i have always liked this one. the atheist reaffirming scripture


Genesis 1:24
King James Version
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

thanks dawkins

pastors are outdated and obsolete
now that we have pop culture atheism proving scripture

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jul 10 2026 09:25pm

I am not a scientist, I did not study the Earth and all the rock formations to figure out how old the Earth is. I am no expert on this topic so I will always say I don't know how old the Earth is. Whether it is Millions, Billions or 6,000 Years old, I do not know. I also do not see the relevance in the grand scheme of things. That number does not change the relation with God.

All I know is that life and the Earth was vastly different before the flood. It was only after that God limited the human lifespan in order to keep sin at bay. Can you imagine the current President being in power for over 900+ Years if that were still our lifespan?

More with the science. All I know is that the rainbow symbolizes the covenant that God made that He will never flood the entire Earth again. He has kept that promise.

Firstly I don't have a wife. I live alone. Secondly I am no biologist so I cannot explain how it all came to be. All I do know is that it tells you in Chapter 10 of Genesis all the sons of Noah's kids. Looks to me like they definitely got busy. I can only speculate what may have happened after the Tower of Babel once they were all scattered over the face of the Earth.

You are coming at me with scientific questions that I did not choose to study in those fields in my career. I am sure there are many others out there who have studied in those fields who could explain it. I am not one of those people.

neither is addone. both sides have their "experts" addone picks the side that subjectively pleases him and piles all his faith into it

Describing your philosophy with analogies is a fruitless exercise when you cannot prove/show that it matches reality its like a delusional guy who describes a world where every woman attracted to him like bees to flowers.
I am saying Christianity is your delusion/theoretical fairytale.

Let me show you how.

If God's nature is "unknowable" then you just contradicted yourself from previous post claiming to know that god is good or that goodness is god.
QUOTE=majorblood,Jul 10 2026 08:36pm,691964665,109393037] we are referring to how we know God, in His operations we know He is Good.[/QUOTE] that is incoherent.

Claiming goodness is god makes goodness lose its meaning because if God possess any nature like hate or cruelty then it would be labeled as "good" by definition. And since you conceeded that gods nature is "unknowable" then neither is our ability know what is good. Which means even if we grant that God grounds morality ontologically, humans lack the epistemic access required to know or verify that ground. This renders the grounding practically useless for moral guidance.

This post was edited by addone on Jul 11 2026 03:51am

If you had some sense of how outlandish outright impossible those claims are you would be taking the bible with a very large grain of salt.
These claims can be falsified with archeology and independent historical correspondence or lack there of.

Hey CPK001 on my way to the supermarket today I saw a talking hippo that walked on its hind legs and said hello. There was no one there to witness the hippo and no cameras except me. I am real and I can produce receipts of me going to the supermarket and other independent people can attest to my story.
Since I am real and my alibi checks out do you conclude?
A. The talking hippo must also be true because you find the rest of my evidence credible?
Or
B. The part of the story of me going shopping is real but the hippo part is not.

Since there are no known examples of hippos walking on hind legs and talking like humans in broad daylight by the supermarket that story automatically becomes incredibly suspicious. People would comment that I must of hit my head or accuse me of lying. No person would seriously entertain the idea and even if they did they would require substantial evidence.

Bible asks us to trust hundreds of these outlandish/impossible claims. Most of which don't require a degree in science or biology.

This post was edited by addone on Jul 11 2026 04:53am

perhaps the greatest "achievement" of the 'atheist us how they can speak with authority while not having any
no matter how many times they are exposed as the charlatans that they are they waiver not.

what decides what a man believes?
Matthew 12:34
King James Version
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

is "belief" really a process of some kind of objective thinking? or are we just products of the heart and the mind is secondary?

i dont think i ever say atheist with out ' to begin the word. what 'atheist means mostly is antitheist. an antitheist is just a enemy of God and is really not related to the atheist. an atheist at times will say as much.
i got into the habit of 'atheist because of the level of dishonesty i have often experienced. if i say 'atheist they cant do a force meaning to the word to fit agenda. yes i understand it sounds confusing.
so?
let be said, God is not the author of confusion.

so? is it time to add another dimension to the word/expression 'atheist ?

over the century has already proven what they are. ............and who is the author of lies?

time to expand the meaning of 'atheist

1. Charles Darwin and the theory of 'evolution- gets a pass because he didnt call it fact........... he didnt "fake it"
2.haeckels embryo drawings- 1874- "faked"
3rd piltdown man 1912- "faked"
4th nebraska man 1922- "faked"
5th whale evolution. - "faked"
6th junk DNA - "faked"
7. persecution of Harlen Bretz 1927- "faked"
8.Australopithecus afarensis 1978 - "faked"
9. 1980's rna world hypothesis- "faked"

'atheist or? fakiest

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jul 11 2026 06:21am

i get it pedagogical analogies are difficult for you, even though I was never the one to do it and it was the other guy. maybe you should dm him telling him this.

idk dude this is just a straight comprehension gap on your part, you quote me then not understand the words I am saying. you don't know the difference between operations and nature and continue to confuse them.

you call something incoherent because you don't know what words mean. you do not need to know His nature to know His operations, and His operations are uncreated.



"We have no way of knowing why or ability to rationalize good vs evil." - show that this is the case. justify this claim.

are you going to justify this claim or keep cowering?

...I know how analogies work lol. I get that its not a 1 to 1 comparison but you are missing the point that even when you comparing apples to oranges it doesn't mean oranges are true. You can give comparisons to how you believe god to operate but that in no way validates if he actually exists or operates that way. Since you have no reliable access to God's nature, His process, his will/intentions or even of his existence you cannot then reliably compare him to anything else. It would be like trying to compare a creature you've never met or seen and then describing how that creature operates to another creature. All you are doing is regurgitating speculation.

You cannot claim his operations are uncreated (more speculation) because you dont know if these uncreated energies like love, power, grace etc are god

I just showed you how under your worldview distinction between good and evil are not possible. Reread my post above.

it was not meant to be an argument, this is your primary issue. it was for explanatory power by the other guy, to explain what his position is not the validity of it.

I am also giving you an explanation of His operations, not attempting to prove the validity because if you cannot understand the position it would make it very difficult to prove the validity of it.

"Since you have no reliable access to God's nature, His process, his will/intentions or even of his existence" prove this is the case

"We have no way of knowing why or ability to rationalize good vs evil." prove this is the case

you still haven't justified how universal transcendentals like logic and truth objectively exist within your own framework. are you going to actually start backing up your assertions, or just keep cowering?

It's ironic that you say one thing about god is unknowable, and then go on to state other things about god as if they aren't also unknowable.

Is god the ultimate grounding for reality? We can't know. Claiming you know is arrogant.