I forgot that the smithsonian is in no way a biased source. /sarcasm. You can listen to Ken Ham from the too-biased-to-be-used answersingenesis.com http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4136.asp. He has debated against Richard Dawkins and you can find that video on youtube, where you can watch more of his debates. There really is no point in arguing with someone that disregards all opposing arguments. Like Nate said, most of your arguments can be summed up as "The Almighty Smithsonian Institute says my argument is right, therefore anything contradicting this is invalid." or "While Smithsonian is a completely unbiased source that only supports evolution, any proof you have came from a biased source." With this type of logic, all facts should be disregarded, because everyone is biased. The quote from Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy really brought nothing of use to this debate. Every article and experiment that Smithsonian does is with full intent of providing evidence to support evolution. This would make Smithsonian biased based off the definition of the word biased from Webster's Dictionary.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

First off, your debate link sends me to BibleGateway.com. Coming from a site who's mission is to "To support the church in fulfilling its commission", that's not at all supportive of an unbiased viewpoint.

I can say for a certainty that this debate isn't going to get anywhere if neither side cites sources. I'm not an expert on evolution, and you're not a Biblical scholar (so far as I know). Fringe sources can, and will, say basically anything, and, without their reputation on the line, get away with it, in the same manner that fringe political parties can make radical statements and not suffer the backlash that a major politician would from a similar statement. A source such as the Smithsonian is a household name, and has a very high reputation to uphold. Stanford University is a prestigious college. These sources hold much more power than some random website. Similar sources on your side would be prestigious Biblical organizations, while the Pope and other major clergy members would hold as much sway on Biblical topics as scientific experts hold in their own fields.

Now, shifting over to an argument that you can actually field your own experts on: if God is so good, upstanding, and morally right, why does he advocate genocide on an all-too-frequent basis? Just two tidbits:


(Quotes taken from the New International Version of the Holy Bible, published by the International Bible society, and retrieved from ReligiousTolerance.org at http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_cana.htm)
I've seen plenty of quotes like this from multitudes of sources. One of God's most famous acts is to kill every Egyptian firstborn son, and another is to drown the entire world save a small population of organisms on a single ark. He punished Lucifer for daring to think for himself, and denied humans knowledge; when they gained it anyway, he exiled them from paradise. He banishes all nonbelievers to suffer for all eternity. How can you say these are the acts of a benevolent God? If a human performed even a small fraction of these, he would be branded a dictator on par with Hitler.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

Fun fact, God kills well over 2 million people in the Bible, while Satan only kills 10. Which he kills while on a bet with God, so they technically share those 10.

But really, this is one of those tiring questions very akin to "Can God make a burrito SO HOT that he can't eat it?!" It's a textbook case of people pulling random verses out without full understanding of the Bible.

The general idea is that those people didn't have the means to be held responsible for their sin, so they were kinda put into some kinda detainment. Then, after Jesus does all his hocus-pocus he decides to take a stroll into the afterlife and free all these people, if they're willing to accept God and all that jazz.



So yeah. God kills people. But death isn't very final in God's eyes.

And I think people are missing the point about the Smithsonian. It's not about whether the Smithsonian is right or wrong. It's about accepting the fact that they could be wrong. Therefore, instead of stating "it's true because they have all these scientists, resources, and information at their disposal," which was what was going on, you say "it's true because of [insert key facts here] discovered by the Smithsonian."

__________________
Natemania! The Nateman sensation that's sweeping the nation!


Thanks for the sig, Viruz.
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure." ~Oscar Wilde

I'm bored, so I will make a response to the OP as a Christian-Defending(Kinda?)-Athiest.

This video starts off listing careers that the creator thinks defines a "smart" person. Granted, it requires intelligence to make it in these careers, but these listed careers alone do not define a person's intelligence. From what I observed, the list focuses around careers that are heavily fact oriented, leaving little room for creative thinking. And while "facts" are great and surely contribute to defining intelligence, I have a very large problem with the close-minded thinking presented in this list;

What society perceives as "facts" are not 100% definite. Nothing is 100% absolute, because we as people are not omniscient. This is the biggest problem I have with anti-religious arguments - They tend to rely on these "facts" that have been "proven" by science. In reality, these facts are "best guesses". Highly educated, well deduced, likely to be correct or near true, but NOT 100% definite. Anti-religion debaters (and honestly science-enthusiasts in general) seriously need to get off their high horses and acknowledge that science cannot PROVE anything, because we will ALWAYS AND FOREVER BE LIMITED TO GUESSING. The word "science" is basically short for "highly educated guessing backed by research that may or may not have included variables that we do or do not know contribute to what we're trying to determine".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit science, because it's the best method for gaining (near)true knowledge that we have. But anyone who uses science in their arguments need to realize that their "facts" can be wrong, just as many scientific facts have been disproved/replaced in the past.

The creator of this video has already disappointed me.

Anyway, on to the questions;

#1.) Why won't God heal amputees?
This question is backed with assuming comments that all Christians believe God magically heals sickness. I don't personally think this is the case. If God exists, he would have either prevented the sickness/amputation in the first place, or may even be the cause for the sickness/amputation. Why would God intentionally hurt/kill you? To help you develop as a person, I would imagine. Through great pain comes great strength, and much to be learned. And so what if you die, your real life begins after death... or something like that. (We have to go deeper) And if prayer provides any power, it's a power of spiritual support and strength; A guiding light to help you get through the trials of life yourself, without him needing to hold your hand. A Christian who believes that prayer can magically solve problems is like a child who expects a parent to cut their meat for them until they're 40 years old, living in the basement - The ones who earnestly believe that are misguided, in my opinion, and I'm sure many Christians have logic enough not to expect wizardry from their God.

My point is that this was a very stupid question. It assume that all Christians believe that God went to Hogwarts. And the creator of the video seems to love digging his own grave as well, it appears, with a comment like "you have to rationalize the question" - WELL NO SHIRLOCK THAT'S CALLED FLEXIBLE THINKING. You basically just credited Christians for being open-minded (which is something I don't necessarily agree with, but that's another discussion entirely). Science makes use of flexible thinking as well - Otherwise we'd still think the world was flat and the center of the universe. But the creator of this video seems like the kind of guy who accepts everything written in a science book as 100% trufax without caring how they came to the conclusion, and without bothering to think for himself. In that respect, he's representing exactly the type of person he's trying to argue against.

He also assumes that a Christian would dismiss a thought such as this question because "it's uncomfortable", which is an equally ridiculous assumption. Granted, many do. But others truly believe in the conclusion they come to. Faith in God is not directly equal to denial of reality, as the video creator seems to be pushing the idea of. Faith in God is a Christian's reality. It's night and day.

NEEEEXT QUESTION

#2.) Why are there so many starving people in our world?
This is a valid question, but I get the feeling that the creator of this video isn't smart enough to come up with this on his own. It was probably a question he'd heard other people ask many a time, and felt smug and clever while adding this cookie cutter inquiry into his video.

And again, ASSUMPTIONS ABOUND. Not all Christians believe God will help them get a raise or other trivial wants like that. In fact, considering greed is a sin or whatever, I would imagine asking God for a raise is frowned upon. Stop talking because you are just making athiests look like idiots. I believe if the traditional Christian God exists, he cares about us in the spiritual sense. Yes, starving children in Africa, God is horrible. Not really. We have the power to help them. The multi-billionaires sitting in their piles of money could feed them for years. But they don't. The world is ruled by money and greed runs rampant. All of it is a result of free will. God cannot be blamed for our inability to look after our own. And if God does exist, life ain't no big thang. The little starving african babies just get to head into the afterlife earlier than those of us in first world countries.

If anything, this question should make people like the guy who made this video think. Athiests don't believe in an afterlife. This life, on this earth, is all we have. The little starving children in Africa only get a short time of existence filled with pain and misery. Honestly, science and your petty little need to feel like you're intellectually superior, GO HELP YOUR FELLOW MAN. This question alone should make athiests like the video creator realize how flawed and severely self-centered THEIR thinking is.

Rest of this dude's comments were... pathetic, really. I don't think I want to review the next seven questions just because he's making me, a fellow athiest, want to turn Christian.

#3.) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
VC (video creator) calls the matters in which these "innocent people" are "murdered" in the bible "trivial". And honestly, I agree. These matters are trivial in my opinion. But in fairness, let's assume God exists. HUMOR ME.

- Premarital sex, homosexuality, etc is actually sinful and temptations of the devil
- Throughout the generations, Satan's grip becomes tighter on humanity
- We start to relax on what we think is inacceptable, sin becomes encouraged

Just because society has become tolerant of sin doesn't mean it stops being sin. If anything, our descent into sin is what will bring about the rapture in 2012 or whatever. If I was God, I'd be pretty upset with humanity becoming so tolerant of sin, going so far as to confuse it for what's morally right. Not that I believe in this load of crap I just typed, but in a reality where God and the devil exists, the logic holds up. I could be the embodiment of evil for being tolerant of gay people. Maybe society as we know it has become so wrapped around the devil's finger that we aren't capable of understanding God's will.

But in fairness to VC, I couldn't defend this with any sort of non-faith related logic, so that's a point for him I guess. But again, reality with and without God are night and day. It's not really something you can debate.

#4.) Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
Congrats bro, now you're finally pulling out the more concrete arguments. This is one question that cannot be answered without "excuses". But I can't credit you for this because you were still a twinkle in your father's eye while people where arguing about this same thing.

For the sake of an interesting response though... Ohh, I don't know, first thing off the top of my head - It's interesting. Real events have been exaggerated through literature countless times to help accent the importance/impressiveness of events.

Or maybe God knew that dropping a shit-ton of KNOWLEDGE straight on top of an undeveloped society's head would just confuse them, so he had people write fantastical stories instead.

MAYBE, OHH, OHH, THIS IS MY FAVORITE. Maybe the bible was actually a pretty straight-forward thing that was altered by the church in a way to control society to meet their interests. MAYBE God was never any part of the bible's creation. If man is naturally sinful, like we obviously are, why would God trust us to pass down His word through the generations, unaltered? SEEMS RATHER SILLY TO ME.

Maybe the bible is actually just a bunch of bullshit, and the only things we need to know about God and Heaven/Hell is the natural sense of right and wrong we all have.

But seriously, VC. Stop using the "lol you don't understand so you ignore it" line. This is like watching a fat person complain about being fat while shoving a BigMac and fries in their mouth.

#5.) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?
Refer to my answers for #3 and #4. Slavery could actually be great, or the bible could have been manipulated by sinful man to make slavery seem okay. Now stop using the phrase "weird rationalization" because I kind of want to punch you in the face.

#6.) Why do bad things happen to good people?
Refer to my answer for #3. If people are mainly influenced (and accept/favor) sin, then the good people are the ones who get screwed over. Pretty simple. Also my answer for #2 - Free will.

I gotta say VC, for an athiest you sure do like to blame God for stuff.

#7.) Jesus's miracles blah blah
Refer to my answer for #4 because this is the same question rephrased you stupid, stupid person.

Buy a thesaurus because this is the seventh time you've used both the words "strange" and "rationalize". You expect college graduates to sit through this crap?

#8.) How explain lack of Jesus herp derp
Herpa derp derpy derp herp

Dear Lord I Don't Believe In, please spare me from the incessant ramblings of this godless heretic and deliver to him a dictionary and possibly an online English class so that we may be spared from the seemingly eternal hell that is this video. Amen.

STOP REPEATING YOURSELF, VC. IF YOU ONLY HAD 4 QUESTIONS, ONLY ASK 4 QUESTIONS.

#Q.) EAT BODY DRINK BLOOD
Jesus was obviously a zombie (rose from the dead), and he wishes to share his zombieness with us all by offering us his flesh. Also apparently he thinks we're vampires.

ELEMENTARY MY DEAR VC.

#Is it over yet?) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
Okay, I'll answer this one seriously since it's a glorious occasion, this being the last question and all.

VC blames this on God. Again, free will. People have it. Christians are people (gasp). They can rush into things just the same as non-Christians. Not all Christians (read:not many) are highly devoted to their faith. In fact, many are complete hypocrites. Most people in general are hypocrites. This is nothing new, this is nothing unnatural. And if anything, the higher emphasis marriage has to people of faith probably contributes to people rushing into it. Especially due to the no sex thing.

I mean hell, the no sex thing might be the entire deal breaker. Two Christians get married, turns out they're not sexually compatible... SUCKS TO BE THEM I GUESS.

Really, I'm not even sure why VC chose THIS as his closing question. Kind of a weak note to end o- OH DEAR GOD THIS VIDEO HAS FOUR MINUTES LEFT?

I'M OUT.

====================

Yes I realize I'm about 13 pages late at this and none of you even remember that there's a video in the OP. But I raged.

I also realize I contribute nothing to this debate and will probably not post in this thread again.

WHATEVA I DO WHAT I WANT

Then why is it a mortal sin to murder another human being if said death is meaningless so long as the dead person accepts God?

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

Sorry, double post.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Firstly, I loved Goten's post. It made me actually Lol. Some of his points were pretty close to true, while some were definitely off. (FYI: Christians can have sex after marriage) Sorry for the bad link, but as I said you can watch his debates on youtube.

God was delivering his people (the people that CHOSE to worship him) from their enemies. The Israelites were constantly under attacks from the Hittites, Canaanites, Hivites, Perizzites, Ammonites, and Jebusites. If he hadn't delivered his people into safety I'm sure your argument would be "If God is so loving, why didn't he save his own people?". God promised his people "The Promised Land". When their pagan enemies attacked them God had no mercy. God had already shown his power through the 10 plagues of Egypt. His mercy was shown when he was patient and allowed the Hittites, Canaanites, Hivites, Perizzites, Ammonites, Jubsites, etc. to repent their sins, and change their ways and follow him. They refused to change their ways, and continued to attack/kill his people. Fighting for your country, and murdering in cold blood are two very different things. I dont think I need to explain to you why murder is wrong.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Also realises the video has been taken apart earlier in the thread. WHATEVA, I DO WHAT I WANT.

__________________

Don't get me started on the "Promised Land." Some god has promised that stretch of land to every single religion in the area at one point or another. Divine right has no meaning outside your own religion.

Also, you're mixing up war and genocide. After the war was over, God condoned genocide of the losers. "Convert to my religion or I kill you" is not mercy, it's a threat of genocide. Also, what would Jesus say? I believe it was "love thy enemy like thy neighbor." I'm not going to call that practical, but going the extra mile to commit genocide when you've already won a war is most definitely against his teachings.

Now, another interesting point you raised: the Israelis chose to follow their god. I'll bet all the other tribes who you dismiss as "pagans" had their own god or gods they also worshiped. Why do you believe in the Christian God, but not the Jewish or Islamic God, or the Hindu pantheon/god?

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

You're joking right?

__________________

You're joking, right?

There's a pretty distinct reason for most rules. Imagine a society where it's acceptable to murder people. A lot of rules were placed by God for practical purposes. No eating pork? Great way to get diseases back then.

__________________
Natemania! The Nateman sensation that's sweeping the nation!


Thanks for the sig, Viruz.
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure." ~Oscar Wilde

In a society where it's acceptable to murder people, those who believe would get into Heaven a lot faster.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

... Really?

If the goal is to get to Heaven faster, why would God put people on Earth in the first place?

__________________
Natemania! The Nateman sensation that's sweeping the nation!


Thanks for the sig, Viruz.
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure." ~Oscar Wilde

Jesus actually walked the earth. He was a real person, with multitudes of historical evidence to back his miracles and existence. Other religions don't have this. Plus as I stated earlier, I feel a difference through him in my life.

My point wasn't really supposed to be on the promised land. I was just using it to define the area in which the Israelites lived that was under attack.

I am not confusing genocide and war. There was no definitive surrender or conquer of any either faction. Both peoples were constantly at odds with one another. So no, their "genocide" was during war against their enemies, thus making it not genocide.

You're taking "Love thy enemy like thy neighbor" out of context.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

As you can see here, you are supposed to go out of your way to be nice, and loving to your neighbor. You are supposed to live at peace with everyone if it is possible. Be nice, even when they aren't. But as it also says, this is only if it is possible. If your enemy constantly attacks you no matter what you do. Then it is not possible, and these wars were therefore justified.

On a personal note, I've found that being nice to people that don't like you is always the best way to go. Most of the time they'll come around, and actually apologize for being mean. Even if they don't come out and say it, it's always better to just be nice.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Buddha was a real person, too. Plenty of evidence there. I'm also not going to doubt that Abraham was a real historical tribal leader, or that Moses was the leader of a rebellion. The issue is with the attribution of divinity to some of them and not others. What makes Jesus divine but not Buddha? As far as teachings go, there are plenty of more modern people whose teachings are just as good as Jesus; Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, or his inspiration, Gandhi, both seem to be excellent people to ascribe divinity to. Unlike Jesus, they're modern enough that well-documented records exist of their teachings, leading to much less argument over meanings.

On the genocide front, you're confusing soldiers and civilians. God ordained not only the killing of enemy soldiers, but also of the citizens of the opposing tribes, most often women and children who had never stood upon the field of battle. We have a word for that in modern times: war crimes. Yes, it unfortunately does happen as a fact of war, but God condoning it makes him just as evil as any military leader who directly orders the killings of civilians.

God has a long track record of blaming larger communities for the actions of a few. Perhaps the most well-known is that of "original sin"; God punishes all of humanity for the actions of the very first two. Did the children of Adam and Eve ever disobey God and consume the fruit of knowledge which he had forbade them?

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

Interesting point. If Martin Luther King Jr. had been around 2000 years ago, then today we'd probably be talking about how God literally spoke to him in his dream. Time does have a tendency to amplify the significance of some important people, events, and ideas.

__________________

Yes, by today's standards that would be a war crime. However, since they are not around in the here and now, they must've existed in a different time period. Perhaps a time period where different things were the norm and viewed as completely acceptable conquests of war.

I find it odd that you're arguing very flimsy points when there's really good arguments right under your nose. For example, why are women a conquest of war? Well, in Biblical times (and a long time after that), women didn't have rights. This isn't necessarily a fault to be attributed to the Bible, but a fault of society at the time. You can bet this adversely affected how women were recorded in the Bible, though. It was a lot more deep rooted than just that, there was this fear of losing male dominance. The Bible has been handled by many males in its long history and translations through the ages, and I wouldn't believe you for a second if you claimed it was never edited to downplay the efforts of women even further than the society at the time would have innately done. In fact, some of this sexist trash is still taught today. I went to a private Christian school where they literally taught us that if women rise to power in the church, it is because God is punishing the men for not taking their rightful place as spiritual leaders. That's just stupid.

__________________
Natemania! The Nateman sensation that's sweeping the nation!


Thanks for the sig, Viruz.
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure." ~Oscar Wilde

Buddha didn't do miracles, while Jesus did.

My analysis of this would be that much like they do now; the women and children helped with the war. Women obviously were needed to have children that eventually became soldiers. They were needed to help make food/armor and to care for things at home while they were not battling. The Israelite's enemies didn't discriminate on who they killed, and it was most likely retribution for not repenting, changing their ways, and attacking his people.

My question for you is, why is it that you have no trouble believing dinosaurs and the world are millions of years old? You dismiss accounts for the bible, because we weren't around back then and sources aren't reliable, yet you have no trouble believing that dinosaurs are millions of years old, even though nobody was around then.

EDIT: @Nateman

Here is a prime example of blaming larger communities for an individual's actions. I've attended 4 different churches, 3 of which were different denominations over the years. (When I say attended I mean as a regular attender for over a length of 2 years or more.) None of those churches preached anything sexist. In EVERY instance women were/are considered equal.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Did you just legalized terrorism and genocide?

So women ministers then?

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner
Since Jan 17, 2008


The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas

Churches aren't necessarily overtly sexist, however overtly sexist things have been jam packed into the Bible over the years. It's a little helpless to stop this, being just a book and all.

In fact, I commend people like those at your churches who examine their beliefs and update them for the times. I have no respect for someone who would give in to sexism because "the Bible says it's okay."

__________________
Natemania! The Nateman sensation that's sweeping the nation!


Thanks for the sig, Viruz.
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure." ~Oscar Wilde