It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question from a Christian

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: peter vlar

I will look into what you've said, but lets just leave them out of it for a second.


fairenough


No Historian doubts that Paul wrote Galatians. Paul makes a bunch of off the cuff comments about Jesus that Historians take as evidence that Jesus existed.


To say NO historian doubts the authenticity of Paul as author of Galatians is a slight stretch, but I'm going to pick my battles today lol The actual disagreement over the document isn't involving the authenticity or historicity of Christ, but whether or not Paul actually wrote the Epistle as the oldest known copy is from the mid 3rd century CE I think that what is currently codified as the Epistle to the Galatians is certainly based on some of Paul's original work as the writing style and syntax match other older documents attributed to Paul. However, as the oldest known copy we have is dated to at least 200years after Paul was supposed to have written the letter, it is very easy to slightly revise the document while maintaining the integrity of Pauls original syntax and style so there really is no definitive answer as to how much text from the original document is involved in what is currently in the bible, there is only consensus that the writing style matches Paul's



Paul says things like James, the brother of the Lord...And He doesn't clarify anymore than that because He expects people to know who He is talking about.


that's a pretty bold statement that he simply assumed people knew who he was talking about considering the Epistle to Galatians is a letter to new churches regarding what was expected of Gentile converts among other items. That alone implies that full knowledge of doctrine was not in place at that time.




posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
This thread reminds me of Garry Kasparov playing chess with a pigeon.

Garry has all the moves. He's so good he can't find a human to play with him, he has to play supercomputers to get a game.

But the pigeon just ignores all the rules, knocks over the pieces, defecates all over the board and struts about with its chest out as if it has won a great victory.

You guys obviously have a lot more patience than I do.


Absolutely brilliant. This is the best analogy to describe 'discussions' with god botherers I've ever come across.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I suppose I should define what I mean when I say evolution in the post. When I use the word evolution it will be referring only to Macro-evolution as I believe that Micro-evolution is an established fact, however as for things like Apes to Humans, or single cell to multi-cell or even Abiogenesis. These things are vital to an atheistic or even agnostic world view, yet they are something every scientist and person take on faith. There are no hard evidences for these things as far as I am concerned. If you are going to try and show me evidence please show me evidence for Macro and not Micro. Like I said I believe micro-evolution occurs.


Macro and Micro are the same thing. Genetic change is genetic change. All life on earth is made up of the same genetic material. The only difference is the amount and the sequence. We know both can be changed from genetics. We know that species die out and morphological traits can be seen developing over great spans of time in fossils. All the evidence supports it whether you will only believe it if a chicken egg hatchs into a monkey.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress



Macro and Micro are the same thing. Genetic change is genetic change.


Except only 'Micro' can be observed in realtime.

'Macro' evolution (example - asexually reproducing organisms evolving into sexually reproducing organisms) has never and can never be observed in real time...because of the enormous time frames involved.

So I guess we are to settle for how it may have happened explanations and blindly assume macro evolution takes place over millions of years. Got it.


#19
edit on 20-6-2014 by reploid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Bart Ehrman is agnostic... Not an atheist

Just so you know



What's the difference between an atheist and an 'agnostic'?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: reploid
a reply to: Cypress



Macro and Micro are the same thing. Genetic change is genetic change.


Except only 'Micro' can be observed in realtime.

'Macro' evolution (example - asexually reproducing organisms evolving into sexually reproducing organisms) has never and can never be observed in real time...because of the enormous time frames involved.

So I guess we are to settle for how it may have happened explanations and blindly assume macro evolution takes place over millions of years. Got it.


#19


Not true. The genetic processes are exactly the same. If they weren't then there would be a cutoff point between micro and macro which would be observable. There is no cutoff point.
Macro evolution is observable throughout the fossil record and dating sequences confirm the physiological and morphological progression over time.

Genetic studies have also been done that demonstrate that micro and macro are essentially the same. The terms are gradually disappearing from the literature as it's accepted throughout the scientific community that there's no substantive difference between the two.

www.biomedcentral.com...
edit on 20-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Atheism is: the absence of belief in all gods or divinity. Caims there is no god, with certainty. The doubtless.

Agnosticism is: the lack of knowledge about whether there is a god or not. Is unsure, so doesn't claim one way or another. The fence-sitter.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Prezbo369

Atheism is: the absence of belief in all gods or divinity. Caims there is no god, with certainty. The doubtless.


Gnostic atheism claims there is no god. Atheism in and of itself makes no claims. Most atheists would identify as agnostic atheists.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: reploid

What you are calling macro-evolution is really just the accumulation of micro-evolution, or lots of small genetic changes over generations.

It's the difference between a drop of water and an ocean of water. It's the same stuff; the only difference is a matter of scale.

To become an ocean, lots of drops of water had to become a puddle first... yet neither a drop of water, or an ocean would be considered a puddle... same as species, all the same stuff, just a matter of adaptation and long time-scales.

Also, we have witnessed major evolutionary changes in over 31,000 generations of a bacteria population. We have witnessed one bacterial species diverge into another species, so we have seen "macro-evolution' in realtime.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Prezbo369

Atheism is: the absence of belief in all gods or divinity.


Correct.


Caims there is no god, with certainty. The doubtless.


Incorrect, atheists have no belief in a god having rejected the claims made by theists. The rejection of a claim isn't itself a claim.


Agnosticism is: the lack of knowledge about whether there is a god or not. Is unsure, so doesn't claim one way or another. The fence-sitter.


Agnostics have no belief in Gods, they do not claim to know one way or another. And having no belief in a god makes them.......atheists......

edit on 20-6-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Agnostics don't believe or deny the existence of a God...

But they believe there might be something spiritually higher then themselves, while atheists claim there is factually no God

and I still haven't figured out exactly what a "gnostic atheist" is...




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


But they believe there might be something spiritually higher then themselves, while atheists claim there is factually no God


This is incorrect.

Agnostic/gnostic: don't know/know

Atheist/theist: don't believe in god/believe in god

A gnostic atheist doesn't believe and knows there isn't a god

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe but acknowledges the existence of a god is unknowable.

Most atheists fall into the agnostic atheist category. They don't believe in a god but acknowledge that such a question of existence has no answer, much like Russel's Teapot.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Well gnostic means knowledge...

SO basically a Gnostic atheist is a position of pure ignorance...

I've never heard of such a label honestly...




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

It's as ignorant as a gnostic theist. I don't think I've ever come across a gnostic atheist, though. They're thin on the ground (and by definition unreasonable). Any reasonable atheist acknowledges that an unknowable answer is... er unknowable

edit on 20-6-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I assume we're talking about the word gnostic, not the religion...

In any case, we only have knowledge of what is given... by those who have experienced it




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Agnostics think there is prob a god. Atheists think it's doubtful there is. Both would convert if givin evidence for Christianity, so I think they are about the same.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

...are you suggesting a 40 gallon tub of water can be poured variously into 1000 cups and likened to species variation? > It's the difference between a drop of water and an ocean of water. It's the same stuff; the only difference is a matter of scale.
(and)
To become an ocean, lots of drops of water had to become a puddle first... yet neither a drop of water, or an ocean would be considered a puddle... same as species, all the same stuff, just a matter of adaptation and long time-scales.

if it's like that..
..why can't those 1000 cups of water simply be poured back into the 40 gallon tub? (an explanation of things, like simply demonstrating the process in reverse?)
...what is the purpose of this huge cosmic water filtration process, if i can call it that?
...who set it all in motion?

these are the questions inquiring god-botherers want to know



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Prezbo369

Agnostics think there is prob a god. Atheists think it's doubtful there is. Both would convert if givin evidence for Christianity, so I think they are about the same.


See this is why I asked, that's the third different definition ive been given, it seens asthough its the word people use when they're not 100% comfortable using 'atheist'.




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "claim" in my definition of atheist, since it does add a spin of "knowledge" to the idea. Technically you are correct, but as others have mentioned, the whole idea of a gnostic atheist is odd and almost contradictory, and I have never met one.

In general, I try to avoid the hybrid uses of these terms as it just becomes a symantec arguement. I was just trying to answer a question... but now I realise that Prezbo369 wasn't actually asking, they were baiting, and trying to turn it into exactly that type of symantec arguemnet, so now I wish I never fell into their trap and posted the answer to begin with.

The definitions of these words slide a lot, so I allow for a broad understanding on these subjects, but to keep things simple for myself, I generally go with the:

Atheist: No evidence, so doesn't believe in a god/s.
Agnostic: Doesn't claim to know either way.
edit on 20-6-2014 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Which is kind of the whole point of agnostic... Not 100% sure, so doesn't claim either way.

Maybe it's better to describe all of these concepts as a continuum, where the definitions slide, rather than try to define them in isolation.

In very simple (but misleading) terms:
Atheist< --- >Agnostic< --- >Theist

Probably a bit more accurate:
Gnostic Atheist< - >Agnostic Atheist< - >Agnostic Theist< - >Gnostic Theist

Or maybe i'll just let this guy explain it:
Atheist or Agnostic: A Confusion of Terms?
;-j
edit on 20-6-2014 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join