1) Sunsets are not proof of a sunset making factory, this argument doesn't work very well. I can claim any other creator deity by the same evidence you'd use for God.

2) This seems a confused statement, If God exists then evidence would merely confirm it, if such a being does exist lack of evidence won't cause the being to fade away

3) What other kind of proof is there that isn't biased or tainted?

4) What contrary evidence? (preferably the empircal kind please)

5) No, no they are not. I have just as much evidence for any of the above as you do for your God. If we take a position that things are proved by lack of disproof then we open the door to everything.

6) Which means that I already have to believe in God for God to reveal himself. If I start with the assumption that God exists I mighj attribute unrelated things to him simply due to personal bias.

 It would be more compelling if I saw some documented historical evidence of him. Let me explain, Jesus was born and apparently lived his life in the Roman Empire, these people were fairly big on record keeping. Jesus starting a riot in the temple (given how the Jews kept revolting almost constantly) should have been recorded, it wasn't. Nor was his execution. His birth wasn't either, also there were MANY who claimed to be the messiah at this time, some of whom led failed revolts against the Romans. My point is that the only thing corroborating the claim of your holy book is the holy book itself. Also, given that he claimed he would return in the lifetime of those who physically saw him seems to say that at least a few things went unfulfilled.

One thing I'll say is the subjugation thing isn't mine, just mentioning as the above post makes it look like it's part of what I said when it wasn't. I am perfectly willing to accept that a divine being could exist. The counter to your argument is that if the only way into heaven is taking Jesus as your savior, then yes, you are functionally going to hell for not loving the 'savior'. The savior who, by the way, didn't bother to make disciples aware of North and South America as well as Australia, ensuring that, if the doctrines are true, the people there had 400 years of ensured damnation simply because they had the bad luck to be born where they were. God is, by your definition omniscient, so God knew this would happen. This implies that God is either apathetic towards the people of the world (which rather clashes with the idea of a God who sent his son to die) or that he was simply unaware, which again implies that he is a creation of those living at the time, since they had no way of knowing of those parts of the world at that time either. Not to mention that the system in place makes God into a bully, or to use a familial analogy, a person who beats his children and grandchildren, randomly causes them misfortune, but you have to dote on him or you won't get your inheritance, such a person is not worthy of the affections of these people and their reasons for showing him affection would seem to be primarily rooted in self preservation/self interest.

Wiki:

Original sin, sometimes called ancestral sin,^[1] is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man

you denied original sin..........thus the Fallen nature of Man

you also denied the reality of Hell.

thus the confusion of Heathens. 

freeminer,

In the footnote after "ancestral sin" on Wikipedia, it points out that "ancestral sin" is the Greek term for what is called original sin.  It should have pointed out that original sin, as it is understood today in most churches we encounter, is a distinct concept from the Greek "ancestral sin."  If by original or ancestral sin, one means that Adam and Eve sinned and therefore human nature is fallen and in need of redemption through Christ, then I do affirm this doctrine.  But it is often understood to mean that all humans share in the guilt of the first sin, and are born with this guilt in their natures, which because of the fall are incapable of good in and of themselves, and can only ever produce sinful thoughts and deeds.  Granted, this is a very extreme version of the doctrine but it exists in more nuanced and subtle forms, for example in the Latin Church.  I believe that what happened after the fall did not leave man with a sinful nature, but a fallen nature, as the two concepts are distinct.  Not a nature that never wants good, but a nature that even though it strives for good does not have the power to achieve it alone.  But this distinction and subject are sort of off the subject of these forums, which is atheist / theist debate, so if you would like to discuss specific Christian theology, feel free to e-mail me.  My address is [email protected]

IC XC

David

P.S. I never once denied the reality of hell.  I do affirm belief in hell, as all Christians, but what I understand hell to be is much different than many Christians.  I know a common retort will be that I "pick and choose" my doctrine, but in fact the number of Christians that believe a thing does not make that thing right.  There is no magical formula whereby one can label their self Christian and believe a doctrine and, presto, that doctrine is true.  So if you would really like to know where I am coming from, then we might take this discussion elsewhere.

My apologies for taking so long to reply.  I'll get to your other message tomorrow, perhaps.

Let's take an example.  Thou shalt not kill.  I like to use this one since it is pretty easy to get all muddled.  Are you a Quaker?  Yes, then you follow this commandment.  Otherwise, do you believe it is okay to kill in self defense?  In national defense?  Are state executions okay?  How about manslaughter?  Should any of these killings have consequences according to the secular law or religious law?  How about euthanasia?  You may be against it, but I live in Oregon where we have the assisted suicide law.  If I have pleurisy like my mom did before she died, I'm taking the pills.  She didn't die in Oregon and told me she wouldn't do assisted suicide.  But she finally asked for enough pain killer to put herself out.  Is suicide wrong?  When you are healthy?  When you are very ill and in constant unremitting pain?  One of my cousins died of lung cancer.  As the cancer ate through the brachial nerve, his screams echoed down the hallway of the hospital.  Is suicide okay under these circumstances?  Do any of these scenes not constitute killing?  If it isn't killing, what is it?  Dead is dead.

(For the veterans on line:  I do not condemn anyone for killing under any of these circumstances.  Including war and self-defense.  You do what you have to.)

So, do I think cannibalism is okay?  I don't think it is a very safe practice given the various nasties you can pick up.  Depends on who and how they filled the pot I suppose.  Do I think female circumcision is okay?  Well, no.  I do think it is self-limiting given the increased maternal and infant deaths in women who have been circumcised - particularly by the traditional methods.  (I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  She was circumcised in the traditional method and she describes the procedure.  I won't repeat it here.)

I can say - "it is their country and they can do what they want in their country" - which is true.  I can't make the Somalis stop female circumcision.  I can't make most US hospitals stop male circumcision.  I can't stop cannibalism.  Or murder or killing or stealing or gambling or alcoholism or drug abuse or name your poison.  Whether I think it is right or wrong is a moot point.

Humans have a number of legal criminal statutes - some based on religion, some based on economies and business, some based on some politician's Auntie having a bad hair day.  These criminal statutes vary from country to country, state to state, county to parish, city to town.  Defining what is right and wrong is done from simple expediency combined with history and culture.  Whatever we view as wrong now has not been wrong in other places and times.  I'll bet old Org the cave man did not have to worry about being tried for murder when he bashed the squalling infant's head against the cave wall.  But then, Org's genes would not have been included in the next generation, would they?  Self-limiting behavior.

Is it your place or mine to tell someone what their laws should be?  I am squeamish about a lot of laws in our own country, let alone some place half way around the world.  It is my own personal upbringing and personality.  Nothing special - just me.

If the laws of this country were truly based on the bible, we would have - what? - 12 laws?  Or shall we add in all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy?  And we can get rid of all the other laws on the books.  Does this make sense to you?

We can argue on how its better based on different things actually. One might be what we view as necessary for our culture to function (free speech means free flow of ideas and a more stable thriving government which is better for development and maintenance of civilization) as it has been and hopefully will continue to. We might make arguments based on what we see as the best method, see political parties in this where some argue that there should be little to no government action where others might argue heavy intervention and in some cases the issues can cause both groups to seem uneasy. I can argue cannibalism because of the chances for disease, the fact that a human being has to die for it to occur, etc. Most people have an inherent revulsion at the idea and there is probably something deep seated that warns us against it, probably due to the risk of contracting certain diseases and such.

As for crime, we actually tend to base it off of a kind of enlightened self preservation, it's illegal to steal because we don't want to be robbed, illegal to kill because we don't want to be killed, assault because we don't want to be attacked, rape to avoid being raped ourselves, etc. And questions of crime ARE common, look at societies, morality has varied wildly generation to generation, society to society, things that might make our grandparents faint dead away doesn't really phase us, and there are probably plenty of things vice versa. We argue law and justice today, we argue questions of morality, and the bible isn't even consistent on the moral area so I doubt we'd use that as our basis for morals, unless we want a fairly monstrous society.

excellent.

yes, one thinks of Rome first.

in drawing a distinction, I would not have used that phraseology ie. I believe Man's nature is both sinful and fallen but  'flawed'  - that  is, not  one of total depravity [to misuse another 'technical' term].  Thus the image of his creator remains in him. I suspect this may be what you mean! 

no, I do not take a statistical view of 'truth'. On the other hand it may be deemed strange if the Spirit is only teaching you a particular truth! Scripture does not tell us a great deal about Hades, or the 'Lake of Fire'. Whether one concludes that you "pick and choose" may depend on whether you can present a rational, coherent exegesis!

Neither I nor scientists who are creationists are ignorant of the claims made on the basis of radiometric dating. The amount of research you do into its real capabilities will be be determined by how serious you really are to arrive at truth. Regarding geology, we date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils. If the geologic column were actually extant, it would be miles deep, as it is, it doesn't exist anywhere. I would say a person owes it to themselves to at least become conversant with the real facts.  

this would be a great reason if it were true but evolution [as opposed to adaptation] is  not repeatable, neither can it be shown to have happened or to be happening now. Its strength is as an infinitely flexible paradigm which will accommodate speculation upon speculation. Which component of evolutionary theory have you ever tested and found to be true?  

I don't know which religions you are speaking of. If you doubt the reality of demonic possession, I will ask a certain young lady currently in Hong Kong to give you her testimony. The spread of illness due to demonic possession is fairly narrow. The Bible suggests numerous reasons. Thank God for the advances of medical science - Jesus called Luke, a "blessed physician" I believe, not an "anachronistic quack"                               

If you read Romans, you will see that Christians aren't under the Law at all. Atheists go around with some odd preconceptions one being that Christians are anti-science.

you are correct to make no presumptions - on the other hand, if one's current world-view doesn't cover all the bases it is rational to find one which does. It is a matter of observation that empiricism doesn't cover everything. If action from outside the space-time continuum does then it appears irrational to ignore the possibility. 

searching for the Higgs Boson implies that conceptually, the possibility of its existence is not an outrageous irrationalitty. The same is true of God. Regarding "confirmation bias", precisely this argument is true of evolutionary theory. We are all biased. Choose your bias. Ensure you choose it on the most rational basis possible.

do you have a scale of 1 - 10 for love, creativity, morality, beauty, fulfillment, desire or meaning? Atheists commonly deal with a very restricted  spectrum of the human condition. They tend to be unremittingly reductionist. 

but if the God says, "I will be found by he who seeks me" or commit yourself to me and I will change your epistemology", the proof is of a different order.......I suggest. 

I am open for business. 

the question presupposes the universality of time. We know time to be both illusory and variable. The conceptual evidence suggests that it is not universal. If anyone made God, God is not God.  

because he is creative and takes pleasure in his creation. That is the Christian view of why Man  is a creative Being ie. he is made in God's image. There are deeper reasons which we may get to.

excellent question. What is the source of your morality?.......the question is not intended to be fascetious. Man is finite, God is infinite. Man needs an infinite source of morality otherwise it will always be relativistic or handed down by some social or political elite. We have this already, police kill a man in the street but no-one is guilty. They break speed limits as a matter of course - no-one is guilty. We need morality to be absolute ie based on absolute truth but we don't have an absolute. The Biblical view is that God is the personification of truth and morality. Jesus said, "I am the truth". 

 this is just a statement of optimistic humanism, it presupposes that the future will be the same as the past. I trust science  but only in the area of its competence and not when it morphs into pseudo-science. 

well, you should be happy with evolution then because the details change constantly. What won't change is the conceptual paradigm.......everything else is up for grabs. The question is, "is the 'data' really data and how would we know?"

line up the specifics

the term "universal laws" begs its own question. Thank God for them.

ok, you're a social pragmatist. What does  "cause stable society and civilisation"? Relativistic morality? Relativistic law?

on the contrary.......feel free to pose them. 

it doesn't mean the converse either ........ put the questions.

 you and I have the same external facts.

are you looking through evolutionary blinders? Every position is a faith position. We all make a jump -it's just sensible to ensure it's off a firm foundation. 

this argument is not uncommon but again it  is double -edged. I could speculate that you are an atheist merely because of your background/upbringing. Moreover it presupposes that we are both stupid - unable to sort the facts for ourselves. There are any number of atheists who claim a Christian background, including on this forum. 

please give examples .

 do you wish me to deal with life under the Law first or without it.

yes, the Bible propounds an order of authority.  My wife is no wimp. I am never in doubt as to her opinion. I'm pleased about this. I'm required to love her as myself.  It seems to work. Btw, the Bible doesn't mean women are to say nothing ever!!!!!  

if God instigated them, presumably they worked!                 

 he was guilty of disturbing the peace.......a riot implies 2 sides in conflict.

go to christiananswers.net. You seem to have forgotten that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. If the Jews found their messiah today, they couldn't  prove him to be the son of David because all the records were destroyed. How many such Roman records do we have? Atheists become mystical and revisionist about history. They'll believe in Boadicea but question the historicity of Jesus when we know what he had for breakfast. They are desperate for God not to exist.

everyone has critics but either the Pool of Bethesda is the Pool of Bethesda or it isn't.

John 5:2
Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.
 

in which case it is remarkable that the Gospel accounts concur. God says, I will watch over my word to perform it". 

list them.

we both have access to the account. Somehow the story of human pride, of failure to believe that what was prophesied could actually be happening on 'my' watch, of politics, of intrigue, all have a ring of truth to it. People die in fires because they can't believe it's happening. 

it was prophesied that they would reject him 

they don't need to do much......they pretend that the basis of their speculation is real science and an atheistic media connives in duping a gullible public. 

including evolutionists. You see, it's a matter of rationality. Codes don't self-generate. Things don't actually design themselves. It is not observed. It is not science.

in a sense this is a non-issue. This is unprovable speculation about motivation. Let's say you are right........so what? Would it affect the truth or otherwise of rational findings? Perhaps you don't wish to speculate upon the existence of God out of fear.

 yes we do, it's how we arrive at both doctrine and apologetics. I am not muslim because it is historically and philosophically untenable. I am no brand of pantheist because it has no answer for diversity including personality etc.

I agree, question everything.........find your infinite absolute. 

no, he's saying, "find an acceptable answer to the problem of sin  because I won't support your eternal lifestyle".

we do, we pray for people like you.......but God will not remove your freewill just to get the answer he wants......that would make you less than human and him a bully. 

I am familiar with the actual facts, which is why I trust radiometric dating over the assumption that the rocks are only a few thousand years old. There are examples of evolution occurring, new examples of speciation can be seen and are documented, not to mention having the fossil record to work from, hell we even have the whole antibiotic resistant bacteria. As for the woman who thought she was demon possessed, she could be delusional, misled, or actively lying. I highly doubt the idea of demonic possession because we have evidence for all the things they were blamed for through naturalistic means, bacteria and viruses causing sickness genetic abnormalities causing birth defects among other things. Actions outside of space time and such are basically magic, I could make the claim that any number of things are causing events that we can't currently explain with science or even deny science saying my way is right. However, none of that helps us advance our understanding of the universe, it doesn't help us make new medicines, doesn't help us build better reactors or more efficient engines, it doesn't help us remove horrible afflictions like Alzhiemers or Lou Gehrigs. If your faith healing works so well, why don't they go to hospitals, cure Alzheimers in a patient since that is one disease we know that doesn't stop, hell do that and you'd have medical evidence and the strongest proof imaginable. You ask what causes a good society, one thing is that laws have to be relative, manslaughter is different than murder and both are different than killing in self defense. An officer of the law must be held to a higher standard than a private citizen and as law can be imperfect it must be subject to change and interpretation or we end up with injustice. For example, during an outbreak of a deadly disease cities might enforce curfews and such to try to keep the spread of the disease down such things wouldn't occur normally but in that case the minor curtailment of freedom is justified in the protection of the masses. Similarly, do you develop a weapon capable of wiping the world out entirely during times of peace? In a world with multiple powers should we focus heavily on our military or instead on infrastructure and improvement of the national standard of living? Is government to always be transparent or are there things that can be sometimes kept secret for the argument of national security, and if so what constitutes this in order to avoid abuse of such things? A system with purely objective law is either going to be barbarically harsh or is going to fall to pieces if things ever go bad in a big way. In fact, if we see other nations doing things that are different from us that seem to make things work better, we should study it and see if we can and should incorporate it.

My morality comes from the following, 1) Empathy, I try to understand the other position, the other perspective, put myself in their shoes. This helps me to see why they might oppose or be in favor of something. 2) Socratic reasoning, this one is a bit from my father, from the time when I was 6 whenever I said anything firmly in terms of belief he would ask why, and point out holes in my reasoning or potential problems until I was either able to explain my position fully or I modified it. (annoyed the hell out of me growing up, but by the time I was in college I was grateful) I did the same with him, it means that I am more likely to see the ramifications of what I do and also let me see potential fallout from overly vague or overly narrow comments.  3) The sandbox of history, I look at the moral/political/social codexes and philosophies and see how their ideas worked and the ways they were used. Anarchism is fascinating but is unlikely to work post scarcity, socialism is a great idea until someone decides to alter the system to make it a dictatorship. 4) The situation at hand, this is more in the vein of "In the event of emergency, panic, etc." in some situations I might be more strict on things more permissive on others, not to mention new information coming to light or a major personal viewpoint change. There are some things I believe deeply and with great conviction, but they are all in the philosophical realm and even that goes into constant re-evaluation. As to guilt or innocence, the question can be did they violate the law? Is the law just? Did their violation of the law cause harm, or is this a kind of outreach from the base law? IE an interpretation of law X made some action illegal? Is the exclusionary rule just even if they discover that the person whose rights they violated was a dangerous criminal? If morality was fully absolute there would be no need for lawyers or subtle minutea in law, instead we have a profound need for it.

I sought God, even wondered for a while if I had found God, but if anything the questions became more complex, more problematic, the more I studied things the less reasonable Christianity and other organized religions seemed. Seeking God apparently made me an atheist, which is somewhat amusing depending on how you view things. Every position is not a faith position, if you study things, retest them etc. and will change views if data changes, or change how the schema works then that isn't faith. And my point on culture doesn't say anyone is an idiot or unable to distinguish, just that our formative years do a lot to shape our perceptions, also I'd be willing to bet that more atheists from religious backgrounds come from families who are better educated or are educated themselves. As to your comment on being anti-science, I never said that you or any Christians were inherently, I merely pointed out that if the bible is inerrant then it wouldn't have the methods for treating disease that it does, and yes, some of the methods may have 'worked' and when they didn't it was a result of inadequate faith or gods will. And to your questions about contradictions, Matthew and Mark seem to disagree about whether Jesus wanted things hidden or revealed, Matthew said the laws were forever, Luke said they were only until the time of John. Luke says that Jesus approves of destroying ones enemies whereas Matthew said they were to be loved and forgiven. Judas's end is also played out differently too. Now I can accept that these were people with fallible memories, but if they were truly inspired by God you would think they wouldn't be contradicting one another. There are other contradictions as well but I don't know that I should post each and every one. There is a nice list though if you want. www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

I do have to laugh at the idea of an atheistic media, generally speaking they bend over backwards for Christians, atheists are tolerated at best, if you're Hindu or Muslim or any other faith expect a fair amount of mockery, derision, etc. The problem that I have with hell being the key point is that it reinforces the basic idea, "follow my religion or suffer forever, regardless of the fact that you never asked to be born and that plenty of the alleged sins are either not at all based on morality or are problematic when applied broadly (Killing in war and self defense are different than murder, to some fantasizing is adultery of the heart where for others it's even noticing someone is attractive and some say it doesn't count if its your spouse, etc.) not to mention of course that the bible allows plenty of things that are abominable. Following the bible I can stone a kid to death, a husband can beat their wife, a woman who is raped would be forced to marry her rapist, Levitical law says that because of how I am BORN I can be denied entry to heaven forever. There is also the fact that the bible can be used to justify slavery (as it was during the civil war) racism (as plenty of bigots do now), this isn't to say that the bible is evil, just that if we assume it to be a center for objective morality and the guideline for all humanity it has some rather severe issues within.

You say that you find being a Muslim untenable, they find being a Christian the same apparently. Even if we discount those in the theocratic nations of the middle east where they might be punished for even studying the book, there are plenty of muslims in the US, they aren't going to be put to death for reading the works. Assuming that they're as rational as you are they seem to be having trouble agreeing with your beliefs, so why is it that they don't agree automatically if everything is so apparently self evident. To your answer of why God created it brings up more questions, why would an infinite, and at least theoretically perfect, being desire to create us? We wouldn't fulfill any kind of need for him/her/it, being perfect it would lack nothing so we can't serve a purpose to such a being. If such a being did it as an act of whimsy then why bother providing us with moral regulations? Also, if God is perfect, all knowing, all seeing, why not give us the right laws in the beginning rather than changing them over time (IE kosher dietary law, clothing made of mixed fibers, etc.) since if these were the inerrant words of God they shouldn't be disagreeing with each other. And if God changed his/her/its mind how can that be possible with a being that sees and knows all, it would know the results of each thing.

As to saying that God can't ignore sin, really, he seems happy to do that if you go the whole Jesus route. In that case he'll ignore ANYTHING you do. In fact, this almost seems to make a mockery of the idea of morality, be an utter monster your whole life then on your deathbed have a heartfelt sincere conversion and sing with the angels. Do good works your whole life, show kindness, mercy and love to those around you, be in every way the epitome of goodness and kindness, but sadly you don't believe in Jesus and are human so sin is inevitable so into the fires you go go go! It takes the idea of morality and stands it on its head, it says that what you do doesn't matter, only what you believe. As to the idea of an acceptable answer, what about no afterlife? No Heaven, no hell, just oblivion? God doesn't have a need for us and he can truly see how we would behave, after all, the idea of a reward/punishment system of the afterlife would make, in my mind at leas,t the actions of believers in such things morally suspect.

if you need me to put up examples of failures and reasons why, I'll happily do so.  

give one example of information gain in the genome. 

none resulting from information gain on the genome. 

to people predisposed not to believe, such testimonies are always lies, despite the surrounding witnesses. Goodness knows what they think the motives are. Jesus said, if someone returned from the dead they wouldn't believe...........then he proceeded to prove it.  

of course you do, classic naturalistic reductionism.

how would you discern the nature of phenomena impacting the space-time continuum from outside?

of course....people do. 

but this tells us nothing about the truth, it is merely reduction to functionalism. 

personal testimony makes no difference........you've just proved it. 

 yesterday's murder is today's termination. There's a law for murder, a law for manslaughter.

terrorism would have been apposite. Yesterday's special measures are today's routine.

the first duty of government is the protection of it's citizens. Protect the widows and orphans, put the freeloaders back to work, read the signs of the times, stop worshipping money. 

again, you make my case for me. Today's reasonable measures are tomorrow's rationalistic totalitarianism. Truth and freedom sleep together.......without an absolute.......wave goodbye.

Jesus was objjective, he said, if you're sinless, throw the first stone. 

we have downloaded the accumulated wisdom of truckloads of "social science" for years.......so why isn't it sorted? Dialectics = someone else must have the answer/the grass is always greener........

Ah, what "kind" is this animal?

If you said dog, you are wrong.  Hyenas are actually more closely related to meerkats and mongooses.  Would you have said "mongoose kind"?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyena

If so, then you aren't following biblical standards.

"New information" is NOT a requisite for evolutionary change.  Nor is new species.  This is the definition:

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.  You can search high and low, but the only sources that mention new information and/or new species are christian websites. 

What mechanism stops an organism from evolving a succession of new adaptations that eventually leads to a new species?

*Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years". Evolution 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. 

*Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238. 

*Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation". TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. Retrieved 2008-12-26. 

*Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory". Evolution 46 (4): 1214–20. doi:10.2307/2409766

Also, I will be happy to bring up the concept of ring species and dogs.  In the last 14,000 years, humans have turned dogs into a ring species.  Chihuahuas can breed with other small dogs and slightly larger small dogs who can breed with slightly larger dogs up to Great Danes.  But Great Danes and Chihuahuas can not breed without a lot of assistance.  A male Chihuahua can not tie a female Great Dane and a male Great Dane would kill a female Chihuahua.  Of course no one has watched this happen, as no one lives 14,000 years.  But, we do have pictorial records of dogs from the earliest pottery shards to the elaborate paintings of the 19th century to the photos of today.  The Egyptians had a Greyhound like dog and the Romans had a Mastiff like dog and little lap dogs.  Are they still dogs?  Sure, but dogs are obviously a very malleable species.

How about this one? 

Snake?  Fish?  It has lungs as well as gills so it can breathe air as well as water - what kind is it?

I'm sure they do but they don't rob us of the power to choose. 

education doesn't render a man immune to spiritual blindness............ the evidence is everywhere.      

why not? 

 we don't read accounts of failures.

both were true in each case.

in this one too. 

yes, I'm not much impressed!

in the UK it would be a poor joke. 

I don't recommend Islamic jokes here.

would you rather not have been? You see, at root this is fundamentally an evolutionary comment. It presupposes that God has no prior claim on a man. It's why Satan is attacking Genesis.

whose morality? 

 as I said, humanistic morality is relativistic. Jesus said, you can't keep away from what I define as adultery........he was right.

references? 

a man may try to justify all sorts of things......it doesn't follow that God sees it his way. 

the Bible is clear that there are two races on this earth; the regenerate and the unregenenerate.

the Bible claims to be the centre of moral objectivity and if it has lied to us it is evil. If you can't find an alternative centre, the "severe issues" will end up on your doorstep. People just can't get used to the idea that righteousness is what God says it is.

I have absolutely no doubt they do........the difference is that I can present a philosophically watertight rationale.  

for the simple reason that remarkably few  people are aware of the roots of their own mysticism. This country is overwhelmingly populated by such people. One can demonstrate the irrationality of Islam in under 2 minutes.

why does anyone have children? 

this is half-true. There are "purposes" other than the merely functional.

were you an act of whimsy?? The law exists to bring Man to consciousness of sin. Moral absolutes are the operating instructions for the happy functioning of project 'mankind'. He knows how he made us.

some of these issues are representative/symbolic of higher truths, some simply designed for the purposes of a nomadic desert people. You are asking for an understanding of the OT in one package! 

but such changes are aimed at us. eg incest. Cain could marry his sister because mutation wasn't a problem........that wasn't true later thus God changed the Law.

I may be saved but, take it from me, he won't! 

there's an element of truth to this eg. the thief on the cross, but you'd be daft to bank on it......your deathbed may be under the wheel of a number nine bus. Your morality is not the issue, it won't save you anyway. 

absolutely right!!!! human beings just can't gat used to the idea that they can't be good enough.......their pride and autonomy is insulted. 

see above. John says, faith without works is dead. 

To My Dear Atheist,  Also Darwin said that Africans and Australian Aborigines were,  lower forms of humanity,  closer related to the great apes than the Anglo Saxons of Europe, which were more highly evolved!  Atheist try to pick apart the Bible quoting all the Old Testament laws that were very harsh indeed,  When we are young our Earthly Father's are much more harsher to their young developing children in order to teach them of absolutes, fire is hot...  don't touch it, in a stern voice, etc.  You see My Dear Atheist,  there are absolutes and truths that are not transitory or relative... Rain in India or Paris is wet just like it is in the U.S.  an absolute that does not change!  The Old Testament was very brutal in many aspects because the Creator taught his people alot of do's and don'ts!  God knows all he created all ...He does to whom he wants,  what he wants... Somethings are not up for discussion with your parents just like it is with our Heavenly Father,  You think God didn't know Hitler wasn't going to finish his Artistic studies in youth only to pursue his infamous path?  By the way,  you Atheist are not unintelligent just stubborn,  because you believe God doesn't exist does not matter to him,  and when you all meet him you'll be able to explain your earthly philosophy you all learned in College to him in person and see who wins your philosophical arguments then!  While we have breath we all, ( not collective college classes who are taught these fallacies of life, existence and God)  but individually must choose which direction we will go... Jesus has answered all of mankinds questions,  he has answered the Old Testament,  he is the end of all law,  he is the culmination of all human existence.... " He said what many of you miss more poignantly than all of the arguments you try to bring up... When the non-believing leaders of the Jews tried to trip him up on "What are the greatest of the Commandments"?  "Jesus eloquently stated,  There only two... Love God with all your heart and soul and obey him,  then love your neighbor as yourself,  and doing these two you will keep all of the others"!  We all know of the ills of the Catholic Church in the past,  the Spanish Inquisition, The Catholic Church giving their blessings to the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, their ignoring Hitler's evils, etc.  That is not true religion,  over zealous fundamentalism that was practiced by those whom burned people in the Salem Witch Trials, etc.  Just as Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace and harmony, etc.  But is that the Islam that Osama and his ilk are practicing?  Love your neighbor as yourself and you will not harm your neighbor for anything,  you will not covet his wife and commit adultery with her, etc.  You will not steal from your neighbor or bear false witness against him,  and you would certainly not kill your neighbor if you truly practiced Jesus' tenets!  You would always love and forgive which are the true tenets of Godly Religion!  Jesus did no wrong, historically our leaders do every evil imaginable as the Bible says " ...every wicked thing a man will thinketh,  he will do"!  All of my Dear Atheist, you all are very intelligent indeed, Hitler, Stalin and Mao... in modern times have killed more people in history on this planet than all recorded religious zealotry ever has!  These things you all know,  as I've stated most of you are College educated... So saying Religion is the cause of more wars, murders, etc.  you know full well is a fallacy!  God knew what Hitler was going to do... He knew what Mussolini and Stalin and Mao were going to do,  like he knew what Jeffrey Dahmer was going to do,  he also knew,  the wicked people of the past and what they would do and what they wouldn't ...never repent of their wickedness,  so sometimes everyone of them, were slaughtered by David, Gideon, Joshua, etc.  If you knew someone was totally evil... and you had the power to stop them as Hitler, ( everyone asks) wouldn't you kill him, etc.  Before he committed such atrocities?  God allows all because it is not yet time for his return,  when it comes all of these earthly arguments will be for nothing... all will be settled!  Atheist say as those in Noah's day,  nothing is going to happen,  Noah's got his poor boys building a big house boat for what?  What the heck is rain,  that's impossible water coming from the sky,  water is heavier than air isn't it?  The people in Sodom & Gommorrah,  did totally sinful things and they perished as well,  my Dear Atheist,  some of you are meant to come out of this misleading philosophy that you learned from jaded College Professors.... You have left the Christianity of your parents, thinking you are now educated and you now know more then them!  Read the Gospels for yourselves don't listen to the arrogance of others, who don't want you to know the truth... pick it up and investigate Jesus' words for yourself and ask for God to give you understanding and see won't he make those pages clear too you!  As I said some of you will come back to an understanding of your parents beliefs but not all... This is truly sad to me and other true believers that all we say all we do... will not convince this stubborn modern intellectual mind!  My Dear Atheist,  Do you know the original definition of the name Fool... It means, one who says there is no God"!  As I've stated above you all are very educated and I know you would not consider yourselves, to be fools!  Never take another's words for truth when you can investigate for yourselves, there is not one fossil of a missing link... of any of the humanoid or primate bones found they all show DNA of either Human or Ape DNA... There are no mixtures!  It takes more belief to believe that all of existence came from nothing that exploded to create our world than to believe that a benevolent Creator made existence!
The fairytale,  Millions of years ago... might as well be ...Once upon a time,  the Big Bang...  foolishness to believe that anything can come into existence without first being fashioned by someone!  Why don't things just pop into our world now, if we are to believe this erroneous theory?  I might as well wish for a million dollars and wait for it to just pop up out of thin air!  Because this ultimately is what the University Professors who spew this tripe out,  want us to believe when we enter their institutions of supposed Higher Learning... That Once Upon a Time,  Millions of Years Ago... All was created from Nothing!  Forgetting the Laws of Causality,  which they know full well is more exacting than believing in a plagiarist, misguided, racist, ex-Christian as poor Darwin!  This law is not a theory as evolution, but is verifiable in everyday existence,  for every cause there is something or someone who has affected that cause!  No two ways about it!  If someone dies of Lung Cancer and they smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for twenty or so years,  more than likely the cigarettes might have had something to do with it,  you think... Shortening their life,  you think!  The smoker thus causes his own demise by Lung Cancer from the practice of smoking twenty years, until his lungs finally couldn't heal themselves anymore!  Death from drunk drivers, killing innocent pedestrians and other motorist,  whom all they were doing was trying to reach their destinations as in any other day... But a Drunk Driver chose to drink,  thus loosing control for the last time, and finally causes these innocent people's lives too end... They would have made it home to work or the movies, etc.  If not for someone causing them to die that very moment!  Nothing happens without an agent causing it people,  That agent for the Big Bang or as I rightfully call it ;  was the Lord Saying "Let There Be Light"!  Plain and simple the light explodes over the darkness (Bang!)  My Dear Atheist,  I wish I had everyone of you in front of me too explain every aspect of the Bible that you have questions about so that you could have an objective reference to deduce true belief from!  One wiser man than I stated in the past,  "People usually believe not what is true but what is convenient for them and attracts them"!  Believing that there is no God because of a Theory of Evolution,  or because some misguided Scientist tells you there is no God, etc.  is accepting blindly your eternal faith from the hands of someone that does not Love You At All... Only God Loves You!  Go Blindly Believing in someone Else's thoughts and when you stand before Jesus on Judgment Day,  quoting these foolish theories and philosophies will not hold up in the face of all truth the Word Himself... As John Teaches us,  "The Word Became Flesh And Dwelt Among Us"...  There was a Jewish Atheist back during the World Wars, Who stated he solved all of philosophies problems in his treatise... Think about that people... One man out of all time, history, human understanding solved all in his limited time on earth before my Dear Atheist, He killed himself... This is what ultimately is most of you all's fate,  my people... Atheist kill themselves at an alarming high rate over believers of any faith!  So Sad to believe that there is nothing more to live for and that nothing awaits you,  be sure of your own beliefs before you take that eternal journey,  don't accept other's,  know it all's philosophies,  don't even accept my words, but investigate your only path,  by picking the Bible up yourself and if it makes no sense still,  then all I can say is God Bless You, Anyway!  God is Love,  he created all of us to be his Children,  This is the "True Meaning of Life",  simply to be God's Children, so that he could love us and teach us his ways!  It was said by another wiser than I, "If you want the simple or obvious to be complicated,  let a philosopher explain it"! 
The Bible is the Infallible Word of Our Heavenly Father, All I can say to my Dear Atheist Brethren,  is investigate it for yourselves,  don't take my word or anyother's of it's accuracy or inaccuracy,  read for yourselves!

Ok, Freeminer, this is going to be a bit more broad brush as some of the comments you made are related. If I miss anything I apologize. The problem is that your argument of subjective morality is functionally an anarchy within the law, your system doesn't maintain the laws as a constant. Our own laws change over time based on what we view to be just, fair and proper in terms of the actions of government and the actions of private citizens. The fact is too that your argument of 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' it is in truth a good argument for moral judgment, after all everyone is imperfect and we should realize that, but if taken literally (IE you can't punish someone unless you have never broken a law, done anything legally questionable) the legal system grinds to a halt. Plenty of people have parking tickets, moving violations, etc. Should they not be able to sit for jury duty? Should they be unable to be police officers, judges, or in any way part of the judicial system? Since after all if they sit in judgment over this person they are casting a stone, the same is true for law makers, prison guards, etc. To be blunt, if that comment is objective then we can have NO workable law within man because there is no way to enforce any law. And yes, you pointed out how temporary measures can become permanent, I don't dispute this. I merely point out that the morality of them when they are put into affect (assuming a legitimate emergency) is different than if they are put in on a whim or a desire for a power grab. And you yourself agreed that there are laws for murder and laws for manslaughter, both involve killing a person BUT they make distinction of the idea of intent and the state of the perpetrator. Thou Shalt Not Kill didn't have caveats or distinctions in terms of what we were supposed to do in different scenarios. To your question of what justice looks like, Justice is the law giving a punishment of equal level to the crime committed. I am against the death penalty morally, mostly because if we foul up we can't fix it later if we find out we killed the wrong person. I have other issues with it too, but those have more to do with my concern that it is more about vengeance and a scare tactic that is largely ineffective and makes society as a whole less compassionate.

For failed biblical methods for healing, allegedly the way to cure leperosy was to take two birds, kill one, then dip the other bird in the blood of the first, then sprinkle the blood on the leper, let the blood soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. It's from leviticus in case you're wondering where I grabbed it. Leviticus also has the sections I mentioned, those who are disabled, have flat noses, poor eyesight etc. are not allowed near the altar of God because they would 'profane' it, some translations I've read say Kingdom instead of altar, but I will admit that the translations might be in error on that note. I could also point out that there are plenty of cases where slavery is considered acceptable in the bible, and for racism, I have met people who claim that nonwhites are the descendants of Ham (the mormons have their own thing on that too, I don't really want to get into that one as it would be a whole other ball of wax).  For faith healing and such, part of why I mentioned Alzheimers is that there are no known cases of that going into remission. If a person was diagnosed with Alzheimers and then it suddenly vanished after a faith healer, that would work because if that was the only thing (they didn't also go on a new drug/experimental procedure/what have you) they were exposed to then it would work as evidence. As it would not only be radically more effective than a placebo but ANY drug or treatment attempt made. To your question of information in the genome, what do you mean when you say information? An Amoeba has more 'information' than a human does, if you were to digitize its genome it takes up more space than a humans does, so I would love to hear what you define information as. Similarly, what do you define 'kinds' as, since there have been no successful attempts to scientifically work out the various biblical kinds, even the proponents of ID, many of whom attempted to work out the various kinds, proved unable to do so, eventually abandoning the project.

On a more personal note, I think Anarchism could work if we existed in a post scarcity world as most conflicts are based around need for resources. If we can make it so that we have more than everyone can use government becomes less necessary and anarchism more practical. The dangers of the rogue destructive element still exist but hopefully would be easier to manage. I do wonder why it seems to bother you that I constantly study my own positions, since from my view doing that allows me to be more sure of myself, my views and better able to defend and clarify them when questions come up.

As to why people have children, biological urge. Those that don't have the urge likely self select themselves out of the gene pool by not reproducing. And what purpose do we fulfill for God exactly? Again, God is a perfect being so he wouldn't need our love or affection any more than I would need, or even desire an anthill worshiping me. God also made the angels before man, if Satan was truly the serpent in the garden then he was going against God before the fall, an evil act, therefore apparently Adams sin was SO terrible that it actually went back in time and affected lucifer before it was eaten. Otherwise God also created evil, he created servants that he knew would lead man astray.

We accept what works, exactly as we are doing at this very moment. What works changes over time, exactly as it is doing, at this very moment.

If our morals came from the bible why have they changed so much? Were people randomly raping, killing, stealing etc before we received the ten commandments as written by a "mouthpiece" for a god and is it still going on to an extent to this day. I suspect the amount of killing, raping and stealing has gone down significantly but not due to morals but law created by man based on morals necessary for a society to function.

Societies existed before "christianity" therefore morals were around already. Even social animals have morals that are clearly obvious, again it is necessary for them to function.

but that is the judgement of one for whom it is the supreme peak of insightfulness.........good grief, presumably you actually rate this definition!!!!!! 

if your time is so precious why d'you waste so much posting nonsense?

AiG

We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.³

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.⁴ These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.⁵ Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

Isochron Dating

There is another form of dating called isochron dating, which involves analyzing four or more samples from the same rock unit. This form of dating attempts to eliminate one of the assumptions in single-sample radioisotope dating by using ratios and graphs rather than counting atoms present. It does not depend on the initial concentration of the daughter element being zero. The isochron dating technique is thought to be infallible because it supposedly eliminates the assumptions about starting conditions. However, this method has different assumptions about starting conditions and can give incorrect dates.

If single-sample and isochron dating methods are objective and reliable they should agree. However, they frequently do not. When a rock is dated by more than one method it may yield very different ages. For example, the RATE group obtained radioisotope dates from ten different locations. To omit any potential bias, the rock samples were analyzed by several commercial laboratories. In each case, the isochron dates differed substantially from the single-sample radioisotope dates. In some cases the range was more than 500 million years.⁶ Two conclusions drawn by the RATE group include:

1. The single-sample potassium-argon dates showed a wide variation.
2. A marked variation in ages was found in the isochron method using different parent-daughter analyses.

If different methods yield different ages and there are variations with the same method, how can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth?

In one specific case, samples were taken from the Cardenas Basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formations in the canyon, were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks! Are the dates given in textbooks and journals accurate and objective? When assumptions are taken into consideration and discordant (disagreeing or unacceptable) dates are not omitted, radioisotope dating often gives inconsistent and inflated ages.

Freeminer, you keep saying that rationalistic societies tend towards tyranny, what reason do you have for this? What evidence do you have? I could point out all the theocracies that were dictatorships in history and how many of them were willing to kill those they saw as threats to their power or to the religion (as church and state were intertwined). I could also point out that the founders of the US were deists, Ben Franklin was a member of the American Hellfire Club and they specifically tried to avoid theocracy because they saw it as a danger. If you're claiming that society gets its authority from 'God' and that 'Gods Law' is key, then why no dietary laws? Why not follow levitical law and make it a key part of our legal system? The reason is usually that such laws either seem silly (dietary restrictions, not wearing clothing of two fabric types) or unjust (a woman being punished for being raped, disobedient children being stoned to death). I do find it interesting that you seem to creating a dichotomy between reasonableness and rationalism, and as to the question of accountability, the law still exists and I still need people to survive. I care about my friends and family, both as fellow human beings and as people who I enjoy being around. I am atheist, but I don't just run around causing havoc and destruction, for one thing it's kind of a dick thing to do, for another I'd be arrested and imprisoned. The fact that you seem to think that the vague fear of hell can control people seems somewhat odd given that there are plenty of people in prison who subscribe to the various Abrahamic religions.

In terms of not holding grudges, the death penalty does hold a grudge, we kill you to show that killing people is wrong...seems a bit odd to me. Now you might ask how I'd feel if the victim were a friend, a spouse, a family member and while a valid question it's also an appeal to emotion. One basic question is how can we be sure of justice, in that we have found cases where people were on death row for crimes they did not commit. The innocence project and similar groups help, but they can't be everywhere. The death penalty also doesn't necessarily lower crime, in plenty of places crime rates remain constant or can even go up (this isn't to say that the death penalty causes crime to go up, more that crime rate and the death penalty are likely unrelated). I will add that I find it strange that you seem to think that the fear of hell is all that holds people from behaving in a monstrous manner, since if that was the case wouldn't atheists be doing road warrior assaults on towns, or committing horrific acts en masse?

You asked about my point when I mentioned the leperosy cure and the like, you had asked me for examples from the bible of bad medical treatments and of unjust passages, I was showing them. And slavery is not my word, Abraham mentioned buying individuals, they could have called it 'walrusiam' for all I care, by any technical definition it's still slavery. The bible found this acceptable, it also apparently had no problem with King Solomon having multiple wives and dozens, hundreds of concubines. Again, just saying that I find the morality in play a little odd. As to your response to what I said about reproduction, if you want sex but not kids we have contraceptives, we have vasectomies, we have the ability to give the kid up for adoption, IE you can go for sex but not kids. People trying for kids is more a biological thing, sure there are emotional reasons too, but a lot of it is still tied to simple genetic programming if you are able to overcome it or don't have it then fine, but since you are likely not having offspring you're self selecting yourself out of the human gene pool. Also, plenty of my views are fairly strong, but they still undergo analysis. I have to say I'm a bit confused, you say that we provide God with a relationship, why would God want one? Again, if God is a perfect being it would lack the need for such thing. If it still desired it for whatever reason, why us? Or to put it more directly, he apparently also made Angels, they have a clearer look at the grand picture, they are probably far smarter than man far wiser, why not keep a relationship with them, with beings closer to its (the it in question being a God, Goddess, Pantheon, etc.) mental abilities and level of comprehension that humanity. You call my comparison to an anthill 'tediously functional' I would like a bit of clarification but it seems to be what our relationship would be to the God you describe in terms of intellectual capacity etc.

To answer your question of the perfectly righteous being, we then have some questions. You say that evil existed before God made anything, fine. But if that's true so did good, so did essentially all concepts. So, either these concepts are universal regardless of deity (which brings up some other issues) or these are things that we ourselves have come up with and will argue over philosophically until the end of our species. Though if the former is true then I would think that it also means that I can also apply judgement to God could I not? Since if morality and such are truly objective and universal then it would also be able to judge a divine being as good or evil or say that action X is Good but action Y was evil. In such a case God could be said to be committing evil acts, or is this a case where laws are objective for everyone but God who is always good so can never do wrong?

((I'll drop the anarchism discussion after this since it's tangental. But in an anarchist system there is no economy, for anarchy to work we can't have currency either, again, why we need to be post scarcity. I never said it was eminently plausible that we could reach this point, I am just saying that if we do anarchism is tenable))

I'm not sure why you find this "suspicious".......it is, after all, in line with what the Bible says......we are made in his image.

but you appear to live under the misapprehension that you don't have cognitive bias. We are all biased, the trick is to analyse the reasons we hold the biases we do.