to go further back in time. Carbon dating is only good for AD 1950 - 50/60, 000 BP.

As I have mentioned before.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Because, that's why. We use other dating methods to go further back in time. Carbon dating is only good for AD 1950 - 50/60, 000 BP.

As I have mentioned before.

I am not talking about the amout of carbon-14 in any thing other than the atmosphere. The creator of radiocarbon dating himself said that carbon-14 has a constant formation and dissipation. So using his figures alone (along with the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere), the age of the earth can be counted back to it's creation!

I will show you how the math works if you want? (I am a math man, not a earth science man.)

[BeardofPants]

Knock yourself out, please? No, seriously, some justification of your arguments would be good, yes.

[Cirdan]

Carbon, in any form, is never depleted from the atmospere. Does anyone (besides BoP you smarty pants) know why? Five minutes.

[BeardofPants]

Ooh! Ooh! I know why! Pick me! Pick me!

(Yes, I was an obnoxious kid...)

[emplynx]

I don't know why, but you calling BoP makes me want to mention something I have been thinking of.

I have noticed excellent proof for the existance of a creator right here at Entmoot. You know what it is? I will give you ten seconds to figure it out.
(Keep reading)

































Here is my proof for the existance of a creator:
Cirdan
BeardofPants
Anduril
All three of you are BRILLIANT! I think that you should give yourselves more credit than being the decendants of a single-cell, mutant, ocean blob! You should see yourselves that someone as intelligent as you isn't the result of strange mutations but the result of a divine creator who wanted to create something reallllllly cool in his own image!

(this isn't a joke!)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Ooh! Ooh! I know why! Pick me! Pick me!

(Yes, I was an obnoxious kid...)

Yes, but a bright ray of sunshine in an otherwise dim world!

VOLCANOES!!!