K_P

It would have been nice if Hawkins had labeled sources.

For what would I have been permanently kicked off? The only place I can see where I may have even slightly broken a rule was asking OneLight if he actually understands what "argument from ignorance" is and asking him why he finds it insulting. That was me trying to figure out why it was a problem so I can work around it in the future. Is that it?

Per the TOS: If you have a problem with any of the Moderators or Chat admin, please keep it private. The moderation team serves this ministry on a voluntary basis. They are human beings and make mistakes. If you disagree with one of their decisions, make use of the PM system or email or the Repost Post button to get satisfaction. (Matt. 18:15) You're right, email is probably the way to go. Thanks for pointing that out.

Please take time to read to Terms of Service so there will no question when moderation comes into play. This site is a ministry and we do expect everyone to follow them. The Terms of Services are not negotiable. Is it against the ToS to debate a belief and call out a logical fallacy in it? and can you be more specific if you think someone is breaking a rule? It's not helpful to be indirect if you do think someone is breaking a rule. Also, from your post on the thread I made about "Argument from Ignorance", you don't seem to know what argument from ignorance is. Do you know what it is, and why do you feel it's so insulting? If you don't know what it is (which your post seems to imply), maybe you should do some research before you assume someone is being unkind. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/ IT is also a violation of the TOS to challenge a moderater in public. If you have a problem with a moderator decision, take to them in private. Just as someone has already said, I have not seen a PM function on here for me. Seems like moderators are allowed to make decisions and publicly call people out without 1.) being specific and forthcoming, and 2.) doing at least a respectable amount of research on what the issue actually is, and not have to worry about being called out about it themselves. Doesn't sound very fair to me.

Please take time to read to Terms of Service so there will no question when moderation comes into play. This site is a ministry and we do expect everyone to follow them. The Terms of Services are not negotiable. Is it against the ToS to debate a belief and call out a logical fallacy in it? and can you be more specific if you think someone is breaking a rule? It's not helpful to be indirect if you do think someone is breaking a rule. Also, from your post on the thread I made about "Argument from Ignorance", you don't seem to know what argument from ignorance is. Do you know what it is, and why do you feel it's so insulting? If you don't know what it is (which your post seems to imply), maybe you should do some research before you assume someone is being unkind. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/

Labeling this area "Apologetics", and then getting offended when someone attacks a belief is very petty.

This is pretty interesting. I want to see the justification of his claims. Perhaps I'll take a look.

Are you using the fact that the Bible describes plant reproduction process (albeit primitively) as evidence for it being the word of a God?

FresnoJoe, you've brought up some interesting verses. In particular, the Colossians passage. I'd like to give my take on it and I'd love to hear yours. I interpret Colossians chapter 2 as another example of how many religious leaders attempt to get people out of evaluating a religious doctrines critically into more emotional thinking. This appears to be an attempt to get readers more dependent on the religion instead of critical thinking. Verses 2-4 are an attempt to appeal to the reader's knowledge and curiosity, by telling them to look towards this religious teaching for knowledge and wisdom rather than allow themselves to be persuaded by other arguments. The writer warns believers in verse 8 to not be taken "captive" by philosophy and "empty deception". He then goes on to repeat the doctrine he believes in from verses 9-15, I presume to get the reader's emotionally charged and their minds off of the "empty deception" that is critical thinking. For me, anyone that says I shouldn't get into philosophy (logic is a key part of philosophy) in order to evaluate claims should have their claims looked at with suspicion. Indeed, the unsubstantiated claims that the writer makes from verses 2-4 and 9-15 seem more like "empty deception" than the very thing the writer argues against.

You make an interesting point. It does seem that way to me as well. To me, this raises the question of why a person who is supposedly trying to save man's soul hide truth from so many in this manner? I would think that if he were trying to save people from eternal damnation, he would speak more clearly as to not be misunderstood. Literary evidence from the Bible stories paint Jesus as someone who loved to perplex people.

Thank you for those references. I will take a look and get back to you.

I'm an atheist, and I don't get much of a chance to talk about morality. Interesting question. I'll give my take. Morality is concerned with well being. Pleasure is better than pain. That is the principle of morality. From that, all decisions about what is right and wrong are determined and are on a spectrum of most immoral to most moral. As beings, we often are faced with situations where morality isn't black and white. Although pleasure is preferred over pain, we may have to give up pleasure in the short run to avoid long term pain, or invite pain in the short run to get a long term pleasure. For example, working out is moral because it helps my well being. I invite temporary pain for long term pleasure. What we view as moral is subject to change as our understanding of what helps our well being changes. While I may think it is moral to take a particular vitamin now, if I were to find that this vitamin causes cancer, then I would have discovered it to be more immoral than I originally thought. This view of morality is much preferred to the view that morality is set in stone and created by a god in my opinion. This leaves no room for improvement and discovery, just a bunch of "do this" and "don't do that". In fact, much of the laws that the Hebrew people's god made for them in the Old Testament are things that we have as a society today would find immoral because it goes against societies well being as a whole. Making a rape victim marry her rapist, slavery and beating your slaves, cutting people's hands off for stealing; these are just a few of these terrible laws that was commanded by this god.

I'm curious. What are some of these prophesies that you say have been fulfilled? I'd like to examine them myself. My idea of why prophecies could have appeared to be fulfilled is that they can be so vaguely written as to apply to a myriad of events. One then looks at these events and the vague prophecies and claims them to be evidence for divine authority.