Non-believers - Ever prayed really hard for God to reveal himself?

[excreationist]

....Yeah, you strangely said you haven't tried. Just takes a few seconds, if you're really so interested.

I haven't tried lately - I think it is because I don't want to start serving God.

And it's pointless anyway as you should already understand the experience as I explained subsequently.

Well some people here have tried it anyway....
http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/atheists-pray-for-40-days-for-god-to-reveal-himself-to-them

You already were a believer, so you already know what it feels like to believe God has revealed himself to you.

Not really. I just believed - I didn't really have a strong feeling of God's presence.

It didn't make a difference for you when you deconverted apparently. So, it's a pointless exercise for anybody, especially the deconverted.

Well my sisters think I'll be a Christian again and my wife wants me to be one.

So it was kind of pointless to bring up, and not to mention, gauche.

Some people say that me being dux means I'm quite intelligent.

From the above, you should be able to see the problems in appealing to someone else's personal testimony or experience as evidence on the god question.

No matter how bad it is it is still considered a form of "evidence".

I understand, and if I take you at your word, it's apparent you just haven't engaged in the arguments or the philosophy very deeply. Nothing wrong with that by itself, everyone starts from somewhere.

I have informally. BTW my main competition is Christians - I think I'm more rational than they are. Though I guess compared to atheists here you are more rational.

 

[excreationist]

About me being dux... I went to a Christian school and the next two highest achievers were atheists. (then so was I soon after I started university) I went to a state primary school and a science teacher told the class that he didn't believe in evolution. Also at a museum the class went to, one of the displays said that some people believe in Adam and Eve - it didn't criticize that belief. Then when I was starting high school I went to a presentation run by creationists. One of the things they talked about were dragons - their explanation is that they were dinosaurs. Then I got about 15-20 creationist books and magazines. One of them was about 200+ pages and it just focused on fossil evidence of human evolution and missing links, etc. Those books and magazines gave counter-arguments to basically all of the common arguments against creationism.

Christians I know sometimes say that people sometimes need to pray for faith. On the other hand in high school I believed in God because creationism made sense to me.

 

[excreationist]

You are kidding, arent you? What archeology shows is that most of the Bible is blatantly false. There were no glorious king David. There were no exodus from Egypt. etc.

I found this:
"Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?"
http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match
"Logistics of the Exodus - How did Moses organize the Israelites to cross the Red Sea?"
http://creation.com/exodus-logistics

So according to some Christians there is some evidence. BTW a pastor I talked to about this wanted me to just think about the evidence that Jesus existed - he didn't think problems I had with the Old Testament were very relevant.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So according to some Christians

at 'creation.com'

there is some evidence.

But the question is how many archaologists say there's evidence, right?
And archaeologists tend to find that Egypt didn't have a big slave population. So the Genesis account is not 'perfectly' matched by historical finds.

If you're going to depend on argument-by-authority, maybe you should work harder to figure out who's really an authority? Not just someone who agrees with the answers you want to conclude?

 

[Rhea]

They use that word "perfect match". I don't think it means what they think it means.

excre - do YOU believe them? It sounds like you find them convincing. You post it saying, here's some evidence. Are you hoping we will help out to identify where they are fooling themselves and you, where their science is so bad that not is not science any longer? We can do that. What they have posted is not "evidence" in the generally accepted definition of the word "evidence". Their science is unreliable and cannot be used to confirm anything because they do not follow science rules that will produce RELIABLE conclusions that can be used without fear of complete collapse.

Are you hoping for a critique? We can point you to sites that show exactly how and where their conclusions are just seriously flawed wishful thinking.


Use this search term on google:
debunk creation.com

the work is already done for you - just read.

 

[excreationist]

at 'creation.com'

there is some evidence.

But the question is how many archaologists say there's evidence, right?
And archaeologists tend to find that Egypt didn't have a big slave population.

Apparently it depends on which spot in history you're talking about. Here they're saying to look a few centuries later I think.

So the Genesis account is not 'perfectly' matched by historical finds.

Well their title did have a question mark after "perfect match".

If you're going to depend on argument-by-authority, maybe you should work harder to figure out who's really an authority? Not just someone who agrees with the answers you want to conclude?

I'm saying that there seems to be some kind of evidence for slavery in Egypt.

 

[excreationist]

They use that word "perfect match". I don't think it means what they think it means.

They had a question mark after it.

excre - do YOU believe them?

Not really.

It sounds like you find them convincing. You post it saying, here's some evidence.

yeah. "some" evidence.

....Are you hoping for a critique? We can point you to sites that show exactly how and where their conclusions are just seriously flawed wishful thinking.

I'm aware that there would be counter-arguments.

 

[Rhea]

I'm saying that there seems to be some kind of evidence for slavery in Egypt.

We already knew that. Lots of people were enslaved all over history. But that does nothing to verify anything religious, nor does it even TOUCH miracles. Indeed, the miracles listed in the bible are pretty easy to debunk, which kind of throws the whole thing into the "fiction" shelf.

 

[excreationist]

So that undermines your example that "archeology shows is that most of the Bible is blatantly false"

No. It doesnt. There are still no trays of any exodus, king david or solomon. The legend of Moses is, myth.
And there are no trace of use of camels in that area at that time.

http://youtu.be/gftH0MKjvts?t=41m56s
This guy says that the David and Goliath story never happened but there existed David the politician...

 

[Keith&Co.]

So that undermines your example that "archeology shows is that most of the Bible is blatantly false"

No. It doesnt. There are still no trays of any exodus, king david or solomon. The legend of Moses is, myth.
And there are no trace of use of camels in that area at that time.

http://youtu.be/gftH0MKjvts?t=41m56s
This guy says that the David and Goliath story never happened but there existed David the politician...

I tend to find no satisfaction watching argument-by-youtube. Too much to wade through, usually.

So.
Why would we care what 'this guy says,' ExC?
Why do YOU care what this guy says?
Why, exactly, are you offering his opinion in response to claims that archaeology shows the Babble is blatantly false? Because he says something different?
Because he says something different and he's got evidence?

 

[Archimedes]

I'm saying that there seems to be some kind of evidence for slavery in Egypt.

There's evidence that ancient Egypt existed and people lived there.

The book of Exodus says that Egypt existed and people lived there.

I've just found supporting evidence for the book of Exodus because the facts match up with something the book says.

Honestly, that's about what you sound like with most of these "arguments".

 

[excreationist]

So that undermines your example that "archeology shows is that most of the Bible is blatantly false"

No. It doesnt. There are still no trays of any exodus, king david or solomon. The legend of Moses is, myth.
And there are no trace of use of camels in that area at that time.

http://youtu.be/gftH0MKjvts?t=41m56s
This guy says that the David and Goliath story never happened but there existed David the politician...

I tend to find no satisfaction watching argument-by-youtube. Too much to wade through, usually.

So.
Why would we care what 'this guy says,' ExC?

He doesn't think things in the Bible are necessarily historical (e.g. the story of David and Goliath) yet he thinks there is evidence that David was a politician.

Why do YOU care what this guy says?
Why, exactly, are you offering his opinion in response to claims that archaeology shows the Babble is blatantly false? Because he says something different?
Because he says something different and he's got evidence?

Yes he would have some evidence.

BTW that youtube video is a BBC documentary and the person behind it is very skeptical of the Bible's information about David's empire...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gftH0MKjvts&feature=youtu.be&t=53m33s
"I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say that I don't believe that Israel and Judah were ever united under a Davidic king at all."

Note how careful she is not to reach a very certain conclusion here.

BTW in the latter part of the documentary they talked about the overwhelming evidence for another king - Omri:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omri

He is mentioned in the Bible but apparently due to its pro-Judah bias they played down his achievements.