The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Sure they did, but they called them "Jesus Horses"

Well that was intelligent.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Forgot the comments about my beliefs in the Bible -

We already know that the Bible has been revised, revamped, edited, many times, over the centuries.

Nobody would ever need to revise, alter, or edit the Holy Bible, unless they were making it say what they wish it had said, but didn't. Skewing the Bible is making it say things that were not said, changing what was said, or meant, simply because those who held power, to actually revise the Bible, destroy any other version of it, or claim it is wrong, skewed, poisoned, which made 'the King's' version of it, and the Bible we read today...
...

Has the Bible Been Changed or Tampered With?

No. A comparison of ancient manuscripts shows that the Bible is basically unchanged despite millenniums of recopying on perishable materials.

Does this mean that mistakes in copying were never made?

Thousands of ancient Bible manuscripts have been found. Some of these contain a number of differences, indicating that mistakes were made in copying. Most of these differences are minor and do not change the meaning of the text. However, a few significant differences have been discovered, some of which appear to be deliberate attempts made long ago to alter the Bible’s message. Consider two examples:

1. At 1 John 5:7, some older Bible translations contain the following words: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” However, reliable manuscripts confirm that these words were not in the original text. They were added later. * Thus, reliable modern Bible translations have excluded them.

2. God’s personal name appears thousands of times in ancient manuscripts of the Bible. Yet, numerous Bible translations have replaced it with titles such as “Lord” or “God.”

How can we be sure that there are not many more errors waiting to be found?

At this point, so many manuscripts have been discovered that it is easier than ever before to detect errors. * What has a comparison of these documents revealed regarding the accuracy of the Bible today?

- Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the “Old Testament”), scholar William H. Green stated: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.”

- Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or “New Testament,” Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”

- Sir Frederic Kenyon, a noted authority on Bible manuscripts, stated that one “can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.”

What additional reasons are there for confidence that the Bible has been transmitted with accuracy?

- Both Jewish and Christian copyists preserved accounts that expose the serious mistakes made by God’s people. * (Numbers 20:12; 2 Samuel 11:​2-4; Galatians 2:​11-​14) Likewise, they preserved passages that condemn the Jewish nation’s disobedience and that expose man-made doctrines. (Hosea 4:2; Malachi 2:​8, 9; Matthew 23:​8, 9; 1 John 5:​21) By copying these accounts accurately, the copyists showed their trustworthiness and their high regard for God’s sacred Word.

- Is it not reasonable that God, having inspired the Bible in the first place, would also preserve its accuracy? * (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:​24, 25) After all, he intended it to benefit not only people of long ago but also us today. (1 Corinthians 10:11) In fact, “all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.”​—Romans 15:4.

- Jesus and his followers quoted from copies of the Hebrew Scriptures without expressing any concern about the accuracy of those ancient texts.​—Luke 4:​16-​21; Acts 17:​1-3.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: turbonium1

The catholic church does not know Christ. Why people still support and
follow it I find perplexing to say the least. Child molesters and people
still follow it's teachings? IDK

John explains at 3:19-21:

19 Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world, but men* [Or “people.”] have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. 20 For whoever practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his works may not be reproved.* [Or “exposed.”] 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest as having been done in harmony with God.”

It may also hold a clue why so many people voted for Trump (or similar characters).

a reply to: carsforkids

And yet many people still follow the old testament. How do you know it's wrong? Surely , as it's older than the new testament, it should be more reliable?

How do you know the old testament is not the word of God? Did God change him mind and realise he was too brutal? Nope! Because he is just as brutal in the new testament, as evidence shows!

So, the humans who wrote the old testament, we're they lying? If so, then does that tell you the same for the new testament. With its stupid facts that have been proven wrong, and it's brutality towards innocent men, women and children?

a reply to: carsforkids

The catholic church does not know Christ. Why people still support and
follow it I find perplexing to say the least. Child molesters and people
still follow it's teachings? IDK

Are you saying there are no Christian priests that molest children? Are you saying there are not Christians who are white extremists or extreme sexist, or do not murder people?

If so, then you are very niave! The bible talks about murdering innocent people, so why shouldn't Christians do it?

a reply to: whereislogic

I can definitely see how that would apply to the catholic church.
As I understand it incorporated pagan, roman and Celtic deities right
into their own form of Christianity.

a reply to: Jay-morris

And yet many people still follow the old testament. How do you know it's wrong? Surely , as it's older than the new testament, it should be more reliable?

Where did I say it's wrong Jay? I think half our problem might be
communication. Just as much my lack of understanding what you're
lay'n down. Because I would never say the old testament is wrong.

See here again.

Are you saying there are no Christian priests that molest children?

I only know Catholic priests have molested children as per the media.
Are you saying catholic priests aren't Christian?

If so, then you are very niave! The bible talks about murdering innocent people, so why shouldn't Christians do it?

Jay, Cmon that is completely ass backwards.

And where does this come from?

How do you know the old testament is not the word of God?

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

a reply to: carsforkids

Where did I say it's wrong Jay? I think half our problem might be
communication. Just as much my lack of understanding what you're
lay'n down. Because I would never say the old testament is wrong.

See here again.

So, let me get this straight. If you believe that the old testament is not wrong, then you have to agree with the brutality commanded by your God. Is that right?

I only know Catholic priests have molested children as per the media.
Are you saying catholic priests aren't Christian?

Because you do not see it in the news, does not mean it's happening.

link

CHURCH OF ENGLAND
THE SCALE OF THE ABUSE
In 2016, the Church of England was dealing with 3,300 complaints of sexual abuse. This is the latest figure available, and was revealed to the general synod in February 2018 by the Rt Rev Peter Hancock, Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Church’s lead bishop on safeguarding issues, who was responding to a written question from a lay member of the Church’s governing body. He said most of the “concerns or allegations” related to children, young people and vulnerable adults within church communities.

Jay, Cmon that is completely ass backwards.

How is it? If your God is ok with commanding the deaths of innocent people, then why can't fanatics use that to kill innocent people? I mean, we already see people using the bible as an excuse for their violence. Good example is the KKK. They are Christians. They have used violence and murder to get their point across.

How can you read God commanding the deaths of innocent men, women and children, who have done nothing, yet still loving him and call him a loving God? Nothing living about that!

And I go back to another one of my questions you ignored. Show me the evidence that your religion is the true religion? What makes your religion more true than Islam, Buddhism, Catholic etc etc

What evidence do you have?

a reply to: Jay-morris

I'm going to answer you one thing at a time so be patient please?

1.

So, let me get this straight. If you believe that the old testament is not wrong, then you have to agree with the brutality commanded by your God. Is that right?

Yes good so far! You call it brutality but it's really judgement.

Because you do not see it in the news, does not mean it's happening.

I'm sorry I can't make any sense of this one. Can you rephrase please?

How is it? If your God is ok with commanding the deaths of innocent people, then why can't fanatics use that to kill innocent people? I mean, we already see people using the bible as an excuse for their violence. Good example is the KKK. They are Christians. They have used violence and murder to get their point across.

I absolutely disagree with all of this. You can't blame God or the Bible for what
messed up people do period. If you blamed religion for such things then I would
tend to lean your way. Because religion is something completely
different. Like the catholic church. As I said IMO does not know Christ. And that
isn't to say all religion is evil either. But that's what Jesus came up against in
Jerusalem.

How can you read God commanding the deaths of innocent men, women and children, who have done nothing, yet still loving him and call him a loving God? Nothing living about that!

How ? The same way I corrected what you were saying about the passage
in Leviticus. Remember the one you cherry picked out of context?

And I go back to another one of my questions you ignored. Show me the evidence that your religion is the true religion? What makes your religion more true than Islam, Buddhism, Catholic etc etc

For the last time Jay, I don't have a religion. I can fully believe something
without a religion.

Why do I think what I believe is right? Because if I thought it was wrong I wouldn't
believe it!

a reply to: carsforkids

Yes good so far!

So you believe it's ok to massacre innocent people, or to put it another way, to murder your children?

I'm sorry I can't make any sense of this one. Can you rephrase please?

Just because you do not see it in the media, does not mean it's not happening.

I absolutely disagree with all of this. You can't blame God or the Bible for what
messed up people do period.

But God justifies it in the bible, many times. He even commands it many times. So yes, you can blame God.

If you blamed religion for such things then I would
tend to lean your way. Because religion is something completely
different. Like the catholic church. As I said IMO does not know Christ. And that
isn't to say all religion is evil either. But that's what Jesus came up against in
Jerusalem.

All this brutality is in the bible. In the name of God, and commanded by God. What else is there to say!?

How ? The same way I corrected what you were saying about the passage
in Leviticus. Remember the one you cherry picked out of context?

Yet, ignored the "throwing children against rocks" and came out with a weak excuse on why he commanded the murder of innocent men, women and children. Well done!

a reply to: carsforkids

Yes what a living God he us!

Ezekiel 35:7-9 New Living Translation (NLT)

7 I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. 8 I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your ravines will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. 9 I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

Sounds like a dictator who lust blood! A sociopath!

a reply to: Jay-morris

So you believe it's ok to massacre innocent people, or to put it another way, to murder your children?

If my children come under his judgement? I pretty much have to be okay
with it. You're being redundant and assuming these people are innocent.
In fact you demand that they are innocent. You don't get to make that
call. Most of these people you're referring to sacrificed their own children
to their false gods. They burned them in the belly of a metal calf. And
because God put an end to such wickedness you blame him? You don't know
what you're talking about. Which has been demonstrated already.

Yet, ignored the "throwing children against rocks" and came out with a weak excuse on why he commanded the murder of innocent men, women and children. Well done!

Forget it! I'm not gonna try n reason with someone who can't even admit
their wrong. You took that whole verse in Leviticus out of context just
like every other excuse you want to use. I've played this game before
and it goes no where every time. So I'm done if that's okay with you?

a reply to: carsforkids

If my children come under his judgement? I pretty much have to be okay
with it. You're being redundant and assuming these people are innocent.
In fact you demand that they are innocent. You don't get to make that
call. Most of these people you're referring to sacrificed their own children
to their false gods. They burned them in the belly of a metal calf. And
because God put an end to such wickedness you blame him? You don't know
what you're talking about. Which has been demonstrated already.

So, if your sociopathic God wanted to kill your innocent children, you would be ok with that? You say how do I know they were not innocent. Please explain to me when young children are not innocent?

Forget it! I'm not gonna try n reason with someone who can't even admit
their wrong. You took that whole verse in Leviticus out of context just
like every other excuse you want to use. I've played this game before
and it goes no where every time. So I'm done if that's okay with you?

lol you worship a sociopathic God who commands the death of innocent children. Are you sure you are not worshiping the devil in disguise?

a reply to: Jay-morris

If you say so Jay

originally posted by: TzarChasm
We can't assume these supernatural properties exist, we can't assume these dimensions are possible



... Science. 👏 Doesn't. 👏
Do. 👏 That. 👏

But that's actually exactly what is done with the theory of evolution. We can't assume the biological diversity came to be by random chance, but that's exactly what the scientific community does. We can't assume such a miracle of random mutations leading to increased complexity is even possible, yet evolutionary theorists do. There is no empirical evidence for evolutionary theory, yet it is touted as undeniable dogma.

You have the exact attributes of the theists that you so deeply loathe.

a reply to: cooperton

Astyanax very kindly shared an empirical video of evolution in action. Feel free to point out specific details of the experiment and illustrate the errors in their studies. Please note I'm referring only to the video/article provided in the opening post of that thread, not your unrelated efflux pump study covering the artificial modification of bacteria to boost their immunity without evolution.

This discussion is about the Drake equation which is a thought experiment exploring the chances of other intelligent life in the cosmos based on our limited studies of life in a habitable environment ie this one planet we live on. It's not an evolution debate, but maybe you want to start a separate topic correlating the two concepts.

a reply to: cooperton


I agree
Seems a little off asking a theist for evidence when "Science doesn't do that".
If science doesn't wanna do it's job don't ask a theist to do it for you?
Why doesn't science explore all the possibilities? who made up the protocols
and why are they so biased?

I smell a rat

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Barcs

Dude settle down you're gonna have a heart attack and confirm for
yourself everything I'm telling you is true. And we'll still be here
arguing about it. If science says miracles happen it's okay with me.
You're golden.

Maybe try making an argument that isn't verbal diarrhea.

originally posted by: carsforkids
Lol we don't see a double standard because you wish one was there. Again so
you hopefully give up your hopeless redundant point. We simply point to an
outside source for emergence that by the way you can not show doesn't fit
perfectly. Especially when what you offer in argument is impossible.
Life only comes from life in this natural reality. You talk about a double
standard?

Double standard obvious as day:

- Intelligence can only come from intelligence
- God's intelligence always existed

Blatant contradiction, both cannot be true. Epic fail.

Again you have done nothing whatsoever to prove your point, you just keep using fallacies like flipping the burden of proof and pretending an extraordinary claim is the default position, when it has no supporting evidence whatsoever. You keep making claims about things being impossible but have demonstrated absolutely nothing regarding that, you just expect us to take your baseless claims as fact. You don't even know what a double standard is. LMFAO!

Well science doesn't deal with the paranormal? Then it can't offer life
just popping up out of nowhere when even the number of arguments
against it would fill the gawd damn universe.

Science does not say life just pops out of nowhere, stop lying.

What a joke. Argue all you want you've already lost by a landslide.
Because if science really had a plausible answer? It should be one
that leaves me with out an argument.

Has science done that? Not even close.

And you appeal to ignorance again, completing the trifecta of fallacies. Keep it coming, your obvious delusional nonsense is funny to people that actually understand how science and logic works.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

lol

Nice self portrait. That's exactly what you sound like in this thread with your verbal diarrhea. Rather than backing up your claims, you just repeat the claims over and over. It's comically bad, dude. Nobody is buying your nonsense except Coop, and Coop believes anything related to God, regardless of how stupid.

originally posted by: carsforkids
This passage proves nothing because you have taken it way out of context.

That's a lie. There is nothing out of context, as per the laws of Leviticus you are allowed to own people as property.

“Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave is to be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16

Owning people as property is not the equivalent of kidnapping. Nice red herring, typical pre-programmed excuse. Christians are THIS deluded that they literally think the bible doesn't allow owning of people as property, because you aren't allowed to kidnap. Laughably stupid and dishonest.

From the new testament:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. –Galatians 3:28

That does not say that slavery is wrong or owning people as property is wrong. Nice try, another lie.

1 Peter 2:18
"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Ironic that you claim he is cherry picking, when the bible says it clear as day that owning as property is allowed.

Why do you cherry pick the Bible verse you can take out of context and
accuse me of cherry picking and dishonesty? Hello pot meet the liberal
kettle! Looks like I have to take another toy away from you because you
refuse to play fair. Lets give your toy some context.

HILARIOUS!!! This is coming from the guy that took the kidnapping verse out of context because you've been brainwashed with excuses. Are you ever going to be honest? I doubt it.

“If any Israelites living near you become SO POOR that THEY SELL THEMSELVES to you as a slave, you shall not make them do the work of a slave. They shall stay with you as hired workers and serve you until the next Year of Restoration.” – Leviticus 25:39-40

Indentured servants were not owned as property and had many limits and restrictions that did not apply to slaves bought from slave traders. LMFAO @ not knowing the difference between servitude and slavery despite the bible clearly differentiating between the 2 and having different rules for each one. So dishonest.

It's funny how atheists pretty much always know the bible better than Christians. Most Christians have never even read the whole thing, only cherry picked pieces here and there. And sorry but trying to defend slavery speaks volumes about your character. You are willing to look past immortal teachings and atrocities to keep your delusion alive.

a reply to: Barcs

You cannot debate with these people, it's impossible. So brainwashed and conditioned. It's amazing that this dude keeps on talking about evidence, but does not produce any to back his claims.

It's also amazing how he keeps on saying we have no evidence, while vastly ignoring the evidence we have posted.

But hey, as ling as they are not hurting anyone, each to their own I guess!