God created Genesis for God to exist. Man created god through genesis. Without man - god would never exist. God is reliant on man to keep him going. When man stops believing, that's when god ceases to exist. This is 2008 not year 8000bc. When will we evolve already?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZieDrn5fnA

Other than getting YZF all up in arms, I don't really see a point to this thread.

Other than getting YZF all up in arms, I don't really see a point to this thread.
No point? There are two points in this section. There is a god. There is no god. I'm going to guess you are able to chew food by yourself and let you choose which point I gave here. Dont be shy to mention you are prophetic since we all didnt know YZF would be 'up in arms' on all issues that he disagrees with. Good call!

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

The Dead Sea Scrolls proved people lived and breathe and learn to organise, communicate. They also show wars, murder, disceptions, famine, and hocus pocus. hmmm similar what we have today. Therefore, men in politics are liars today as they were of yester years. you can bury your head in the sand and try to ignore it, but the thoughtful and reasonable man or woman will consider these things carefully

Mummies were perserved just as well.

All shared in being damaged by decaying process.

Granted, they went to some great pains to preserve their writings. Possibility they had to smuggle the parchments since I bet they werent cheap. Still, surely 'those' arent the only surviving words of many thousand years ago. We can see Pliny Natural History Records written on same material much earlier than the dead sea scrolls. And we ca still read them today.

You nor I never counted the amount of writtings to say 'not many'. We would not know how many writings surfaced between then and now when the media only tells of writings worth talking about. The invention of the parchment is in 143 bc. So imagine our American history and the amount of writings between then and now. Compare that to MidEast history. I bet they have a huge load of writings that are irrelivant to 'God inspired'.

Funny you should mentioned the tablet containing the ten commandments. God never perserved that one from safety.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

LMMFAO!!!!

ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

We Came From Adam And Eve None Of This Evolution We Were Created For A Reason To Beleive Theres No God But Allah And Muhammed (s.a.w.s) Is His Last Messenger

We Came From Adam And Eve None Of This Evolution We Were Created For A Reason To Beleive Theres No God But Allah And Muhammed (s.a.w.s) Is His Last Messenger

Honestly? I think you dont even know anything.

This should be good.....

it would be interesting to see the stats

the point is, no other document has been so widely copied, translated, distributed, and read since ancient times

it was amazing to see the 10 Commandments written in stone (Arabic) from about 2300 years ago at the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, it leaves a sense of awe: God's Word truly is transcendent and timeless, regardless of what one generation to the next thinks of it



Funny you should mentioned the tablet containing the ten commandments. God never preserved that one from safety.

Still God never preserved. And it was out of stone. Gods words couldn't last Mans treachery. Humans are mightier than God on Earth. Now a suppose made up Tablets from the original made by HUMAN HANDS! lasted longer than Gods own hand making original documents.

Your assertment failed

Cant ignore the truth of my words. They hurt huh?

The Devil is a motherfuckin' liar!

the existence of the devil itself is a lie, all told by lying xtains.. So is the Easter Bunny.

We've been over this many times and yet you never seem to bring anything to the table. beneath your initial claims, there is no logic. You are an inch deep.

Interesting statement from a fella whom believes in a 'he said/ she said' as proof

Interesting statement from a fella whom believes in a 'he said/ she said' as proof

I do? You have a very vague idea of what I believe, but go ahead, make your case.

ah I see. This is easy. Do you believe there is a Devil? If you do, its only from he said she said. Nothing else. Oh but I will entertain other possible reasons you may deliver here teeheee

ah I see. This is easy. Do you believe there is a Devil? If you do, its only from he said she said. Nothing else. Oh but I will entertain other possible reasons you may deliver here teeheee

There are many other ways that one could derive belief in the "Devil". Belief in a supernatural embodiment of evil as a means to explain why bad things happen in the world for one. While this may not possess the moniker of "Satan" himself, it's close enough to consider its origins and draw a parallel between the two characters. Many religions have some sort of "devil" figure, probably exactly for the reason outlined above.

A single Man can not do evil in solitude, but onto others. And it is his action that delivers fear to victims. Triggering of fear from a man is not supernatural.

Depends on your definition of evil. For some, evil originates as a thought. Thoughts are virtually all one has in solitude, hence man is capable of evil in such a situation. At any rate, this really has nothing to do with what I said. You asked for ways to explain belief in the devil without hearing it from someone else. Inventing a devil-like figure to explain the existance of "bad things" is another possibility.

Yet your offering holds no ground with only speculation from people having deep fears. And you were complaining I was an inch deep. Regardless what we think what evil is, it hangs around negativity. And its stems from a world with cycles and stages. not pure evil.


btw, help with this problem loading avatar....
Upload failed due to failure writing temporary file.

sigh, this is what I was talking about. As I said, using the devil as an explanation for evil (note, the state or meaning of evil is not in question as it if likely to vary from person to person) is a possible alternative for one's belief in the aforementioned devil. Do you understand?

btw, help with this problem loading avatar....
Upload failed due to failure writing temporary file.

Save the image that you are trying to upload then upload it from your drive.

lol
/sigh
Then with your explanation, the Devil is merely used as a label or word to describe globally of bad things. Not proof that there is in fact a devil. Maybe soon, that label will change to 'sick people'.

It was never my intent to provide proof of the devil's existance. You said that the only way that one could believe in the devil would be through word of mouth. This proves otherwise. For the record, I was saying that in this scenario, the devil is the cause of bad things, not that he is a lable or word to describe "globally of bad things".

what other vehicles the word 'devil' use to reach your ear? You surely didn't invent it nor did a creature spawn from the depths of hell came forth and tell you. Therefore, if you believe that there is a devil, it was from he said she said.

And yet you can still make an argument that a creator is responsible for making minds that conduct this so called evil. That argument itself removes the devil completely. No proof no deal

what other vehicles the word 'devil' use to reach your ear? You surely didn't invent it nor did a creature spawn from the depths of hell came forth and tell you. Therefore, if you believe that there is a devil, it was from he said she said.

Then where did the orginal idea of the devil come from?

And yet you can still make an argument that a creator is responsible for making minds that conduct this so called evil. That argument itself removes the devil completely. No proof no deal

I think I could probably get my cat to understand this before you.

Then where did the original idea of the devil come from?.

Cavemen

I think gurbl gloop glup plugglup

Now you're just avoiding the issue.

how so?

Cavemen? You've got no answer for where they got it from.

Then where did the orginal idea of the devil come from?

Zoroastrianism, which is the oldest documented revealed religion.


"There is no devil in Judaism and never was. The term "devil" doesn't exist in the Old Testament. The term Satan appears 13 times in the Old Testament mainly in Job and in every case is a servant of God. But written in the late post-exile book of Zechariah 3:2, "And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" This is as close to conflict as they come. The term Lucifer1 (light bearer) occurs only in Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" and refers to a fallen Babylonian king.

The New Testament is another matter. Satan appears 34 times while devil appears 57 times both used in the same context. No doubt Christianity is dualistic just like Zoroastrianism. Judaism did produce two dualistic cults: the apocalyptic sect that gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gnostics that gave us many of the Nag Hammadi Gospels. Both were brooding, angry belief systems that saw the world and flesh as evil and sought to destroy it to bring on some Kingdom of God in one form or another. Christianity was influenced by the Essenes and the Gnostics through the Apostles John and Paul.

The devil (Ahriman) was an evil spirit in Zoroastrianism and some claim that by the third century C.E., Zoroaster's monotheism was replaced with dualism in some areas. Manicheans developed from the Gnostic teachings of Mani, who taught that the flesh is evil and the spirit is good. He advocated denying the flesh to free the spirit and had an influence on early Christian saints in particular St. Augustine. Augustine was the father of Protestantism. "

Sorry man, that was a rather uninformed post. Especially that last line about John and Paul being Gnostics.

The works they authored speak directly against Gnostisim.

Cavemen? You've got no answer for where they got it from.

Cavemen. As in the reference of something evil has been around a long frigging time. As Backyard supplied, names split into other names as the tale endured for many thousands of years.


And thats the truth.

Sorry man, that was a rather uninformed post. Especially that last line about John and Paul being Gnostics.

The works they authored speak directly against Gnostisim.

Sounds like somebody needs to ready up on their history.

It doesn't say they were Gnostics. Only that it influenced their writings.

"Gnosticism traces its roots back just after the beginning of the Christian Church. Some researchers state that evidence of its existence even predates Christianity. Whichever the case, the error of gnosticism had affected the culture and church of the time and possibly even a earned a mention in 1 John 4."

http://www.carm.org/heresy/gnosticism.htm

I even cited that from a source that would make YZF proud.

Zoroastrianism, which is the oldest documented revealed religion.

I suggest reading the entire discussion before jumping in. Might help you avoid throwing in useless tid-bits.

"There is no devil in Judaism and never was. The term "devil" doesn't exist in the Old Testament. The term Satan appears 13 times in the Old Testament mainly in Job and in every case is a servant of God. But written in the late post-exile book of Zechariah 3:2, "And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" This is as close to conflict as they come. The term Lucifer1 (light bearer) occurs only in Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" and refers to a fallen Babylonian king.

Yupp, I've said this before here myself. The story of Job actually uses the term "ha satan" which really means provoker or adversary and doesn't seem to represent the Christian version of Satan.

The New Testament is another matter. Satan appears 34 times while devil appears 57 times both used in the same context. No doubt Christianity is dualistic just like Zoroastrianism. Judaism did produce two dualistic cults: the apocalyptic sect that gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gnostics that gave us many of the Nag Hammadi Gospels. Both were brooding, angry belief systems that saw the world and flesh as evil and sought to destroy it to bring on some Kingdom of God in one form or another. Christianity was influenced by the Essenes and the Gnostics through the Apostles John and Paul.

The devil (Ahriman) was an evil spirit in Zoroastrianism and some claim that by the third century C.E., Zoroaster's monotheism was replaced with dualism in some areas. Manicheans developed from the Gnostic teachings of Mani, who taught that the flesh is evil and the spirit is good. He advocated denying the flesh to free the spirit and had an influence on early Christian saints in particular St. Augustine. Augustine was the father of Protestantism. "

You seem like a pretty intelligent person, which is something that this section needs more of. Just try to follow the context of what is being said.

Cavemen. As in the reference of something evil has been around a long frigging time. As Backyard supplied, names split into other names as the tale endured for many thousands of years.


And thats the truth.

What difference does it make if the term has been around for 70 billion years? You said that the only way that one could believe in the devil was through word of mouth, yet you completely ignore the fact that if there is no devil, then the notion must have originated from someone's mind. If this is the case, that such a creature could be conjured up within someone else's mind at some point in time, then it remains possible that it could happen again at another point in time. Look at it this way, 30,000 years ago, someone came up with the idea of the devil all on his own. He then tells someone who then tells someone else and it begins to spread. 30,000 years later, someone else who has never heard of the devil invents the same thing. If it happened once before without any outside influence, then it could and likely has happened before.

What difference does it make if the term has been around for 70 billion years? You said that the only way that one could believe in the devil was through word of mouth, yet you completely ignore the fact that if there is no devil, then the notion must have originated from someone's mind. If this is the case, that such a creature could be conjured up within someone else's mind at some point in time, then it remains possible that it could happen again at another point in time. Look at it this way, 30,000 years ago, someone came up with the idea of the devil all on his own. He then tells someone who then tells someone else and it begins to spread. 30,000 years later, someone else who has never heard of the devil invents the same thing. If it happened once before without any outside influence, then it could and likely has happened before.

You are closer...
I never said the devil wasn't from a persons mind. In fact I was pointed to that fact of that exact source. Additionally, you can argue that if a person experiencing a scary moment with another person whom acts like a possessed person, can easily be construed as a demon. And then relay that event to you and you would believe something actually did happen, and there is a chance that the person was indeed possessed by a demon or Satan, and finally dismiss any rational explanation of a mentally ill person because in reality you are ignorant of these matters and only capable grasping something that you learn since childhood.

I don't believe that the devil could only be believed through word of mouth (besides the term). The human imagination with its emotion to back it up is a very powerful force. The very notion of the devil is hardly anything deep when you see it has always been a good vs evil and right vs wrong conception. For a human mind to preconceive a devil like character is nothing special.

It doesn't say they were Gnostics. Only that it influenced their writings.

Yeah, they spoke out directly and firmly against it.

Yeah, they spoke out directly and firmly against it.

That may be your opinion. But either way it was influential to them during the time. Which is all the original and very accurate post was stating.

It's pretty amazing how much of Christian folklore was taken from previous religions when you really look at it.

Funny. I wasn't even talking to you and if you notice I joined here before you did. But once again you feel you are more important than you really are.

No I have always been lurking here. The 7forums was down for the past few days and I was bored. So i decided to come over here. Just so happens your lies are hard to pass up.

bouis is a pompous asshole

feel free to go right back and argue with bouis, I agree 100% with his assessment of you

Thats ok. I think I'm starting to like it here. Does this mean instead of having a debate about something you are just going to take the position of personal attacks and unbacked assertions just like your buddy bouis?


I'm sure the people around here never expect that kind of "claptrap" to come out of you.

there is no debate with brainwashed puppets like you, it's an impasse...I've seen your type come and go, I'm guessing you're 24 or something...and you're wasting your time

Bold statement coming from who is probably the most incredulous person on the internet.Wrong on the age and my time is mine to do what I want with it. If I feel like spending it pointing out your fallacies with hard evidence then so be it.

anyone who believes the universe created itself is a moron, plain and simple...from the atomic elements to billions of galaxies never seen by the human eye, many fools will deny God, only to die and find out the hard way

Considering the level of supporting evidence, creation is 100x (thats being nice) more moronic than the big bang. Buy only such an ignorant following such as yours support unintelligent nonsense.

Your threats of eternal damnation and the second coming are as empty as the empirical support of your fictional theology.

oh and btw...."unbacked assertions" are the lifeblood of all Darwinists

Thats wonderful considering there is no such thing as a "Darwinist". The only way you can even fathom the Darwinian concept is by dumbing it down to your level (IQ levels of Neanderthal). So keep in mind that your pitiful attempt to spawn the term "Darwinist" is in of itself an "unbacked assertion".

you must be 22, then

either way, you're a punk

Ok John Edward. Why are you messing up a good discussion with your Viagra supported attempts of penile flexing?

sure there is: those who embrace the mythology of common descent...clear enough for ya?

Did you read that in the good book of fiction as well?

I've debated PhD biologists here who blow you right out of the water, that is their definition

you can't even spell

Did you debate by cut and pasting articles from "Creation on the web"?

I'm sure he was debated right to sleep.

he put up a fight for a few months and moved on

the same will happen with you

Post a link. I would love to see it.

He probably moved on to somebody who actually had a backbone to there debate.

ha...that's one accusation I haven't heard around here, congrats

and it's "their", genius

You gonna post a link to the debate? Or is it as made up as your hot girlfriend as well as your height?

oh brother

Thats what i figured. Delusions of grandeur.

ok.

Then post links of your PhD Biologist debates. If you were really the debater you said you were. You would frequent the Biology boards. But you would only get your ass handed to you over any of the preposterous topics you post here.

you can search as easily as I can

What was his name?

I'm beginning to thing YZF is already bored with this newb

I'm beginning to thing YZF is already bored with this newb

Judging by the 5 new creationist threads in the section I would hardly say that's the case. But I wouldn't expect a person calling me a newb, who has the same joining date, to be that observant.

Still waiting for the name of the PhD.

sorry guess the post count through me off

I'm not very observant, hell I can't even get the alphabet right

sorry guess the post count through me off

I'm not very observant, hell I can't even get the alphabet right

It's cool. Nobody is perfect:bigthumb:

Sorry for coming off as being rude. I thought you were attacking me.

Nope, I could just tell that YZF was about had it, with his shortness(no pun intended)

Nope, I could just tell that YZF was about had it, with his shortness(no pun intended)

Well he was starting to run out of topics to support his bogus claims in the DoO since they were all getting toppled. But I see he has no problem still posting them up here.

Could be the source of his apparent butt hurting.

I just noticed that YZF got banned once again from the 7 forums for being himself. Now I see where the hostility in this thread came from.

nope, I got banned by one of the old admins for no reason at all, other than he can't stand my views...he even said that

So are you going to post up the name of the PhD Biologist you debated?

nope...if you search you will find it

the last thing I want is more cut and paste bs from you

I did search and didn't find squat. Typical BS

Judging by the 5 new creationist threads in the section I would hardly say that's the case. But I wouldn't expect a person calling me a newb, who has the same joining date, to be that observant.

Still waiting for the name of the PhD.

I'm sure you realize this so called phd debate will never surface. There are only one kind of result found from a YZF debate...yzf was owned and banned for name calling.

For others who are new here, the following are steps YZF takes to earn a ban.
1. post material from another website to this thread.
2. defend said material by avoiding logic, parroting ambiguous material.
3. If that don't work, find an adjective that can hurt feelings and spam away until ban.
4. repeat.

this is the truth

nope, I got banned by one of the old admins for no reason at all, other than he can't stand my views...he even said that

nope, you got banned for two reasons...neither of which are what you stated...

1--you couldnt behave in the DoO
2--you couldnt stop sending PM's to people like the one you sent me, telling me that you couldnt wait for the day that I would die and burn in hell, so you could laugh and thank God for it.

You were specifically told that if they let you back in you needed to behave yourself. you agreed. you failed. you got banned. Lets keep posts in a thread entitled "truth" just that, please. In fact, you were previously perma-banned from the forum, and you were allowed to stay, as you were told in a thread, only as long as you behaved yourself like an adult. how many more second chances should you need?

this is your whimiscal opinion, but it's not based on anything

This wasnt your post. fail. Nice adjective.

nope, it was exactly as stated it....as usual, you're speculating without the slightest clue what you're talking about

no one "bahaved" in DoO, give me a break

you mean to tell me that you didnt send me that PM? So, when it became known that you were pulling that crap again, you honestly dont think that I have any clue what goes on over there? I'm a moderator on that forum, marky....you might wanna recheck your "information" on this one.

Next, youre probably going to pretend that you didnt get an infraction back on 4/7/08 for making a racial comment about merciless....but just like this ban, you and I both know the truth, dont we?

And czar, I havent agreed with anything youve said thus far. The devil, for example, isnt believed solely because someone mentions that title. There are many people who hear it, dont believe, then believe it years later while far removed from when they were first told the word. There are others who dont necessarily have a specific name in mind but believe that something evil does exist. Be careful not to try to use your logic as everyone else's.

logical fallacy....you lose
Actually, lose the word logical, and you describe the Bible to the T.



I win

I win

Don't even joke about that.

wasnt joking

wasnt joking

Are you sure? I laughed.

i laughed too when i argue with a simpleton.

Czar, I hate to say this, but you haven't ever won anything.

How so? I win in everything. Not my fault if you say otherwise.

right on cue

you're not a moderator in DoO, jonnie, although I'm sure you sent ZeroR a few PMs with the usual psycho babble

at least you have a full time job now! lol...hope it pays the bills

zero?

I didnt send him a PM about anything, why dont you ask him since hes a member on here too.

Either way, and in the spirit of the title of this thread, lets see you tell the truth now about that incident, shall we? It had nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion about your views, and everything to do with how you promised icemark that you would behave and you constantly couldnt.

full time job, well, you know I have already had my full-time job for quite some time now. The only difference there is that with my recent move up, I no longer need to travel to many different places, I only go to one plant now. The pay is better, the hours are actually less, and its a sweet position. Not to mention, I no longer have to drive more than 70,000 miles a year for work! But yeah, the only difference between what I used to do and being a mod, for me anyway, is that I now get to edit other people's posts and issue infractions/warnings/bans and such. The research and other work was what I already put in over there.