Page 5 of 8
#161
Quote by xxMr.Davexx

It's not self dellusion, I simply believe that he was a prophet of God. (You propably look at that as self delusion huh?)

Well, when the man in question is known (or at least, theres plenty evidence for it) to be a liar, yes.
And I didn't say I wasn't Christian.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#162
Christian v. Mormon fight!

Who would win in a fight to the death, Jesus or Joseph Smith? Jesus could, like, turn his blood into wine and he get alcohol poisoning or Joseph could become a spirit being and throw a planet at Jesus, but then Jesus may throw explosive, holy lambs at him!

Someone contact Screwattack!
#163
Jesus, duh.
Because he was the son of god
obvisoly
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#164
Quote by Hydra150
Care to elaborate?
I know little of this book.


We believe that the book of Mormon was translated from a set of gold plates (brass really) that had writing engraved on them. we believe these were written as a history of the people who enhabited south America.

we believe that after Christ died and was resurrected he visited the Americas. we believe that just like Abraham and moses there were prophets in the Americas, and people who worshipped God.

If you really want to understand it I recommend reading it, even if you don't give a crap about the religion it's an interesting book
I can never think of a good sig.
#165
Quote by xxMr.Davexx
With all do respect, that is bull crap. If that happened it was not the churches doing but individuals themselves. And if the individuals did that they were not acting as Mormon, Mormons believe in the ten commandments.

And to put it simply the Book of mormon is supposed to be the bible for anciant times in the American continents.

they were not acting as good mormonites? That's funny because back then the church taught that anyone who was not a Mormon was a godless heathen but have since changed that teaching to get more followers the same way that Egypt is constantly changing they're story to make they're history more appealing

Yes but the Book of Mormon has the "bible book" of judas escariot which should not be in there as he did not get to write a bible book making appear as though Joseph smith was only in it to make money off his followers
#166
Quote by xxMr.Davexx
We believe that the book of Mormon was translated from a set of gold plates (brass really) that had writing engraved on them. we believe these were written as a history of the people who enhabited south America.

we believe that after Christ died and was resurrected he visited the Americas. we believe that just like Abraham and moses there were prophets in the Americas, and people who worshipped God.

If you really want to understand it I recommend reading it, even if you don't give a crap about the religion it's an interesting book

Lies
Lies
Lies

I guess you are just to blind to see them.


Wait, let me guess, Jesus gave these "tablets" to Joseph smith himself?
If so why did no one besides Joseph smith see them?
#167
Quote by Hydra150
Jesus, duh.
Because he was the son of god
obvisoly

Jesus yes because that mormonite guy is a mere greedy mortal
#168
Quote by xxMr.Davexx
I disagree, We do not teach that the world is out to destroy our religion.


The prevailing attitude among Mormons is that it is. Since they are taught that Christ taught that his followers would be persecuted, that is how they generally feel. It is also constantly brought up that Satan is set out to destroy the gospel, which is in part manifested by the persecution of the "saints" by the world.

The world has differen't standards then the the LDS church, many of which contradict doctrine in the church. Therefore they would be anti-mormon, would they not? Just like if somone claimed that Jesus wasn't the Christ, that would be an anti Christian teaching. You clearly believe that "anti" has negative connotations attached to it, which in some cases is incorrect.


"Anti-Mormon" has a sinister connotation in LDS culture that goes far beyond mere contradiction of church doctrine. It's seen as so bad it comes from Satan himself. Members are told to avoid it at all costs. Anything critical of the LDS church is deemed anti-Mormon and thus dismissed entirely. It is not treated as a difference in opinion, it's treated as something to be fearful of. This is one of the things that points to the persecution complex, btw.

As far as persecution goes, historically Mormons were persecuted. To ignore that is willfully ignorant.


Of course, much of which was in response to the early Mormons' crimes and wrongdoings.

We do not consider people not taking us seriously persecution, when the LDS church talks of persecution they do not solely refer to themselves, many times they speak of the persecution of Christianity in general. And there is an undeniably anti-Christian sentiment in much of society.

Whether or not Christianity has done things to warrent this sentiment isn't the point of discussion.


You're right, but considering that other Christians (especially evangelicals) are some of the biggest critics of Mormonism, Mormons claim a special persecution.

Anyway thank you for indulging my curiosity, I hope I don't come as trying to prove you wrong, that is not my intention.


No problem, it's an area of interest for me so I like discussing it.
Quote by Ian_the_fox
You're not girly enough of a boy for me, and you're not man enough to take the top. So like, sorry bitch but you ain't mine! Sorry.
#169
Quote by Hydra150

Faith is one thing, deluding yourself is quite a bit worse imo.

They're the same thing. To believe anything without evidence is to delude yourself into thinking it.

I do not believe that Joseph Smith was a con (convicted sure) I believe he was innocent.
On what grounds?
The church was not racist either
This is nonsense. Blacks were not permitted to be ordained as priests, and were excluded from ordinances that were necessary for salvation. Until 1978 then, it was the Mormon position that all blacks were hell-bound and that they'd do nothing to help them.

Also, when trying to prove a church isn't racist, pointing out that the lone founder was an abolitionist is of no help.

Other things to point out about the Book of Mormon:

Claims to be written in 'reformed Egyptian'. This is an absolute falsehood which has been debunked by linguistics experts time and time again.

The book is littered with anachronisms, an obvious result of it's man-made nature.

I shouldn't need to point out that it is the only book that claims Jesus travelled to the Americas. There is no other record of it at all.

I could go on, but the fact that it is a man-made text is all but self evident.
#170
Mormonism is batshit crazy
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#172
Quote by Morphogenesis26
I thought you weren't religious, DESTROYER5000?

I never said I wasn't religious, I have said things like "I don't want to start a bible fight"
Because I find those quite annoying especially arguing with atheists because they go out of they're way you look bad instead of being polite and respectfully disagreeing
#173
Quote by DESTROYER5000
I never said I wasn't religious, I have said things like "I don't want to start a bible fight"
Because I find those quite annoying especially arguing with atheists because they go out of they're way you look bad instead of being polite and respectfully disagreeing


Yeah, I realized that I was thinking of someone else.

Atheists go out of their way to make you look bad? How so?
#174
Quote by DESTROYER5000
I never said I wasn't religious, I have said things like "I don't want to start a bible fight"
Because I find those quite annoying especially arguing with atheists because they go out of they're way you look bad instead of being polite and respectfully disagreeing

Why would we be respectful? I'm a heathen.
#175
Quote by willT08
They're the same thing. To believe anything without evidence is to delude yourself into thinking it.

On what grounds?
This is nonsense. Blacks were not permitted to be ordained as priests, and were excluded from ordinances that were necessary for salvation. Until 1978 then, it was the Mormon position that all blacks were hell-bound and that they'd do nothing to help them.

Also, when trying to prove a church isn't racist, pointing out that the lone founder was an abolitionist is of no help.

Other things to point out about the Book of Mormon:

Claims to be written in 'reformed Egyptian'. This is an absolute falsehood which has been debunked by linguistics experts time and time again.

The book is littered with anachronisms, an obvious result of it's man-made nature.

I shouldn't need to point out that it is the only book that claims Jesus travelled to the Americas. There is no other record of it at all.

I could go on, but the fact that it is a man-made text is all but self evident.

I like you, good sir, you seem to always have a balanced view of both sides.
#176
Quote by DESTROYER5000
I like you, good sir, you seem to always have a balanced view of both sides.

I try my best
#177
Quote by Morphogenesis26
Yeah, I realized that I was thinking of someone else.

Atheists go out of their way to make you look bad? How so?

I talked to one the other day at the grocery store not knowing they were atheist but they new i was a Jehovah's Witness instead of saying I really don't want to talk they were really rude and I hadn't brought anything religious up, but now that I think about it they did work there so they may have been having a bad day
#178
Quote by willT08
Why would we be respectful? I'm a heathen.

I never called you a heathen, I said the Mormon church teaches that anyone non Mormon is a godless heathen.
#179
Quote by DESTROYER5000
I talked to one the other day at the grocery store not knowing they were atheist but they new i was a Jehovah's Witness instead of saying I really don't want to talk they were really rude and I hadn't brought anything religious up, but now that I think about it they did work there so they may have been having a bad day


What does their being an atheist have to do with how rude they were?
#180
Quote by Morphogenesis26
What does their being an atheist have to do with how rude they were?

I thought them being rude was because they knew I was a JW and hated that but I just making freindly conversation, we are allowed to do that
#183
Quote by xxMr.Davexx
He was convicted a con for the use of seer stones, which I believe he could actually use with the help of God, so basically I have faith that he was a prophet. If you come at the issue from a non religious view point that's basically the same thing as a fortune teller, which was also considered a con.

It's not self dellusion, I simply believe that he was a prophet of God. (You propably look at that as self delusion huh?)


So pretending seer stones could find treasure and then later pretending they could translate the Book of Mormon doesn't set off a red flag?

What if Joseph Smith pissed people off by marrying a bunch of women, some underaged, some already married, and then the pissed off people exposed him in a newspaper, and then Joseph Smith had the printing press destroyed?

Quote by Ian_the_fox
You're not girly enough of a boy for me, and you're not man enough to take the top. So like, sorry bitch but you ain't mine! Sorry.
Last edited by fail at Mar 21, 2013,
#184
Quote by Hydra150
SLAAAAAAAACKEER!
Get back in here.


Sorry, I had stuff to do. I'll get right on it now.

Quote by DESTROYER5000
Ok now that I have seen "proof", make me a blade of grass using nothing more than bashing rocks together or exploding something, until then the Big Bang is nothing more than a mainstream science lie.

Fine, no problem.... I take it you have a spare 14 billion years or so to wait around for the process of getting grass from a big bang to be completed in thge same way that the fossil record tells us it happened? Or are you expecting me to miraculously make it happen all at once like some sort of mythical god?

Look, just as we know about evolution from observational evidence, we also know about the Big Bang from observational evidence too. We can see that the universe is constantly expanding, similar to how the clouds of gasses and bits of shrapnel expand after an explosion, and common sense tells us that if something is constantly expanding in this way, then it must have once been relatively very small.
That is all that the Big Bang theory suggests, nobody is saying that it started with an actual 'explosion', just that the universe is acting in a similar manner to how clouds of gasses and shrapnel act after an explosion.

The thing that I'm struggling to understand though is this, why do so many religious people automaticaly reject the Big Bang theory? You'd have thought that they would be fully in favour of a theory that was first proposed by a 'priest' (Georges Lemaître) and which shows that the universe actualy does have a beginning, as the Book of Genesis suggests, rather than infinately existing in it's present state (known as the 'Steady State theory') as many scientists used to think.

So tell me, why do you automaticaly reject it? Is it because science has become involved and expanded upon the ideas put forward by a priest? If scientists were to say that God definately exists, would you then reject God just to spite science?

Quote by DESTROYER5000

P.s if micro evolution is just adaption then why don't they just call it adaption, I assume its because they are still trying to force feed us the evolution theory.

They do sometimes call it 'adaption'. Micro and macro-evolution are actualy terms that are more often used by creationists who wish to argue that there's a difference between the two and that one of them (macro-evolution) doesn't exist, as opposed to science which actualy considers them to be the same thing but on different time scales. That's why I used those terms when talking to a creationist like yourself, because I thought it would make it easier for you to understand if I used terms that most creationists are familiar with.
Don't argue with me about this, argue with your fellow creationists about it.

Quote by DESTROYER5000
NO! Evolution is taught because it is a money maker it never happened, where is the missing link that would prove evolution?
EVOLUTION IS JUST A MAINSTREAM SCIENCE LIE!!!! IF YOU DID ANY RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO TEACH IT DOUBT WHETHER IT IS FACT, SO UNTIL YOU SHOW ME A MONKEY ON ITS WAY TO BEING HUMAN THE EVOLUTION THEORY IS NOTHING BUT PURE CRAP!!!!!!!

OK.



It's called 'Australopithecus' and it lived about 2 million years ago (our own species appears on the fossil record only about 200,000 years ago). Strictly speaking, what you asked for is impossible because 'monkeys' (small primates with tails) evolved into 'ape'-like creatures (larger primates without tails) which in turn evolved into 'humans', (bipedal primates of the genus 'Homo') so technicaly, if something is still a monkey, it cannot be considered as something that is 'transitional' between monkeys and humans.

'Missing link' was actualy a term that was coined back in Darwin's time, when the fossil record was poorly known, which raises an interesting point, Darwin's theory of evolution actualy predicted the eventual discovery of fossil 'transitional species', (to give 'missing link' it's correct name) a prediction that eventualy came true.

So, now that I've done as you requested and shown you your so called 'missing link' then if you're a person of your word, you should now accept evolution. But I'm wondering if you really are a person of your word because yesterday you said that if I showed you solid proof of evolution and not just adaption (which I did) you would believe me, but obviously you've gone back on your promise since then.

So tell me, why should we believe you when you tell us that evolution is a lie if your word isn't trustable?

Also, you'll kindly notice that I haven't asked you to prove that God exists and I haven't made the claim that until you do then 'creationism theory' is "NOTHING BUT PURE CRAP!!!!!!!" which, if I were to be using your logic, I would surely be justified in doing.

Also, I have another couple of questions for you.
1) Why don't Jehovah's Witness study what science actualy says before they reject it. For example, in the book "Life- How Did It Get Here?" (published by the 'Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society') it states on page ten "It may also be useful to clarify definitions at this point: Evolution, as used in this book, refers to organic evolution---the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter."

The problem with that is that it's telling us that the rest of the book is based upon a completely false premise, because the term 'evolution' doesn't actualy refer the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter at all, that particular theory comes under the heading of 'abiogenesis'. 'Evolution' simply refers to how life developed and changed once it already existed, not how it came to exist.

2) Why can't you consider evolution to be a tool of God's creation?

Y'see, the Book of Genesis never actualy mentions the 'mechanics' or the 'process' of God's creation, the nuts and bolts so to speak of how it was actualy done, it just says that God orders it to happen and it mysteriously happens, all it says is that God orders the land and the sea to bring forth all these different forms of life and that somehow that's what the land and sea did, but it doesn't say how the land and sea brought forth all these different forms of life. So, what's to stop someone like you from taking a look at evolution and considering it to possibly be part of this mysterious process that's inferred in the Bible as being used by the land and the sea in order to fulfill the creation that God had ordered them to fulfill?

Why are people like you so hell-bent on arguing against science when you could just as easily use it as part of your argument for the existence of God?

Quote by DESTROYER5000
Isn't the Book of Mormon like bible part 2?



No, that's actualy the Christian 'New Testament' which was added to the original 'Hebrew Bible (or 'Old Testament') roughly 1000 years after the original Hebrew Bible was written. In this respect, the Islamic 'Qur'an' can be considered as 'Bible part 3' and the Book of Mormon (first published in 1830) as 'Bible part 4'.

Infact, we can also plausably consider the 'New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures', (first published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961) which in places re-edits the Christian Bible to support Jehovah's Witness doctrine rather than accurately translating the original, as 'Bible part 5'.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Mar 21, 2013,
#185
Quote by xxMr.Davexx

I do not believe that Joseph Smith was a con (convicted sure) I believe he was innocent.


Well let's look at the evidence.

Joseph Smith was arrested and charged with "money digging" and using a 'peep stone' to locate buried treasures on a number of occasions. This was actualy a well known con to the authorities back then. Basicaly, the con-man would previously bury some form of treasure, then later go back to the spot, dig it back up in front of witnesses and claim that he'd found it with the aid of his magic stone. Then he would make himself available for hire and people would pay him to attempt to find buried treasure for them, which of course he always failed to do.

Interesting then that he claimed that he found the Book of Mormon written on 'golden plates' buried in a box in a hill near his home. Then later, after he'd founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he formed his own bank called 'The Kirtland Safety Society' which was apparently intended to serve the banking needs of the growing Mormon community in Kirtland, however, within just one month, the KSS failed and its business closed with about $100,000 in unresolved debt. Faced with a warrant for his arrest on charges of illegal banking and banking fraud and also suspected of creating the bank for the purpose of surreptitiously enriching the church leadership, Smith fled from the law to Clay County, Missouri, rather than doing the honourable thing and facing his accusers.

Also, consider his polygamous marriages.
This is what his first (and only legal) wife Emma said about polygamy.
"We raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett's 'spiritual wife system', as a scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own cupidity; wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable, let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature"

So, his own wife saw it simply as an adulterous way to seduce other women. For the rest of her life and even on her deathbed, even though we know differently, she continualy denied that her husband had plural wives. Sounds to me like she had a pretty hard time accepting her husbands extra marital affairs.

Now, I have nothing against polygamous marriage, if people wish to enter into a polygamous marriage, that's their on personal business, but my view is that it must be something that all parties involved agree with, otherwise it's obviously immoral, and it seems that Emma most definately did not agree to being in a polygamous marriage.

Also, after setting up a new Mormon community in Nauvoo, Illinois, half a dozen of his closest associates disagreed with Smith about how to manage Nauvoo's economy, and they also had a problem with Smith proposing marriage to their wives, so he excommunicated them. When these people then formed a competing church and set up a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, which in it's first edition called for reform within the Mormon church and promised to present evidence of its allegations against Smith in it's next edition, he suppressed the newspaper by having it's presses destroyed, and when the editor of the Warsaw Signal, (a newspaper edited and published in Warsaw, Illinois) objected, Smith declared martial law with the help of his own militia called the Nauvoo Legion.
When the Illinois Governor Thomas Ford threatened to raise a larger militia unless Smith surrendered himself, and after initially fleeing to evade capture, (again, rather than doing the honourable thing and facing his accusers) he was eventualy charged with treason against Illinois. It was while awaiting trial for this charge that a mob stormed the jail he was being held in and killed him.

By all accounts, he started off as a bad person and continued being a bad person right up until his death. Looking at the documented evidence, it seems that he turned the religion that he started into his own personal vehicle for lots of wealth, power and extra-marital affairs and attempted to crush anyone who got in his way.


I think my work here is done for today, so, Hydra150, was all of that OK for you?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Mar 21, 2013,
#188
Hey Slacker, you seem like someone informed enough to answer my question. I've been meaning to read the Bible for a while. I'm an atheist myself, but I think it would be good still to read the Bible (and Quran as well) to enhance my understanding of religion. What Bible version would you recommend for me to read?
#189
Quote by DESTROYER5000
I never said I wasn't religious, I have said things like "I don't want to start a bible fight"
Because I find those quite annoying especially arguing with atheists because they go out of they're way you look bad instead of being polite and respectfully disagreeing


Respectfully disagreeing would require respecting your beliefs, which I don't.

Quote by Jehuty
Hey Slacker, you seem like someone informed enough to answer my question. I've been meaning to read the Bible for a while. I'm an atheist myself, but I think it would be good still to read the Bible (and Quran as well) to enhance my understanding of religion. What Bible version would you recommend for me to read?


I'm not Slacker, but I'd recommend the King James version. It's not as accurate to the original text as many of the others, but as a piece of literary work it's impressive, which cannot be said for many other versions of the Bible.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Mar 21, 2013,
#190
Get a butcher's apron, small chainsaw and cover yourself in fake blood.

Answer the door screaming "WHAT?!?!?!?! I'M BUSY!!!!"

Make sure to have a video camera hidden to film priceless reactions.
#192
Quote by Todd Hart

I'm not Slacker, but I'd recommend the King James version. It's not as accurate to the original text as many of the others, but as a piece of literary work it's impressive, which cannot be said for many other versions of the Bible.


Thank you!
#193
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Sorry, I had stuff to do. I'll get right on it now.


Fine, no problem.... I take it you have a spare 14 billion years or so to wait around for the process of getting grass from a big bang to be completed in thge same way that the fossil record tells us it happened? Or are you expecting me to miraculously make it happen all at once like some sort of mythical god?

Look, just as we know about evolution from observational evidence, we also know about the Big Bang from observational evidence too. We can see that the universe is constantly expanding, similar to how the clouds of gasses and bits of shrapnel expand after an explosion, and common sense tells us that if something is constantly expanding in this way, then it must have once been relatively very small.
That is all that the Big Bang theory suggests, nobody is saying that it started with an actual 'explosion', just that the universe is acting in a similar manner to how clouds of gasses and shrapnel act after an explosion.

The thing that I'm struggling to understand though is this, why do so many religious people automaticaly reject the Big Bang theory? You'd have thought that they would be fully in favour of a theory that was first proposed by a 'priest' (Georges Lemaître) and which shows that the universe actualy does have a beginning, as the Book of Genesis suggests, rather than infinately existing in it's present state (known as the 'Steady State theory') as many scientists used to think.

So tell me, why do you automaticaly reject it? Is it because science has become involved and expanded upon the ideas put forward by a priest? If scientists were to say that God definately exists, would you then reject God just to spite science?


They do sometimes call it 'adaption'. Micro and macro-evolution are actualy terms that are more often used by creationists who wish to argue that there's a difference between the two and that one of them (macro-evolution) doesn't exist, as opposed to science which actualy considers them to be the same thing but on different time scales. That's why I used those terms when talking to a creationist like yourself, because I thought it would make it easier for you to understand if I used terms that most creationists are familiar with.
Don't argue with me about this, argue with your fellow creationists about it.


OK.



It's called 'Australopithecus' and it lived about 2 million years ago (our own species appears on the fossil record only about 200,000 years ago). Strictly speaking, what you asked for is impossible because 'monkeys' (small primates with tails) evolved into 'ape'-like creatures (larger primates without tails) which in turn evolved into 'humans', (bipedal primates of the genus 'Homo') so technicaly, if something is still a monkey, it cannot be considered as something that is 'transitional' between monkeys and humans.

'Missing link' was actualy a term that was coined back in Darwin's time, when the fossil record was poorly known, which raises an interesting point, Darwin's theory of evolution actualy predicted the eventual discovery of fossil 'transitional species', (to give 'missing link' it's correct name) a prediction that eventualy came true.

So, now that I've done as you requested and shown you your so called 'missing link' then if you're a person of your word, you should now accept evolution. But I'm wondering if you really are a person of your word because yesterday you said that if I showed you solid proof of evolution and not just adaption (which I did) you would believe me, but obviously you've gone back on your promise since then.

So tell me, why should we believe you when you tell us that evolution is a lie if your word isn't trustable?

Also, you'll kindly notice that I haven't asked you to prove that God exists and I haven't made the claim that until you do then 'creationism theory' is "NOTHING BUT PURE CRAP!!!!!!!" which, if I were to be using your logic, I would surely be justified in doing.

Also, I have another couple of questions for you.
1) Why don't Jehovah's Witness study what science actualy says before they reject it. For example, in the book "Life- How Did It Get Here?" (published by the 'Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society') it states on page ten "It may also be useful to clarify definitions at this point: Evolution, as used in this book, refers to organic evolution---the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter."

The problem with that is that it's telling us that the rest of the book is based upon a completely false premise, because the term 'evolution' doesn't actualy refer the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter at all, that particular theory comes under the heading of 'abiogenesis'. 'Evolution' simply refers to how life developed and changed once it already existed, not how it came to exist.

2) Why can't you consider evolution to be a tool of God's creation?

Y'see, the Book of Genesis never actualy mentions the 'mechanics' or the 'process' of God's creation, the nuts and bolts so to speak of how it was actualy done, it just says that God orders it to happen and it mysteriously happens, all it says is that God orders the land and the sea to bring forth all these different forms of life and that somehow that's what the land and sea did, but it doesn't say how the land and sea brought forth all these different forms of life. So, what's to stop someone like you from taking a look at evolution and considering it to possibly be part of this mysterious process that's inferred in the Bible as being used by the land and the sea in order to fulfill the creation that God had ordered them to fulfill?

Why are people like you so hell-bent on arguing against science when you could just as easily use it as part of your argument for the existence of God?


No, that's actualy the Christian 'New Testament' which was added to the original 'Hebrew Bible (or 'Old Testament') roughly 1000 years after the original Hebrew Bible was written. In this respect, the Islamic 'Qur'an' can be considered as 'Bible part 3' and the Book of Mormon (first published in 1830) as 'Bible part 4'.

Infact, we can also plausably consider the 'New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures', (first published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961) which in places re-edits the Christian Bible to support Jehovah's Witness doctrine rather than accurately translating the original, as 'Bible part 5'.

Tell me this then, if there was nothing before the Big Bang what caused it?


If scientists said god definately exists i would not reject it

I have considered evolution to be a tool of god but I don't think that he would make so many apes trying to get humans, in the bible when it says seven days of creation it means seven thousand years of creation but we don't know if it had to lie dormant for several thousand years more and contrary to what scientists there are a few JW scientists and even some that aren't saying because of the way cells regenerate its quite possible to live forever.

Also we do study it before we do anything but the idea that happened could only be possible with gods doing,
#194
Quote by DESTROYER5000
Tell me this then, if there was nothing before the Big Bang what caused it?


We don't know.
#195
Quote by DESTROYER5000
Tell me this then, if there was nothing before the Big Bang what caused it?

I suppose this is where your answer would be 'God'. In which case I'd ask what caused God. You'd answer "Nothing, he's the first cause, the unmoved mover". Then I'd point out that if you're gonna agree that something can come about without a cause you might as well give that attribute to the universe because it requires one less jump. Also known as Occam's Razor.
#196
Quote by willT08
I suppose this is where your answer would be 'God'. In which case I'd ask what caused God. You'd answer "Nothing, he's the first cause, the unmoved mover". Then I'd point out that if you're gonna agree that something can come about without a cause you might as well give that attribute to the universe because it requires one less jump. Also known as Occam's Razor.

Touché
#197
Quote by DESTROYER5000
Tell me this then, if there was nothing before the Big Bang what caused it?


If scientists said god definately exists i would not reject it

I have considered evolution to be a tool of god but I don't think that he would make so many apes trying to get humans, in the bible when it says seven days of creation it means seven thousand years of creation but we don't know if it had to lie dormant for several thousand years more and contrary to what scientists there are a few JW scientists and even some that aren't saying because of the way cells regenerate its quite possible to live forever.

Also we do study it before we do anything but the idea that happened could only be possible with gods doing,


So you're making an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance? Nice!
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#198
Quote by Todd Hart
So you're making an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance? Nice!

You sir re obviously a butt hurt dweller
#199
Quote by DESTROYER5000
You sir re obviously a butt hurt dweller


Perhaps, but he's not wrong, Your arguments are a bit....lacking...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#200
Quote by Arby911
Perhaps, but he's not wrong, Your arguments are a bit....lacking...

Yes it's lacking, I know.

I do have a question, is atheism a religion or lack of it?