If you really want to start talking reparations. Far more whites than blacks have been enslaved in history

I'll take 'I know nothing of ancient Egypt for 500 Alex.'

A) We dont even know if a semitic group was enslaved in Egypt at the supposed time of the exodus. The bible is not a primary source sorry.

B) The black Pharaohs of Egypt were the 25th dynasty. If the exodus really happened it 'occurred' during the 13th dynasty. With non a Nubian elite governing Egypt.

Gene Wilder and Willy Wonka deserve better than this weak ass attempt at a meme.

You forget that Indiana Jones is also a very valid source of information.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, but then again this his usually true of the mocking arrogant, So eager to display what in their own mind is valuable knowledge, but in reality ignorance.

I'm also not sure where you received your education, but wherever it was, I would ask for a refund for yourself, your parents or the tax payers who funded it.

A) Who is " We " ? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Yes, we Christians clearly do know Jews were enslaved in Egypt. The exact date is disputed, but there is support for a early date of 1440 BC or a later date of 1290 BC, both of which would have put the exodus in the 18th to 20th pharaonic dynasties, Not the 13th dynasty as you ignorantly suggested.

The most well documented piece of literature in antiquity ( The bible ) has told us there were Jews enslaved in Egypt and archaeological digs support this. The bible is so trustworthy in regards to it's historical accuracy, the worlds greatest archaeologists consult it so they know where to dig.

The bible has also been mocked time and time again for claims it alone has made, only to later have those claims validated by archaeology and those who mocked them wearing egg on their face. Sorry. Simply dismissing literature you don't like is conjectural bias, not an argument or evidence for or against a claim.

B) The exact dynastic reign of Nubian Pharaohs in Egypt among historians has to be one of my most controversial and disputed areas of Egyptology, and yet you state it here with specificity as if you have personal smart phone footage with a time stamp. This is what I would call intellectual dishonesty and confirmation bias.

Gene Wilder is dead and Willy Wonka, like your historical beliefs, is a made up fairy tale.

Repent of your sins and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You're not waiting for anything, but like all lost men you're looking to suppress the knowledge of the God you know to exist.

The main problem with those who deny the existence of God is not intellectual. It is not because of insufficient information or that God's manifestation of himself in nature has been obscured.

The atheist's problem is not that they can not know God, rather it is they don't want to know him.

Man's problem with God is not intellectual problem It's a moral problem.

The claims of the bible are only suspect to they cynically paranoid and skeptical, which philosophy tell us is a enemy of all knowledge claims.

You absolutely know he exist. Your active suppression of him on this site testifies of it with shining clarity.

Someone who believes in a false God could in fact say the same thing, and this would be committing the common atheist fallacy of the atheists you're parroting it from known as a faulty comparison fallacy. We're not talking about other Gods but the God of the bible.

In regards to argument. I haven't offered any counter arguments yet because you haven't offered anything which needs to be counter argued. So far you've offered dismissals without a basis and logical fails. You disagreeing with me is fine, but you need to offer a solid basis by which you do so, not just dismissals based on conjectural basis.

Your objections aren't intellectual, as every intellectual objection by atheists has been dealt with fully and they continue to present the same old lame excuses.

Moral objections? Your world view can't account for morality. If God doesn't exist there's nothing moral or immoral. A child being molested being “ evil “ or “ immoral “ would be nothing more than an arbitrary preference or opinion. You could call it evil or immoral, and you'd be right, but you as an atheist would have no objective and transcendent standard by which to determine this. The most you as an atheist could say is that you simply did not prefer the behavior over another, but what you couldn't call it is immoral within your naturalistic framework.

In regards to the “ burden of proof “ can you please prove to me that the epistemic means by which you acquire knowledge is the sole epistemic means by which it's acquired?

In regards to “ act anymore immorally than Christians “ You missed the point. The point isn't that you are more immoral than the average Christian, but hat the issue of God for you is a moral issue, not a intellectual. You're conflating a quantity of morality over a scope of issues with its application to a singular issue.

Part 2. Also. The history of mankind in the 20th century and the fact that most people lock their doors at night demonstrates clearly that rational, educated, and sane individuals are not counting on would be intruders from not attacking or robbing them because they wouldn't want the same done to them. Your claims according to the myth of macroevolution do not stand up to scrutiny.

What my comment about epistemic means has to do with burden of proof is that your world view assumes naturalism as the sole epistemic means. Because of faulty assumptions and presuppositions like this - it leads you to other delusions. A prime example of this would be your basing morality on human evolution. Which wasn't' argument but assumed.

Also The issues wasn't the existence of God, but rather your denial of the existence of God. So this would be a Red Herring and divergence from the topic. But lets entertain it for a moment so I can address something.

That a person needs to meet your “ burden of proof “ according to your deficient, materialistic world view and epistemology for an immaterial and supernatural God is 1. Assuming your naturalistic world view & epistemology. And 2. What's known in philosophy as a category mistake.

A category mistake is an ontological error which applies properties of one kind ( Naturalism & materialism ) to a thing ( God ) which does not and can not hold those properties ( immateriality and supernatural ) You are demanding proof according to the deficiency of your world view which makes you an atheist to begin with.

In a nutshell you're drawing a circle around yourself and then demanding people knock you over without violating the circumference of the circle. This is intellectual dishonesty, not intellectual prowess.

Part 1. Yes, I know what you typed before. I also know your deficient world view doesn't' provide you with the means to see the truth about yourself - That your debased mind is hostile towards God and that you are dead in your sins and trespasses. I also know your naturalistic framework & epistemology can not account for the universe & all in contains.

A drunk will tell someone clearly and unambiguously that they're not a drunk – That makes the reality of them being a drunk no less true. It has nothing to do with logic, but rather epistemological means your world view is deficient of and denial of a reality you don't want to face - just like a drunk doesn't want to face he has a drinking problem and suppresses it.

In regards to morality. Your world view can not account for morality and you've done nothing to argue that it can. Subjective morality is irrational and violates the most basic law of logic - The law of noncontradistinction. I'll attach a meme I made above to illustrate.

Subjective morality states that I can hold to a moral position according to my subjective view points and you can hold to a moral position completely contradicting that view point.

Morality doesn't exist apart from God, and I have and can continue to argue that forcefully. You can continue to deny it, but you need to offer a line of counter argumentation by which you do so. So far all you have offered are logic fails, claims, and assumptions.

Also, your world view can not account for the term “ absurd “ There is no moral obligation for how humans are to act if God does not exist. Just preferences. And no one behavior would be more legitimate, sane, or moral than the other.

In regards to humans being “ social animals “ humans are not animals & there's not a shred of evidence that we are.

In regards to morality being about corroboration of society or that which benefits us. This is begging the question and the exact argument Sam Harris tried using against Christian William Lane Craig in their debate about morality and had his can handed to him on a platter. I would highly recommend the debate if you

"In regards to humans being “ social animals “ humans are not animals & there's not a shred of evidence that we are. "

There's actually plenty of evidence that humans are animals. For a start, animals take in oxygen and leave out carbon dioxide, which is what humans do. The latin name for humans is "homo sapiens", meaning "wise man".

Image flip wouldn't let me reply to your other comment so I'm commenting on this one.

" What are humans if we aren't animals? "

We are image bearers of God created in his likeness.

" They are biologically similar, specifically that humans are mammals."

We are not similar and we are not mammals. Especially in our brain function. We hold a few common traits that naturalists exploit and exaggerate into more than what they are and that's it.

You're simply parroting claims based on modern biology, which is a demonstration of what happens to education when you take God out of the equation.

" If you want me to go into why humans are in the mammals category, I will go deeper "

I am fully aware of what macro-evolution teaches - I'm also aware - as I explained to your friend above - it's a larger faulty conclusion based on smaller faulty conclusions which lead to it.

Like I said above. This is what occurs when you take God out of the equation and base science on faulty presuppositions and basal assumptions.

"Creator meaning our parents?"

You know what I mean. If the question is asked again it will be ignored.

"We are not similar and we are not mammals. Especially in our brain function. We hold a few common traits that naturalists exploit and exaggerate into more than what they are and that's it. "

Chimps have been proven to have reasoning similar to that of humans. If anything, they do it easily without any religion.

"You're simply parroting claims based on modern biology, which is a demonstration of what happens to education when you take God out of the equation."

Which "parrots claims" based on scientific discoveries. They didn't have microscopes or words such as "genome", "deoxyribonucleic acid", or "proteins" back when the Bible was written.

"I am fully aware of what macro-evolution teaches - I'm also aware - as I explained to your friend above - it's a larger faulty conclusion based on smaller faulty conclusions which lead to it. "

Evidence that it's a faulty conclusion that humans are mammals? Humans and mammals have what are called "mammalian glands", which are parts of female mammals that give milk to the infant after birth.

"Like I said above. This is what occurs when you take God out of the equation and base science on faulty presuppositions and basal assumptions."

And what if we put God in the equation? We wouldn't be basing science off of presuppositions? Isn't the whole concept of a god a presupposition?

"You know what I mean. If the question is asked again it will be ignored."

24i7am.jpg (click to show)

This is one single part of a larger conversation with an entirely different person on a topic that had nothing to do with evolution - Making it the mother of all Red Herring logical fails.

But lets entertain what you have said a moment. Are you honestly arguing that because we share some common characteristics with animals that we evolved from a common ancestor?

With due respect. This is an unsupported extrapolation.

We share common traits with animals because we share a common creator, not because we evolved from a common ancestor.

The etymology of human labels in the Latin does nothing to argue for human evolution.

What are humans if we aren't animals? They are biologically similar, specifically that humans are mammals. If you want me to go into why humans are in the mammals category, I will go deeper.

"We share common traits with animals because we share a common creator, not because we evolved from a common ancestor."

Creator meaning our parents?

Part 1.

“ Chimps have been proven to have reasoning similar to that of humans. “

Animals don't act on “ reasoning “ but according to appetite, instinct, and memory. Which is precisely why food rewards are a part of most of these tests with animals.

“ If anything, they do it easily without any religion. “

Your begging the question by assuming this to be reasoning. You haven't proven that yet, but even if it were. Reasoning is a systematic way to form conclusions through a process of logic.

Logic is a series of universal, immutable truths which apply to us all. You do not need religion to use logic, just as you don't need to acknowledge God to deny him with the intelligence he has given you. However, you do need God to justify logic and intelligence. Your world view can not do this.

“ Which "parrots claims" based on scientific discoveries. “

Which is a claim, not an argument for a claim. No scientist or scientific discovery has made a macroevolutionary prediction ( Land animals becoming whales ) and had it come to pass. What they have done is observed micro-evolutionary changes and then extrapolated that these micro changes lead to what they've predicted without ever having proven or observed it. This is not “ science “ it's pure conjecture and speculation.

“ They didn't have microscopes or words such as "genome", "deoxyribonucleic acid", or "proteins" back when the Bible was written “

Which is completely irrelevant. The purpose of presuppositions underpinning epistemology is not to encompass the totality of the terms by which the discipline is practiced. It's to set up an axiomatic foundation for which the rest of that world view or science flows. If those presuppositions are faulty the rest of their world view or science will flow from that.

“ Evidence that it's a faulty conclusion that humans are mammals? “

No, that small micro-evolutionary changes lead to larger ones. But lets take this up as well.

Mammal is a purely human classification which categorizes animals based on numerous features, which not all mammals posses all of of. From my perspective, it's purely arbitrary.

“ Humans and mammals have what are called "mammalian glands", which are parts of female mammals that give milk to the infant after birth. “

"You absolutely know he exist. Your active suppression of him on this site testifies of it with shining clarity. "

Proof?

Appeal to ridicule or mockery is a logical fail - which is the antithesis of an argument, not the basis of one.

In regards to " proof " I'll ask once again like I asked your friend. Where is your proof that " proof " is the sole epistemic means by which knowledge and truth are acquired?

I used your own epistemology by which you can validate this claim so you should have no objections to that.

“ If someone makes a claim, proof should be provided to support that claim. “

You repeatedly use terms your world view can not qualify & commit category errors. That proof “ should be provided “ for supernatural claims is according to what line of reasoning * within * your naturalistic framework?

Meaning - You are asserting that there is a way humans “ should “ or ought to think. How do you get an ought or “ should “ from a materialistic world view which can only account for what IS?

“ Personal experience is not very reliable when it comes gaining knowledge, for two reasons. “

Two points. First. No one is arguing this, so you're arguing against a strawman. Second. Your own naturalistic world view & epistemology depends absolutely on human experience & unreliable senses – so raising this as an objection is actually arguing against yourself.

“ First, no one else can corroborate it, “

Which is irrelevant for the reasons I've raised above. It also doesn't take into consideration that no amount of “ scientists “ corroborating an observation will matter if their starting presuppositions or basal assumptions are wrong. From those assumptions & presuppositions will the rest of their “science flow”, & from those faulty conclusions will other faulty conclusions flow. Your attempt to equate morality with evolution is the case in point.

“ since it only happened to one person. And second, it is subject to misinterpretation by a flawed brain. “

I agree. Especially with the “ flawed brain “ part. Atheism is a euphemism of a flawed brain which believes matter magically became self aware & that human intelligence arose autonomously. If atheists get an axiomatic reality like God wrong, how much more likely will they get a lesser reality in materialistic observation wrong.

“ Imagine someone seeing a shadow outside their window and thinking it's a burglar. “

I already answered this above. You spent the majority of this post arguing against a strawman and your own world view based on sense perception alone.

All knowledge claims are based on basal assumptions and presuppositions – even secular “ scientists “ will acknowledge this. If those basal assumptions and/or presuppositions are faulty – the conclusions drawn from them will follow that pattern.

Where you stand on the issue of God will determine how data is interpreted – As your own words have clearly attested to this reality.

In regards to proof, rather than avoiding giving me any proof of your statement, could you give me some first?

Instead of denying that you don't understand the argument which has just been presented to you - why not just swallow your pride and admit that and I'll see if I can't better explain it?

Part 2.

“ Humans and mammals have what are called "mammalian glands", which are parts of female mammals that give milk to the infant after birth “

This is a single characteristic or feature. The vertebrate would be another, but that doesn't mean they evolved from a common ancestor, it means they share a common creator. Here's what I'm' talking about with faulty presuppositions on display right here.

“ And what if we put God in the equation? We wouldn't be basing science off of presuppositions? “ 

Of course we would. All world views are based on presuppositions. This is philosophy 101. The question is, which are the correct presuppositions? 

Something tells me you're a little foggy on exactly what presuppositions are. I think you somehow think they're something a person arbitrarily pulls out of a hat. 

“ Isn't the whole concept of a god a presupposition? “ 

Not the whole concept, but in regards to formulating justifiable logical argumentation to support valid world view's and epistemology it is.