The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: carsforkids

Jay do you realize how silly it is to claim that a lack of PREFERRED evidence
is by no means a way to support a claim of no evidence therefore non existence?

So, with that logic, then anything can exist. Even the goods you do not worship because there is just as much evidence for them than the God you worship. Heck, with that logic, why don't we through tooth fairies, dragons, father Christmas, unicorns, banshees to name a few in the list too!

That logic is so flawed!

I say the universe is a Creation. I have pre existing information ( Clearly not
from myth as Atheism only wishes were true. Another silly unintelligent
atheist lie) from very old writings that in themselves lay many wonders.
Not to mention the miracle of us even having them. So with that and
having said Creation? You can't deny that imply's an intelligent supreme
being that we have a word for God.

You are not using evidence! You are using belief! Was it the bible that told us a out the billions of galaxies out there? Was it the bible that told us about micro organisms? Was it the bible that told us about dinosaurs? Was it the bible that told us how the universe was made? No, it was science!

The bible told us that God made everything in 6 days. We know that to be BS. We know it takes billions of years for systems to be born. That in itself tells you the bible was the words of man, not God! But you keep on saying lack of evidence, when you have given absolutly no evidence to back up what you are saying!

All that said if you ever took that much seriously you'd understand that
even other religions like Buddhism have their God Buddha claiming he
himself is not divinity. And I'm not 100% on this last part but believe he
pointed to Christ was Divine. And I know Confucius did. All that to say
if you ever do open your mind instead of arguing unscientifically from
a closed mind? Then you can figure the rest out for yourself. As I did
at ten years old.

Why the hell would I want go worship a God that has brought so much death and destruction. What does that make you to worship such a God? You may as well be worshiping the devil!

If you had children, and they did not respect you, would you want your own children to burn in Hell forever? If this answer is yes, what type of person would that make you? It would make you an evil person.

I'm just your average guy on the street child of the seventies truck driver.
I've been corrected many a time and being a full grown man I've admitted
to being wrong often. But I've been around long enough and have seen
nothing on this planet or any other to convince me to change what I believe.
Not even close.

Revised

No, it's not that you have not seen anything to change your mind. Belief is a powerful thing, and it blinds people. The bible is obviously BS. Yes, if the bible mentioned things that people would not have known back then, then you would have an argument. You are not the only one. Islam does it too, and it's obvious that they were both written by man.

You can believe what you want if it makes you happy and you are not hurting anyone, but you are wrong.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Akragon

Thus you were born into your belief systems... just as i was... and most christians or other religions

I don't even have a religion now. What the hell I wasn't born into anything.
And you want to argue about that now? I bet you can tell me where I
was born then also? So have at it? Tell me all about me?

LOL

You do not have a religon, but you obviously swear by the bible and Jesus. Are you confused?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Well... in his defence... I personally believe Jesus had it right

and im not religious what so ever... anymore lol

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

Well... in his defence... I personally believe Jesus had it right

and im not religious what so ever... anymore lol

Well, it's his dad who is the sociopath who craves power and attention, and throws tantrums!

But he loves us lol

a reply to: Jay-morris

Yeah that's one of the many issues I've had in the past with the bible... Came to conclusion that the critter in the OT was not the "god" he was talking about... though that isn't the topic at hand

Jesus Vs The Imposter

thats about 7 years old... but yeah...

a reply to: Akragon

Chances are at 10 years old you didn't suddenly decide to pick up a bible and start reading... longest most boring book in the world IF you start from Genesis and work your way though the chapters... especially IF you're 10 lol

Oh but I did start reading the Bible even with a lack of understanding at that age.
But only after pondering one question with only two possible answers for what
wasn't a long time but with an open mind to both. Point is it didn't take me long
for even a ten year old kid ( Lacking the high dollar indoctrination of your
institutions obviously) to figure out that evolution was crap and makes no sense.
And this is just before going into my high school years where it was tempting to
discard God. And being one of the more popular kids at school. I wrestled with it
often believe me.

I don't like to talk about my parents much but all either one of them ever told
me was to figure out for myself in time. And they weren't bad people by a damn
site. They were just always stressed out about money. We didn't have much.
So enough about me right there and remember you're the one got me go'n
down that road! Hate talk'n about myself.

a reply to: carsforkids

Fair enough... though you've brought up things we know that are factually wrong within the bible...

the flood, the garden of eden… Not sure if you believe in the trinity or not but IF you happen to, theres another one...

how does one come to the conclusion that these things are true.... when we know they're not?

Theres only a few ways really.... church... or just digging through Christian material until you convince yourself...

I find it hard to side with religious theory as opposed to science and evidence... religious people do not

a reply to: Jay-morris

You do not have a religon, but you obviously swear by the bible and Jesus. Are you confused?

No heffe' I'm not confused. If by religion you mean Baptist, Lutheran etc.
Catholicism I have none of that. I'm just a true believer who see's that
even God has no religion. Christ died at the hands of religion along with a
great part of humanity. You can say I'm a Christian if you have to put
a handle on it. But that doesn't mean I have to claim even that.

a reply to: Akragon

the flood, the garden of eden… Not sure if you believe in the trinity or not but IF you happen to, theres another one...

From what I know of this it's easy to pick apart any written word.
It means nothing.

a reply to: carsforkids

So basically its easier to believe what the book says is true because it says its true... rather then finding out IF its actually the truth...

Pretty much why most of these guys hammer on Religious people so much... Though many tend to hammer back regardless of what they're shown... its easy to deny evidence when one doesn't read it

a reply to: Akragon

Been there done that. I've already said here in that to this day I
am convinced with an open mind. I have never seen an argument
or single example of a lie in the Bible that could cause me to change
my mind. I will admit tho it is very tempting for the sake of convenience.

But with moral law there simply must be a moral law giver. Despite
splitting hairs to prove a point. When every message is wrought with
truth and reason. Splitting hairs like that would get you
beheaded in Islam. But the true God has obviously given you that
freedom of choice. So hammer away, I'm solid.

a reply to: carsforkids

well again, that's not really my thing anymore... these threads are entertaining though...

at least in comparison to the usual trump trump trump that's on ATS these days..

In any case I tend to leave the science to those that know it... and there are quite a few members here that are scientists

but as far as the drake equation goes... like I've said, its only based on probability, not fact...

except we've already found fossilized bacteria on meteors and Mars... we just haven't found anything living... the moment we do find something alive... said equation becomes closer to fact then theory

its only a matter of time

originally posted by: cooperton

...Although if God did take physical form, the human vessel would be the archetypal vessel for a Creator Being to manifest as.

A bit off-topic, but can a human vessel contain the One whom ‘the heavens themselves cannot contain’? (1 Kings 8:27)

27 “But will God really dwell on the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, cannot contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have built!

Myth 5: Mary Is the Mother of God

What is the origin of the myth?

“Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when . . . the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness [that of pagans converted to Christianity] had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin.’”​—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 16, pages 326 and 327.

What does the Bible say?

“You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”​—Italics ours; Luke 1:31-35, The New Jerusalem Bible.

That passage of Scripture clearly states that Mary was the mother of the “Son of God,” not of God himself. Could she have carried within her the One whom ‘the heavens themselves cannot contain’? (1 Kings 8:27) She never made such a claim. It is the teaching about the Trinity that has sown confusion over the identity of Mary. By proclaiming her Theotokos (a Greek word meaning “God-bearer”), or “Mother of God,” the Council of Ephesus, in 431 C.E., set the stage for Mary worship. The city of Ephesus where this church council was held had for centuries been at the heart of idol worship celebrating the fertility goddess Artemis.

So it was that many aspects of the worship of the image of Artemis that “fell from heaven,” such as processions, were integrated into Mary worship. (Acts 19:35) Another practice that crept into Christian teaching was the use of images of Mary and others in worship.

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 13:53-56; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27, 28

FACT:

Mary was the mother of the Son of God, not of God himself. The Trinity myth gave birth to the worship of Mary as the Mother of God

Myth 6: God Approves of the Use of Images and Icons in Worship
Myth 4: God Is a Trinity (from the article “One Myth Leads to Another”)

a reply to: whereislogic

the trinity comes from the second century by the way...

it was made part of the system after Nicea….

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

...The bible told us that God made everything in 6 days. We know that to be BS.

And I know that claim to be BS, the Bible teaches no such thing. It's a convenient set-up (assist) though for those who want to dismiss the evidence for creation while fueling their intellectual superiority complexes ( a result of being affected by all the appeals to pride and reverse appeals to pride that play on people's fear of seeming stupid; a propaganda and marketing technique used extensively by promoters of evolutionary philosophies and bible critics alike, and many of those arguing against creation).

Regarding the key part below, “the heavens” in Genesis 1:1 is referring to the universe and everything in it.

...
Today the evolution theory is claimed to be an indispensable foundation of science. A key reason for the relationship is identified by physicist Fred Hoyle: “Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth.” What kind of excesses have made religion so distasteful to science?

Religion Gives Creation a Bad Name

In a supposed attempt to uphold the Bible, the “creationists”​—mostly allied with fundamentalist Protestants—​have insisted that the earth and the universe are less than 10,000 years old. This extreme view has invited the ridicule of geologists, astronomers, and physicists, for it contradicts their findings.

But what does the Bible really say? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) The time involved is not specified. The “first day” of creation is not even mentioned until Genesis 1:3-5. “The heavens and the earth” already existed when this first “day” began. Therefore, could the heavens and the earth be billions of years old, as scientists claim? They may very well be. The Bible simply does not specify the time covered.

Another excess of religion is the way some interpret the six ‘days’ of creation. Some fundamentalists insist that these days are literal, restricting earthly creation to a period of 144 hours. This provokes skepticism in scientists, for they feel that this claim conflicts with clear scientific observations.

However, it is the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible​—not the Bible itself—​that is at odds with science. The Bible does not say that each creative “day” was 24 hours long; indeed, it includes all these ‘days’ in the much longer “day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven,” showing that not all Biblical ‘days’ contained just 24 hours. (Genesis 2:4) Some could have been many thousands of years in length.*

Thus, the idea of creation has been given a bad name by creationists and fundamentalists. Their teachings on the age of the universe and the length of the creative ‘days’ are in harmony neither with reasonable science nor with the Bible. However, there are also other excesses that have made religion distasteful to scientists.

Abuse of Power

...

Source: Science, Religion, and the Search for Truth (1994)

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: whereislogic

the trinity comes from the second century by the way...

it was made part of the system after Nicea….

Well, if you just say "trinity" like that without further specification as to how the concept of a trinity was used in Christendom, it's technically much older than the second century if one includes the pagan trinities.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

But Tertullian, a writer in the second and third centuries C.E., became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. It's ironic though, cause some of his teachings were quite contradictory to the Nicene Creed (more on that in the article quoted further below) which is actually the product of the First Council of Constantinople (381) rather than of the First Council of Nicea (325). “The Council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for [the yet future Trinity] doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance . . . as the Father.’”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

The Paradox of Tertullian

..
Corrupts the Truth While Defending It

Tertullian began his essay entitled Against Praxeas saying: “In various ways has the devil rivalled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth by defending it.” The man named Praxeas of this essay is not clearly identified, but Tertullian took issue with his teachings concerning God and Christ. He viewed Praxeas as a pawn of Satan covertly trying to corrupt Christianity.

A crucial issue among professed Christians at that time was the relationship between God and Christ. Some among them, particularly those of Greek background, found it difficult to reconcile belief in one God with the role of Jesus as Savior and Redeemer. Praxeas attempted to solve their dilemma by teaching that Jesus was just a different mode of the Father and there was no difference between the Father and the Son. This theory, known as modalism, alleges that God revealed himself “as the Father in Creation and in the giving of the Law, as the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.”

Tertullian showed that the Scriptures made a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. After quoting 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, he reasoned: “He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected​—must necessarily be two different Beings.” Tertullian called attention to Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Using portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Psalm 8:5, he showed how the Bible describes the “inferiority” of the Son. “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son,” Tertullian concluded. “Inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.”

Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.

Beware of Worldly Philosophy

How was Tertullian able to devise the theory of “one substance in three persons”? The answer lies in yet another paradox about the man​—his view of philosophy. Tertullian called philosophy “‘the doctrines’ of men and ‘of demons.’” He openly criticized the practice of using philosophy to support Christian truths. “Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition,” he stated. Yet, Tertullian himself made liberal use of secular philosophy when it harmonized with his own ideas.​—Colossians 2:8.

One reference work states: “Trinitarian theology required the aid of Hellenistic concepts and categories for its development and expression.” And the book The Theology of Tertullian notes: “[It was] a curious blend of juristic and philosophic ideas and terms, which enabled Tertullian to set out the trinitarian doctrine in a form which, despite its limitations and imperfections, supplied the framework for the later presentation of the doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.” Hence, Tertullian’s formula​—three persons in one divine substance—​played a major role in the spreading of religious error throughout all of Christendom.

Tertullian accused others of destroying the truth while they were trying to defend it. Ironically, however, by mixing divinely inspired Bible truth and human philosophy, he fell into the same trap. Let us therefore take to heart the Scriptural warning against “paying attention to misleading in spired utterances and teachings of demons.”​—1 Timothy 4:1.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, if you just say "trinity" like that without further specification as to how the concept of a trinity was used in Christendom, it's technically much older than the second century if one includes the pagan trinities.

I was just saying it came far earlier then the 4th century... it was a work in progress for the next few hundred years finally being establish as part of the system after Nicea...after the ending of the Arian controversies where Arius was essentially murdered (poisoned)… even though his thoughts were more correct biblically then Athanasius who was merely a decon at the time... though he ended up becoming a bishop due to his subsequent work on the subject

originally posted by: Jay-morris

If you do not obey, then that loving God, who loves you, will condemn to hell for not brlieving him.

Does that sound like a sociopath to you?

God's Will is objectively the best option in your day-to-day life. It is the Archetypal Way written about by Lao Tzu about 600 years before the actual embodiment of the Way came as Jesus of Nazareth. To resemble this Way is most fitting for all, because it is the Good and True way, where illusion, separation, and ignorance can no longer disturb your mind. Anyone who ignores the True calling will be subject to the consequences of whatever is left; partaking in a life with others who are also living out a lie. Anything outside the True path is a lie. This is the self-manifest hell that occurs.

If you are not looking for God's Love that is imbued in all, what are you looking for then? All pursuits other than God will eventually perish.

originally posted by: carsforkids
Oh good you're back. I thought for a brief moment you might be finished
misrepresenting Creation and lying about everything.

Name a single lie I told. Oh wait, you can't, I already asked you that and you failed.

And yes in direct correlation to depravity, immorality, perversion and
crimes such as school shootings, hit and run murder, assault and
suicide! Atheism is on the rise.

Ironically you lie immediately after accusing me of lying. Most of the crimes you mentioned are committed by THEISTS! Pure comedy how ignorant you are. You literally got no argument, so you attack and spread falsehoods about atheists.

This is happening and is also predicted in the Bible many times. For instance
in revelation it is described as " The great falling away". I'm sure you'll
base some retort with some nonsense arguing the interpretation of Bible
prophecy and while you're free to do so. I won't be engaging you in an
argument in regards to a difference of opinion on Bible prophecy.

Hilarious how you post yet another red herring completely irrelevant to the conversation. Are you even capable of using logic or following a conversation? You are referencing a man made text as absolute truth with zero evidence.

So yes you're right Atheism is on the rise and we can see all the
wonderful things going on around that Godlessness. Even today as
we speak, in the political arena.

Atheists/Agnostics make up more than 10 percent of the American population now. Guess how much of the federal prison population they make up? 0.4 % Yeah, it's totally all those evil atheists committing the majority of violent crimes and ruining the country, though, right? Is that why on a world wide level the countries with the highest atheist population percentages almost always have the lowest violent crime and best education? Too funny.

What denial? Are you even comprehending the conversation? How does God
grant all men free will and then condone slavery? To suggest even a simple
minded human like yourself would be so illogical oh wait...........

You are really #ing dumb. It was written in the bible. You are blindly denying it and making a bunch of weak excuses that you heard from liars on religious propaganda websites. If the bible is the word of god, then god condones and allows slavery, so he has worse morality than most modern people. It's comically ironic.

Again, Barcs seems to be to busy attacking the least educated (such
as myself) of the theists in this thread. That and backslapping
with other atheists for moral support. He's have'n a hard enough time
arguing with me!

At least you admit you are uneducated. Most religious clowns think they are more educated because they've been indoctrinated with lies and propaganda. Whereislogic is incapable of having an honest conversation. I stopped responding to him years ago because he regurgitates the same propaganda from the same BS Jehovah's witness website and he can't type a simple sentence without several unrelated tangents built in to purposely distract away from the main points which are always EASILY refuted. He's not honest, neither is Coop, neither are you.

a reply to: whereislogic


If that's the case,, then why do a lot of Christians believe it was six days? Even been debating people about it on this very thread, with some of them not even believing in other galaxies.

Why is that?