darthyoda : You either misread what I said or what I said was too confusing so let me clarify. I wasn't trying to say that image and imagination mean the same thing in that context. What I meant was both words can be used to mean different thing but two different things that I believe.

I think man created God in his imagination. As you pointed out this would mean that God doesn't exist. I also said I believe man created Gods out of the image of man since most Gods are depicted as essentially humans with super powers.

smotpoker86 : " Instead my intention was to try and make people think, in this case about how their God of choice is often immoral"

Without God, who definies what is moral and immoral?  What human is that special, that they get to choose what is wrong and right?  How do you define morality without a Judge?

Without God, there is no definition set for morality, except that which humans impose upon themselves.  And in that case, what determines if something is 'good' or 'bad'?  You can use the argument that whatever causes pain to another is immoral, but then how do you get past gray lines like capital punishment for serial murderers and such? Also, pain is defined purely by subjective means.... so is it a matter of whose opinion is more important than everyone else's?

Our whole legal system would be a joke if it was up to some superior human to make those calls.

I'm sure there's a better way to word what I'm trying to say, but I'm at work and distracted... I might come back later to clarify or go into more detail.

darthyoda :
"Evolutions says things are improving (Evolving) but the Laws of Thermodynamics say that it couldn't happen... Also Carbon Dating (Evolutionists Dating Theory) is inconsistent with itself."
You obviously don't understand evolution. It's not some quest to be the best.
All animals are different. One human is different to another. We get our hair colour, height, looks, etc from our parents.
Change the parents we get a different child.
Kind of like cooking, different ingredients, different results.
In nature, animals want their baby to survive. They will mate with the one they think is best suited to survive. Maybe one that's got a good coat in a cold climate, they don't want their offspring to freeze. Maybe they go for the strongest, to make for a good hunter or a hard target for would be attackers.
Maybe based on colour, good camouflage.
Depending on environment, different things are favourable.
This is really solid fact. Look at cows, dogs, sheep, birds, we have made them breed how we want, to get the traits we wanted, bigger, stronger, meatier, faster, the evidence is there.
Don't over complicate it to some magical theory.
It's just selective breeding.
And it's real.
As for carbon dating, if you want to make wild accusations you need to have proof, link to where it says carbon dating is wrong?

Singelli :
You think what you believe is logic, it really is the general difference between those of faith and those without. In science or politics, computing, astrology, atheism etc, arguments are made. And theory's long believed are discarded because so many valid points are brought and they can no longer cling to the theory's or ideas.
That can't happen with debates on religion, because religion is a faith, essentially it would be like me sticking with my outdated theory of why the dinosaurs went extinct, despite the fact my theory had massive holes, had been proven incorrect, and a far more feasible answer offered.
That is the reality.
I have changed views many times this way, I liken it to evolution, my mind evolves to be more than it was. I adapt with the times.

Onto aliens.
You haven't read my post. I never said they wouldn't have heard of god, I said of Jesus.
I doubt we will advance far enough to discover sentient life before I am long dead, but I will wager all I now own, and would own at the time of discovery, they have never once heard of Jesus Christ before contact with us. God, yes, ours, nope.
If we discovered life and they followed the Muslim faith what then?that would be interesting =p
And that analogy is ridiculous.
Break it down.
me= they haven't heard of what we believe to be god
you=
I bet this thing I think exists likes cheese?
If I was discussing what god liked, it would still be a terrible analogy unless you wanted to joke about how false god was, but almost tangible. As it happens it's not an appropriate comparison in the least.


Cake argument

Well your faith is wrong then, there's only fake million dollar bills.
And that's not as much of a stretch as believing in god.
We know dollars exist. We know Dollar bills exist. We know one million is a symbolic number. You have just merged three and assumed that exists.
We don't know irrefutably what created us.
We don't know if there's anyone watching over us.
W don't know if we have a set path to follow.
There's a purple monster under my bed that likes cheese(that was a more appropriate use of that analogy).
There is a massive jump there. Again, 2nd analogy used to no avail.

You are correct, I would address every piece of evidence on physical proof because really, there is no valid proof at all. The most common is the bible is so old and why would so many people lie.
If I find a book older than the bible (like a roman cure for headache) that doesn't mean it's true.
And people lie every day, it's not that groundbreaking.

For something to have feasibility it has to have grounds to prove it. people don't just walk into science labs, throw a rock on a table and go, iv found a new element! Until you prove its not new, I want a Nobel prize.
Higgs boson theory was ignored until he had some proof. that is the way things work.

if I believe the earth was created by the flying spaghetti monster, want tax relief as a place of worship, and want in his noodles we trust on the national currency without proof, it's ridiculous.(3rd analogy, here we go!)

Your cake reply seemed pointless, you were talking about motivators to behave, which as I stated wasn't the point I was making. if god is real, he made an illogical and lazy decision.
Plus it's just a cake, they wouldn't feel too guilty eating it =p
You can't rely on kids to behave without guidance, god gives none when you need it = bad parenting.


But talking of "plumb acted" you ignored the fact the bible changes its mind about why man was made, and ignored the links showing god killed far more than Satan.

Cherry picking is the word I would use.

You really just misquoted the hell outa that.

I will summarise since apparently you can't take the time to read what I said.

Freedom is not unjustly restricting.
Yes parents rightly restrict children.
Then children get to make their choices.
They are free because they can safely make choices without punishment so long as they don't harm others.
God however, doesn't allow you to do that, he owns you, and you can't do what you want with your own body.
Incidentally in your constant cherry picking you failed to address the things forbidden by god too.


Whether you chose to read this or not is of little consequence, I just felt like highlighting the inaccuracies and hypocrisies in your statement.

I will leave you with this

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position"

smotpoker86 :
What is immoral about approving sexism, violence, rape, forced marriage, prejudice, racism, and child abuse?You tell me that?
You sir, are just a Satanist

Edit-additionally, false argument, no god, no morality. Civilization as we now know it (albeit in its infancy) was brought to us by the romans, they were not christian, they believed in many gods, and did things your god considers immoral.
People have always had morals, i cant prove which had gods but the fact so many were vicious degenerates and had gods disproves religion=morality.
The biggest miracle was religion hijacking morality. And actually being believed in the 21st century, that's pretty astonishing too.
Luckily its going down in Europe.
And given the USA was founded separate from the church the constitution is not religious.
And the Czech republic don't even have a majority that believe in god, there country is going places, they're growing fast.

thenumberone : My claim to your lack of logic had nothing to do with faith or religion, and everything to do with .... logic.  The critical thinking process. The abiltiy to reason through a set of statements in a cohesive and coherent manner.

The fact that you can't see this.... which I clearly posted and proved to you (through logic) just goes to further prove how illogical your thought process is.

You are so insistent on your tirade against religion that you insist my claim to your lack of logic is due to faith.....
It is not, and if you threw the idea of religion and faith to the side, and truly... carefully read through my post, you'd see that.

Hence, as I said earlier, I will not be debating with you.  It's a waste of my time.  Maybe it won't be a waste of someone else's time, but it certainly is of mine.

As for anyone wanting to discuss evolution, I've been wanting this thread to take off anyways.
Evolution vs. Creationism: A LOGICAL debate

Singelli :
As you stated yourself, ignoring an argument doesn't win it so that's fine by me.
You summoned me from the original thread, made random statements, insisted it was me that was biased and then walked off.
Its not a tirade. i was talking about something, and you summoned me here. I saw this thread before but didn't bother because i didn't care to get involved. You prodded me and asked me to come in so to speak, that's not a tirade, you inquired, i replied.
I am sorry my opinion is different to yours but that's life, you may as well get used to it.

If anyone wants to make a valid response i will of course reply, but as i stated above, i dont generally bother unless someone summons me here, for the explicit point that most people want to talk about hypothetical's rather than solid facts.
Which is generally pointless.
With that i bid you adieu

thenumberone :   There's no need to get upset.  I never said you had to come here and reply, and I never begged or prodded you either.  LOL I simply linked you here to let you know that I was continuing here if you chose... (and you did)... to keep up with the conversation.

My comments weren't random either but.... I think we've established how I feel about your logic. 

Seriously, there's no need to be upset.  I just said I don't have the time for it, and I truly don't. Responding to each of your points takes a ton of time, and I am a high school teacher who must grade on average 100 assignments every day.  I have to write lesson plans, teach classes, teach ACT Academy, tutor outside normal work hours... along with any other number of things I could bore you with.

You disagree with me.  So what?  I guarantee you I work with at least 70 people a day who also don't.  Unless I am mistaken, I never insulted your opinions.  I just said you werne't being logical and I didn't have the time to debate someone who can't stick to a line of thought.  It's not an insult.  People see things in dfiferent ways and through different lenses.

In short, chill, dude.  No one is out to get ya, including big ol' bad me. 

im not upset, i was addressing your points with feedback.
darthyoda :
And i did chemistry and physics.
They know the energy and atomic structure of carbon.
Carbon dating is measuring radiation. Everything emits radiation, even you. This is it trying to balance itself. By measuring the current state of the carbon they then use the half life (the time it takes a radioactive source to lose half its energy) to work out how old it is.
Thats how they worked out the age of the earth, analysing the core rocks in the earth.
Some are colourblind because of variation in dna. Animals choose which variaions are benefial, and the gene continues.
The rest die out

Singelli : "Without God, who definies what is moral and immoral? "
Humans do, just as they did before the Abrahamic religions existed and as they continue doing to this day.

" What human is that special, that they get to choose what is wrong and right?  "
Many "special" humans get to choose what is right and wrong. Generally these people are in a position of authority which allows them to make the rules. These rules are more or less just a guideline , it is up to each individual to choose for themselves.

We are all judges of our own morality.

"Without God, there is no definition set for morality, except that which humans impose upon themselves.  And in that case, what determines if something is 'good' or 'bad'?  You can use the argument that whatever causes pain to another is immoral, but then how do you get past gray lines like capital punishment for serial murderers and such? Also, pain is defined purely by subjective means.... so is it a matter of whose opinion is more important than everyone else's?"

You are correct, without God there is only the morality that humans impose upon themselves which just happens to be the case. The definition of pain is subjective, as you said, but so is the definition morality. This is why morality has evolved throughout history and continues to do so today.

I like the phrase someone used 'man made God in his own image'.  I personally think that is true.  I think the character of God that we read about in the old Testament is a reflection of the ancient Israelites relationship with their neighbours, their land, their culture and their spirituality.  I also think a lot violent imagery in the old testament was written with the intention that people would believe those events happened but with the added factor that the message that people would take away from those stories would be different to our interpretation.

Morality is an interesting issue.  Within the bible, God doesn't become a moral arbitrator until a good many 'chapters' in.  Many of the issues early in God's relationship with people seem to stem from his reluctance to give people autonomy with procreation.  Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden for becoming 'aware'.  Their sin was attempting to take control of their sexuality.  Well, that's my reading of it.  God brought about the flood because people had been breeding so rapidly that they covered the earth.  He'd said go forth and multiply, but then later on he wasn't so keen.  

Monkey into man is more believable then Adam and Eve into asians, blacks and hispanics.

Adam and Eve got photoshopped into history. They never really existed other then to push a story along. Less then 0.01% of your lifes answers are in a book, its for you to go out and discover yourself.

There is no single god judging by the amount of religions and sky gods involved UNLESS its the same god pulling all the strings. The only way to God is through Jesus is not correct, there are many gods before Jesus they just didn't look human like him. Ultimately I feel that Jesus is popular for he looked human. If Jesus had looked like a reptilian a majority of the masses would probably not believe it and dismiss it as a fairy tale.

Imagine there are 10 people in front of you with a book about god but from different religions. Would you pick your poison or would you just give them a finger and look up into the sky for the answer? I would get my answer from the sky, cause then I get to decide who and what god is and that is the fun part.

darthyoda :
I take it incest is ok since there were only 2 starting humans...

darthyoda :

Well, that's what Jack Miles said.  He has written a couple of great books.  Really enjoyed them.  If you get a chance, check them out.  He's a former jesuit priest and he analyses the content of the bible from an artistic and thematic perspective.