Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Left Behind Sequel Next Month

Left Behind Games Announces Release of Tribulation Forces, is the press release saying the sequel to Left Behind will hit stores on June 15, though the follow-up to the Christian-themed game has already been available online and in Christian stores. The announcement includes complaints about the mistreatment of the original by a "misinformation campaign," saying it may have cost their company $200 million in shareholder value. As for the game, word is: "This new second chapter in the LEFT BEHIND PC Game series includes significant new features, improvements, maps and missions. The game includes 45 single player missions including tutorials and an all-new skirmish mode allowing players to play against the computer by themselves or with up to 7 friends online. There are 39 skirmish battle multiplayer maps and 3 different multiplayer modes of play." Thanks Gamer's Hell.

View
120 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >

120. Re: Part II Jun 3, 2009, 03:18 Amillennialist
 
Me: It must be frustrating when one's entire rhetorical repertoire consists of name-calling.

Unexploded: you're not about to approach the subject with anything approaching logic, reason, or independent thought . . . heckling you . . . fictional sky king . . . other simpletons . . . waste their time, energy and money too.

So much for "logic, reason, or independent thought."

Instead of offering empirical evidence of vertical speciation by random, natural processes (or proof of Apostolic deceit), you'd rather illustrate my point.

Coming from someone who's offered Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, koolaid -- and now, the sky king -- as his "arguments," I suppose I should consider your aspersions a compliment.

Thank you.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
119. Re: Part II Jun 2, 2009, 22:57 Unexploded
 
It must be frustrating when one's entire rhetorical repertoire consists of name-calling.

You've made abundantly clear you're not about to approach the subject with anything approaching logic, reason, or independent thought. So other than heckling you, I don't see much point...

Perhaps I should take the time to invent a fictional sky king and spend the rest of my days trying convince other simpletons to waste their time, energy and money too.





 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
118. Re: Part II Jun 2, 2009, 21:21 Amillennialist
 
Now reverse it 180 degrees, throw in some rote ritual, silly superstition and hilarious hypocrisy and you've got Captain Creationist here's world view.

It must be frustrating when one's entire rhetorical repertoire consists of name-calling.

So, find any empirical evidence for vertical speciation by only random, natural processes yet, or are you depending on only blind faith?

Yet you mock those who rely on centuries of historical evidence of real people and events.

Now that's ironic!
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
117. Re: Part II Jun 1, 2009, 23:00 Unexploded
 
Look up "empirical." And "Scientific Method."
Now reverse it 180 degrees, throw in some rote ritual, silly superstition and hilarious hypocrisy and you've got Captain Creationist here's world view.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
116. Re: Part II Jun 1, 2009, 20:00 Amillennialist
 
Your posts grow increasingly vitriolic with every response, and on more than one occassion you've made unwarranted assumptions about me, including insults. You don't seem to understand that eyewitness testimony does not constitute emprical evidence, no matter how many times people tell you.

If you don't understand how the scientific method was used to create the Great Wall, or the Egyptian Pyramids, or the printing press, or Algebra, or to demonstrate the existence of historical figures no amount of explaining is ever going to make it clear to you, because you are not interested in the explanation, you are interested in maintaining a belief.

To even claim that I tried to say that humanity knew nothing about before the twentieth century is such a dishonest interpretation of my good faith efforts to debate that I'm no longer interested. I'm not going to spend my time correcting your intentional misinterpretation of my words. I think the contentions I have put forth stand on their own merits, they are clear and understandable and that most people would find them more convincing than the points you've made, so I'm done.

Look up "empirical." And "Scientific Method."

Pointing out errors and logical contradictions is not "vitriol."

You said that we know "nothing" apart from the Scientific Method, but that was fully-developed only recently. The expressions of human knowledge noted above were developed long before the Scientific Method was established as we know it (nineteenth/twentieth century). Even if you go back a thousand years, all but the printing press were developed before then.

I'd be interested in an explanation if you'd offer one. Instead, it's been "You're dumb," and "Science is god."

You're unable to refute empirical (observed) evidence for Christ -- eyewitness testimony -- and you can produce none for vertical speciation, so now it's time to claim victimization? Time to take your ball and go home?

It is natural to feel some cognitive dissonance when one is confronted with unpleasant facts.

I'm on your side.

This comment was edited on Jun 1, 2009, 20:05.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
115. Re: Part II Jun 1, 2009, 16:36 7.62WorldOrder
 
Your posts grow increasingly vitriolic with every response, and on more than one occassion you've made unwarranted assumptions about me, including insults. You don't seem to understand that eyewitness testimony does not constitute emprical evidence, no matter how many times people tell you.

If you don't understand how the scientific method was used to create the Great Wall, or the Egyptian Pyramids, or the printing press, or Algebra, or to demonstrate the existence of historical figures no amount of explaining is ever going to make it clear to you, because you are not interested in the explanation, you are interested in maintaining a belief.

To even claim that I tried to say that humanity knew nothing about before the twentieth century is such a dishonest interpretation of my good faith efforts to debate that I'm no longer interested. I'm not going to spend my time correcting your intentional misinterpretation of my words. I think the contentions I have put forth stand on their own merits, they are clear and understandable and that most people would find them more convincing than the points you've made, so I'm done.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
114. Part II May 30, 2009, 11:46 Amillennialist
 
Faith and "factual foundation" are mutually exclusive.

You have to use that false definition because that's the only way you can justify your ideology. So, did you come up with that yourself, or were you brainwashed by unthinking, intellectually-dishonest teachers?

you don't put any substance behind your claims, you just state them and move on to something else.

Substance? I've offered a number of facts regarding the veracity of Scripture and what has been offered in return?

The Easter bunny.

The statement regarding Evolution is true to any objective observer; let's see if you can come up with something more substantive in your defense of Darwinism than you've offered so far against Christ.

Me: No, I'm talking about the fact that every single Darwinist with whom I've ever discussed "Science" speak of it with a blind religious dogmatism that rejects empiricism -- scientists are the high priests, its core doctrine the Neo-Darwinian Creation Myth, its dissenters punished in its own Inquisitions.

7.62WorldOrder: This entire statement speaks more about who you think you're arguing with than anything about me as a person or the arguments I've presented. Interesting.

Well, other than false definitions of faith and unsubstantiated dismissals of historical evidence, you've not given me much to work with.

Experience shows that those who make “arguments” like yours are generally Christ-hating, atheistic, intellectually-dishonest, Darwinist zealots.

And if you read my statement, I said, “every single Darwinist with whom I've ever discussed 'Science,” not, “You.”

So, how far off the mark was I? You offered bugs as proof we came from monkeys.

Me: Paul wrote within twenty to thirty years after Christ's Resurrection. The last book of the New Testament, Revelation, was composed near the end of the first century by John, one of Christ's closest friends (He gave John the responsibility and honor of caring for His mother). John wrote one Gospel and three Epistles.

Every New Testament book was written by either eyewitnesses to all that Jesus said and did (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) or by those who interviewed or wrote for eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke).

7.62WorldOrder: There is no intelectually honest way that you can claim to know this. You are resorting to your faith again in believing what has been written and said by people who may have truly and fully believed in something that was simply false. You would have no problem dimissing that logic when it comes to the teachings and stories of, say, Islam or Judaism, yet you selectively ignore it when it comes to your own beliefs. This is exaclty why people like myself dislike the idea of faith. It is simply dogmatism dressed up with a less perjorative term.

As I've pointed out previously (perhaps you've not had a chance to read my other posts in this thread), my faith does not dictate what I consider “evidence,” my faith is founded on the evidence that we possess. That is a basic distinction you and your co-religionists seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp.

It appears also that you confuse the existence of a historical document with whether or not truth claims contained within them are valid.

I do not “dismiss logic” with regard to Judaism (or anything else), for its Divine revelation is Christ's. I would contend with extra-Biblical doctrines which contradict the Law and Prophets.

As for Islam – as I've noted elsewhere (again, perhaps you've not had a chance to read those comments) – I do not doubt Muhammad was a real person. I do not doubt that he said that which is attributed to him in the ahadith collections considered traditionally most reliable by Muslims. I do not deny that Allah revealed that which is recorded in Qur'an. I will dispute Muhammad's claim that Allah is YHWH uncorrupted.

Ironically, you don't notice your blind faith in Darwinism's creation myth.

Me: Your conclusion is not intellectually honest, for you have no empirical evidence to suggest that the Apostles lied.

7.62WorldOrder: Why is it not necessary to demonstrate evidence that they told the truth first?

Someone once wrote: “the burden of proof would always be on the guilty to prove their innocence. It's absurd logic, and it's why we don't use that kind of reasoning for anything important in our society.”

Oh, yes. That was you.

How would it even be possible to provide evidence they were lying if there is no evidence they were telling the truth?

First, there is evidence they were telling the truth (for example, multiple corroborating witnesses, the empty tomb, the rapid growth of the Church among the very people who knew of all that occurred concerning Christ, despite terrible persecution).

Second, wouldn't it be easier to prove someone is lying if there is no evidence they are telling the truth?

Can you provide evidence that a counsel of unicorns didn't create the universe?

Yes, YHWH told Moses that He created all that exists.

Can you provide evidence they did? Something along the lines of – oh, I don't know – the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses?

The Resurrection has that.

Darwinism's creation myth does not.


Again, this is an unfalsifiable contention

A corpse would falsify the Resurrection. No one – especially those who had Christ murdered and persecuted His followers – ever produced the body. In fact, their false explanations regarding the Empty Tomb are an admission that the Tomb was empty.

when all logic dictates that the burden of proof resides with the person making the claim.

Multiple eyewitnesses – many of whom were brutally persecuted and murdered for their confession – meet the burden of proof in any court of law.

Did it ever occur to you that these people truly believed what they belived and were simply incorrect? It's the same reason a suicide bomber thinks he's getting into heaven, despite what logic might tell the rest of us.

That's preposterous. Mujahideen die in killing others because they believe Muhammad told the truth about Allah's promise of paradise to those “who slay and are slain” for him (Qur'an 9:111).

The Apostles and other eyewitnesses actually saw, spoke with, ate with, and touched a Man Who rose from the dead.

Me: Why did not Christ's enemies -- the Jewish religious authorities who had him executed -- produce the corpse?

7.62WorldOrder: If I had to guess I would say it was because his religious desciples stole his body.

Yes, you would be guessing, and you'd be promoting one of the lies Christ's murderers advanced.

You'd also be contradicting yourself, for if the Apostles stole the corpse, then they KNEW the resurrection was a lie. Why would they then endure beheading, crucifixion, and other barbarity for their deceit? Wouldn't one of them have said, “Hey! Wait a minute! Let's not get carried away. We were only kidding!”

The Apostles gained neither money, power, nor fame for their witness, only suffering and death.

The victors write the history books.

Which, of course, does not apply to the Church, since they were victims, not “victors,” as anyone familiar with their history would know.

Only the things we can apply the scientific method to can be gauged with any degree of certainty.

Neither is that true. Can you apply the Scientific Method to how your parents met? George Washington's crossing the Delaware? The building of the Great Wall of China? The crossing of the Rubicon?

The Scientific Method can only be applied to that which can be observed and tested repeatedly. This might come as a shock, but no scientist is yet capable of time travel. According to your logic, Humanity is completely ignorant of not only everything that occurred before the development of the Scientific Method, but also everything to which it has never been applied.

And you demurred at my characterization of Darwinists' anti-intellectual, blind "faith"!

Otherwise we're just trusting the words of those who came before us, which is not an acceptable standard in my book.

So, it's foolish to distrust those older than you? How chronocentric!

Me: The Scientific Method is a useful tool, but it is not the only way of determining truth.

7.62WorldOrder: I hear this time and time again from the religious, this idea that there are "other ways" of knowing things, even thought those "other ways" are never really articulated or expressed in a way that opens them up to intellectual scrutiny. I want you to put your money where your mouth is and show me just one piece of human knowledge that can be demonstrated to be true that was not discovered through using the scientific method. Go ahead.

Not articulated? If you'd read my posts you'd see words like, “history,” “archaeology,” “experience,” and “scientific observation.”

As for truth outside of the Scientific Method, you claim that Humanity knew nothing before the twentieth century? That is absurd on its face.

The Great Wall of China. Egyptian pyramids. Byzantium. Genghis Khan. Gun powder. The printing press. Algebra. Romeo and Juliet. Beethoven. Easter Island. Isaac Newton. The Ten Commandments. Everything before the Twentieth Century.

This comment was edited on May 30, 2009, 15:35.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
113. Part I May 30, 2009, 11:45 Amillennialist
 
Me: So, Science is omniscient?

7.62WorldOrder: I said no such thing, nor did I imply it.

You condemned "religion" for "always not knowing everything." If you did not mean to make a distinction between "science" and "religion" in their ability to "know everything," will you also mock, condemn, and dismiss "science" for "always not knowing everything"?

My point was that religious belief requires that you never have evidence, or else you would have no need for faith.

That demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of "faith" as the Bible uses it, which should be kept separate from the way some Christians, non-Christian religious, and hostile, dishonest, or inaccurate atheists do.

I know personally of no Christians who believe blindly any more than anyone else does.

"Faith" in the Bible is confidence in God based on His past words and deeds.

Who uses faith to calculate the trajectory to put a ship on the moon or the load bearing weight of a building?

Under normal circumstances, no person takes a flight or enters a building without reasonable confidence in the safety of that vehicle or edifice.

unfalsifiable claims like "there is a god who loves us".

If by the term "unfalsifiable" you hope to deny the claim, then you'll have to dismiss as superstitious the belief that a number of other statements occurred in history, such as, "Veni, vidi, vici" (Julius Caesar), "We hold these truths to be self-evident" (Thomas Jefferson), and, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world" (that's your buddy, Chuck Darwin. Nice to know you follow a racist).

The (historical and archaeological) fact is, we have empirical evidence that a Man Who taught, preached, healed, died sacrificially, and rose from the dead did so -- according to His own words -- to show the love of God for all people.

we can't demonstrate that it is true: there is no evidence

We know that Jesus Christ made the statement; we know that Jesus Christ committed no sin, that He healed the sick, raised the dead, and Himself resurrected after enduring torture and death at the hands of the Romans.

If you want to call someone like that a liar, you can, but I wouldn't call that “good judgment.”

they just shift the burden of proof to the other side and say it's up to other people to prove that God doesn't exist.

Again, that may represent some (or many) people, but that doesn't mean that the historical and archaeological evidence we possess is invalid; to claim that it does is to engage in logically-fallacious "reasoning," argumentum ad hominem.

But think about what kind of justice system we would have if we used this logic - the burden of proof would always be on the guilty to prove their innocence. It's absurd logic, and it's why we don't use that kind of reasoning for anything important in our society.

That's a flawed analogy: Mountains of evidence exist for the truthfulness of Christ. If we were to apply a courtroom analogy properly to this question, it would be more along the lines of: Conclusive evidence has been presented which demands conviction, and you're the O.J. jury.

Yes, and scientists know nothing of failing to demonstrate empirical evidence for their beliefs.

In most fields, scientists do outstanding work. In one dark, little corner of "science" however, a number of fanciful tales have been promoted which are unsupported by empirical observation and contrary to what we actually do know: Darwin's explanation for origins.

I never claimed that scientist don't fail. It's the only way we learn.

"Fail" in the sense I use it means, "lie" or "commit hypocrisy in violating their own demands for empirical evidence while falsely condemning Christians for believing in unicorns."

The difference is that scientists are much more intellectually honest about their ability to demonstrate the validity of their propositions

Except when it comes to origins.

Scientists are human beings. They lie too.

whereas the track record of the church has been to deny such things until they risk losing the respect of the community, such as with heliocentric theory and biological evolution, both of which are acknolwedged to be true by at least the Catholic Church, and despite your misgivings about religious leaders that is a pretty big concession on the part of the Church

Both errors by the church of Rome.

In opposing a “solar” system, the hierarchy was not defending Scripture, for the Bible does not say that the planets revolve around Earth.

As for conceding Darwin's explanation for origins, that was also human error. There the hierarchy conceded the truth of Scripture for the false authority of “experts.”

I find your definition of "evidence" lacking.

Yes, history, archaeology, reading comprehension – and the demand for actual empirical, scientific evidence -- are so anti-intellectual!

show me what emprical evidence you have that anything about your religious beliefs accurately describes the reality in which we exist. Stories from people long ago are not evidence. If that counts as evidence, then we've got a problem because every religion in the world is "correct".

Eyewitness testimony to historical events, preserved remarkably well over millennia.

You can deny eyewitness testimony and other primary sources, but then you'll also have to reject truth claims about every event you've never personally experienced.

And you'll have to deny Darwinism, since you were not there to witness that either.

How ironic! You'll deny a deluge of evidence for the historicity of the Gospels, but you'll take on “faith” the ridiculous, absurd, contrary-to-all-observation proposition that Man arose from mud by only random, natural processes.

Are you really sure you want to make fun of those religious rubes?

As for other religions, which claim historical truth? Which have any eyewitness testimony to the events that they relate? Which are corroborated by mountains of archaeological evidence? And which, if true, have the same import for life and salvation as the Resurrection?

Muhammad's texts relate his history as the prophet of Allah, and what do they show? They show Allah's apostle to be a thieving, lying, murdering, raping, enslaving, genocidal pedophile.

Then where is it? Why do you state that emprical evidence exists and then just walk away from that statement without actually stating what that evidence is?

Clearly, you've not read anything I've written.

And furthermore, why would Christians have "no idea" what they are supposed to believe when there is ll this empirical evidence that should demonstrate that to them quite easily?

How many evolutionists can articulate the actual, scientific, empirical, observable evidence for their creation myth?

Can you?

People are often content to remain unaware.

We have the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses to the words and works of Christ, not the least of those being His resurrection from the dead.

You might have a problem selling this "evidence" to anyone outside of your religion.

Which is, of course, another ad hominem “argument.” Whether or not anyone is convinced of anything means nothing at all about whether the evidence exists and the arguments derived from them valid.

If the numbers of the “convinced” is to be your criterion for truth, then thank you, you've admitted that Christ is true, Christians are correct, and atheists are idiots, for a third of the world is Christian.

Now you'll just say that “most people are dumb,” which really means, "I hate it when my own arguments are self-contradictory!"

Biological evolution by natural selection does not and has never claimed to be an explanation for the origin of life.

I've noticed lately several of your co-religionists running away from abiogenesis. Darwin did not:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." written in 1871, published in Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 3. p. 18

Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory claims to explain the origins of species. It claims that Men arose from mud by monkeys by only random, natural processes.

Evolution happens over such a long period of time

Careful. You're about to claim that we can't observe a process “science” claims as fact. In doing so, you're admitting the utter hypocrisy of the paradigm and committing the “sin” you attribute to Christians, because to be true Science, one must be able to observe and test a phenomenon repeatedly.

Okay, here you go . . .

that our human lifespan creates a problem in trying to observe its long term effects

So, you expect us to believe in something we can't see on faith alone, right?

which is why we choose experiments using organisms that have short generational turnover, such as insects. Read up on fruit fly research and you will see that speciation and mutation do occur with regular frequency.

No honest person can deny that random, minor genetic mutations occur in organisms, since that is observable. For the devout Jew and Christian – whose Scriptures teach that all people are descended from Noah and his sons (and Adam and Eve before them) – the variety of genetic expression in human beings is proof of that.

The problem you have is with speciation. Your flies may end up unable to reproduce with flies with which they are closely related, but those flies do not end up as reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.

Are you familiar with Lenski's E. coli? Decades of work, thousands of generations of bacteria, and who knows how many dollars (taxpayer funded?), and with what did he end up? Bacteria which could use citric acid unaided. You didn't get a more sophisticated organism, it was still bacteria.

In other words, the strongest evidence you have for Darwinism shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that bacteria evolves into . . . bacteria!

The change is lateral; you cannot point to any research showing that random, minor genetic mutations result in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function.

If you say you can -- as a rugged, intellectually-honest empiricist -- you'll need some empirical evidence of it occurring.

Hundreds of eyewitnesses to the words and works of Christ.

Not even one witness to random, natural processes resulting in newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function.

The truth is obvious to any rational person.

This comment was edited on Apr 20, 2010, 02:37.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
112. Re: Left Behind Sequel Next Month May 30, 2009, 11:25 Amillennialist
 
From the Easter bunny to "You're crazy."

From name-calling to character assassination.

Truly, the facts must be on your side.

This comment was edited on May 30, 2009, 13:58.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
111. Re: Left Behind Sequel Next Month May 29, 2009, 00:24 Unexploded
 
At this point, I'm not sure you'd recognize truth even if someone was patient (and kind) enough to deprogram you.

Look on the bright-side, you're not alone in your delusions and they're yet to be officially recognized as the mental disorder they so clearly are.

---
"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to look at a f*cking cross? It's kinda like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on." - Bill Hicks
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
110. Re: Left Behind Sequel Next Month May 28, 2009, 21:02 Amillennialist
 
Comparatively, both the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are far more plausible than a single omnipotent being powerful enough to create everything in the universe, but reliant on flaming topiary and pedophiles as a communications medium.

So, an Uncaused Cause of all that exists is "less plausible" than the Easter bunny (Santa Claus, though a fictional character, is based on an actual bishop in the early Church named St. Nicolas)? That's funny, because you would attribute everything to what, eternal, uncreated Nature?

In that case, you've gone over into Nature worship, in which fertility rites are traditionally integral and in which rabbits are often symbols.

So, in effect, you worship the Easter bunny.

The claim that YHWH "relies" on "flaming topiary and pedophiles" demonstrates a dubious grasp of basic facts: YHWH did not "rely" on a burning bush when He first revealed Himself to Moses, that was a sign to get Moses' attention. At other times, He used little things like pillars of flame and cloud, the parting of the Red Sea, a global, cataclysmic Flood, a fiery mountain, a Voice from Heaven, and ultimately, His Son Immanuel, God with Us.

The pedophile was Allah's. It is either ignorant or shamefully dishonest to try to blame YHWH for him.

Me: You feel comfortable implying the military are ignorant, gullible dolts. Not like you, right?

Unexploded: No, I'm implying they don't have all the facts. And even if they did, it's not their job to choose the mission. And yes, the militarily has more than it's fair share of simpletons. It also has it's share of well-educated, rational human beings.

So, according to you, our military "don't have all the facts" and "has more than it's [sic] fair share of simpletons."

Sounds an awful lot like "ignorant, gullible dolts" to me.

You can't admit I'm telling the truth even when you admit I'm telling the truth.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
109. Re: Left Behind Sequel Next Month May 28, 2009, 13:56 7.62WorldOrder
 
So, Science is omniscient?

I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. My point was that religious belief requires that you never have evidence, or else you would have no need for faith. Who uses faith to calculate the trajectory to put a ship on the moon or the load bearing weight of a building? No one. No, we only say faith is important when it comes to unfalsifiable claims like "there is a god who loves us". Never mind that we can't demonstrate that that proposition is false for the exact same reason that we can't demonstrate that it is true: there is no evidence. This doesn't trouble the religious; they just shift the burden of proof to the other side and say it's up to other people to prove that God doesn't exist.

But think about what kind of justice system we would have if we used this logic - the burden of proof would always be on the guilty to prove their innocence. It's absurd logic, and it's why we don't use that kind of reasoning for anything important in our society.

Yes, and scientists know nothing of failing to demonstrate empirical evidence for their beliefs.

I never claimed that scientist don't fail. It's the only way we learn. The difference is that scientists are much more intellectually honest about their ability to demonstrate the validity of their propositions, whereas the track record of the church has been to deny such things until they risk losing the respect of the community, such as with heliocentric theory and biological evolution, both of which are acknolwedged to be true by at least the Catholic Church, and despite your misgivings about religious leaders that is a pretty big concession on the part of the Church. Besides that, whatever you have to say about science or scientists does not excuse you from having to demonstrate evidence for your own beliefs.

Your definition of "faith" is lacking.

Fair enough, while it would be much more useful for you to describe exactly why my definition of faith is lacking, I'll just agree to disagree. I find your definition of "evidence" lacking.

As with the false dichotomy between "religion" and "science," you hope to make one fantasy and the other fact.

Then please bring religion out of the realm of fantasy for me. Please show me what emprical evidence you have that anything about your religious beliefs accurately describes the reality in which we exist. Stories from people long ago are not evidence. If that counts as evidence, then we've got a problem because every religion in the world is "correct".

While it is true that many Christians have no idea why they should believe what they believe, that does not mean that real, empirical evidence for their faith does not exist.

Then where is it? Why do you state that emprical evidence exists and then just walk away from that statement without actually stating what that evidence is? And furthermore, why would Christians have "no idea" what they are supposed to believe when there is all this empirical evidence that should demonstrate that to them quite easily?

We have the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses to the words and works of Christ, not the least of which was His resurrection from the dead.

You might have a problem selling this "evidence" to anyone outside of your religion. Every religion has proclomations about the good works of their prophets. How is a non-interested third party supposed to come to be convinced using this evidence, when this is the same stuff every religion says?

I know I'm going out on a (not an evolutionary) limb here, but how many eyewitnesses do you have for abiogenesis or vertical speciation by only random, natural processes?

Biological evolution by natural selection does not and has never claimed to be an explanation for the origin of life. Evolution happens over such a long period of time that our human lifespan creates a problem in trying to observe its long term effects, which is why we choose experiments using organisms that have short generational turnover, such as insects. Read up on fruit fly research and you will see that speciation and mutation do occur with regular frequency.

Faith without a factual foundation is foolishness.

Faith and "factual foundation" are mutually exclusive. There is no need for faith if you have facts. Now, if you simply claim to have facts without demonstrating that they are actually true, then it does require faith.

Which is why Darwinism is not Science, but Science Fiction, the intellectual vacuity of some religious leaders notwithstanding.

Again you make a bold statement about the intellectual acumen of scientific theories without actually stating why. It's not that I don't agree that our knowledge is provisional and that many of our theories are likely incorrect in some respoects, but that you don't put any substance behind your claims, you just state them and move on to something else.

Or you just make up information claiming to have turned the screwdriver when there isn't even any screw.

Are you indicating that scientists just make things up?

No, I'm talking about the fact that every single Darwinist with whom I've ever discussed "Science" speak of it with a blind religious dogmatism that rejects empiricism -- scientists are the high priests, its core doctrine the Neo-Darwinian Creation Myth, its dissenters punished in its own Inquisitions.

This entire statement speaks more about who you think you're arguing with than anything about me as a person or the arguments I've presented. Interesting.

Paul wrote within twenty to thirty years after Christ's Resurrection. The last book of the New Testament, Revelation, was composed near the end of the first century by John, one of Christ's closest friends (He gave John the responsibility and honor of caring for His mother). John wrote one Gospel and three Epistles.

Every New Testament book was written by either eyewitnesses to all that Jesus said and did (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) or by those who interviewed or wrote for eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke).

There is no intelectually honest way that you can claim to know this. You are resorting to your faith again in believing what has been written and said by people who may have truly and fully believed in something that was simply false. You would have no problem dimissing that logic when it comes to the teachings and stories of, say, Islam or Judaism, yet you selectively ignore it when it comes to your own beliefs. This is exaclty why people like myself dislike the idea of faith. It is simply dogmatism dressed up with a less perjorative term.

Your conclusion is not intellectually honest, for you have no empirical evidence to suggest that the Apostles lied.

Why is it not necessary to demonstrate evidence that they told the truth first? How would it even be possible to provide evidence they were lying if there is no evidence they were telling the truth? Can you provide evidence that a counsel of unicorns didn't create the universe? Again, this is an unfalsifiable contention that cannot be demonstrated to be either true or false, and the faithful are shifting the burden of proof away from themselves and on to people who don't agree with them, when all logic dictates that the burden of proof resides with the person making the claim. This is the foudation for all human knowledge. When you claim otherwise, when you say that making a claim doesn't require that you actually demonstrate that it is true, that is intellectual dishonesty.

Of the original eleven Apostles -- and later, Paul -- all but John were killed for their testimony that Christ rose from the dead. Why would all of them die for what they knew was a lie?

Did it ever occur to you that these people truly believed what they belived and were simply incorrect? It's the same reason a suicide bomber thinks he's getting into heaven, despite what logic might tell the rest of us.

Why did not Christ's enemies -- the Jewish religious authorities who had him executed -- produce the corpse?

If I had to guess I would say it was because his religious desciples stole his body.

So, historical fact -- one source of truth -- was beyond the reach of human beings for millennia until the Scientific Method was developed?

People can say anything about history they want. The victors write the history books. Nothing indicates that these things are completely true or accurate representations of actual history. Only the things we can apply the scientific method to can be gauged with any degree of certainty. Otherwise we're just trusting the words of those who came before us, which is not an acceptable standard in my book. But it's par for the course for the religious, which is why I can understand they put so much credibility in it.

The Scientific Method is a useful tool, but it is not the only way of determining truth.

I hear this time and time again from the religious, this idea that there are "other ways" of knowing things, even thought those "other ways" are never really articulated or expressed in a way that opens them up to intellectual scrutiny. I want you to put your money where your mouth is and show me just one piece of human knowledge that can be demonstrated to be true that was not discovered through using the scientific method. Go ahead.

This comment was edited on May 28, 2009, 14:02.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108. Re: Left Behind Sequel Next Month May 28, 2009, 11:22 Unexploded
 
All you've been able to offer is "Santa Claus," "Easter Bunny," and "koolaid," answers completely devoid of any historical, archaeological, or textual substance, responses demonstrating a remarkable resistance to facts.

Comparatively, both the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are far more plausible than a single omnipotent being powerful enough to create everything in the universe, but reliant on flaming topiary and pedophiles as a communications medium.

You feel comfortable implying the military are ignorant, gullible dolts. Not like you, right?

No, I'm implying they don't have all the facts. And even if they did, it's not their job to choose the mission. And yes, the militarily has more than it's fair share of simpletons. It also has it's share of well-educated, rational human beings.
--
"If you're so pro-life, do me a favor. Don't lock arms and block medical clinics. Lock arms and block cemeteries. Let's see how committed you are to this premise." - Bill Hicks

This comment was edited on May 28, 2009, 14:12.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
107. Re: Left Behind Sequel May 28, 2009, 01:54 Amillennialist
 
I'm still waiting for a serious explanation how being a religious person improves your life in general and how the church organizing policy decisions for our society benefits the general public.

Every church is peopled entirely by sinners. As such, it is fallible, like any other human institution.

Neither is there any benefit in "religion" in general, for what real salutary effects can be derived from fiction?

The benefit to be found in Christianity is this: The Creator of all things has revealed Himself to humanity and reconciled us to Himself, forgiving our sins in His Son.

Written records of this Divine intervention have been preserved in the collected works we call commonly "the Bible."

I've been thinking about why I don't go to church and why I might go to church in the future. I think it boils down to knowing people in the church. When you are friends with someone it's fun to do things together with them and church is an excellent way to keep contact with these people. You go to church because you get to see your friends and family and it can strengthen you social connection in general.

I would not discourage anyone from going to church, and it's great if you have friends or family there.

At the same time, the Scriptures say to go to church are to hear the words of God, receive the Sacrament, and encourage one another in the faith.

With kids I think it's a different story. (I'm having one soon...well not "me" exactly...) Only recently found out I'm going to be a daddy

Congratulations.

I'm not interested in the lessons the church teach, I think most of them are absurd. Some are things I still live by, honesty, integrity, the desire to help your fellow man. Maybe those aren't even mentioned anymore, maybe it's all Hate this, or hate that, or fear this group cause they did this...I have no idea what to expect.

Hopefully you'll find a church that teaches what Christ said. Things like: "Treat others the way you want to be treated," and, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

But outside the community level organizations I fail to see what the policies that the churches are pursuing really give back to society. I mentioned abstinence education, gay marriage bans, right to die court cases, abortion rights, I don't see society in general benefiting from pursuing any of those goals.

That depends on what your definition of "benefit" is.

If you think encouraging young girls to act like whores, destroying their health and their futures is "good," then abstinence is a bad idea. If you consider the destruction of the family, society's fundamental institution, a plus, then change the definition of "marriage." And if you consider self-destruction and the ripping apart of babies in the womb, stabbing their skulls and suctioning out their brains "helpful," then defend suicide and infanticide.

If you ban gay marriage then less people will be gay?
If you don't let people have the right to die then families will be stronger?
If you outlaw abortion then people won't get pregnant accidentally? Or people will love being parents in the end?

Encouraging unnatural (by every definition of the term) sexual activity is likely to increase that behavior.

And a person has to get pregnant (accidentally or not) before they can butcher their baby.

"What should be the punishment for Abortion?" And the people who answered were dumbfounded...Punishment?

Answer this question: What is the difference between an infant and an unborn baby? Under what circumstances can one justify infanticide? What should be the punishment for infanticide?

WTF are you standing out there asking for abortion to be illegal for if you have no clue what you want to happen once it's illegal.

Difficult legal issues are no excuse for delaying protecting the innocent.

Whenever you do anything it has consequences of same shape or form but you blindly support this bill with no idea what you're even asking for.

And the consequence of dead children?

I don't get it. I'm all for churches on the community level but where did this need to govern come from? A church should be a church. We don't need any more politicians.

Every law is the codification of someone's morality. The question is then, "Whose morality?"

This comment was edited on May 28, 2009, 01:56.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
106. Re: Left Behind Sequel May 27, 2009, 23:14 Amillennialist
 
Amillennialist, it's exactly your kind of dismissive attitude that others hate about religious folk. You can find no fault with it nor ever be swayed through intelligent argument. Blind faith is sad to see, I truly pity you.

I'm not indifferent to those comments; they're either false or silly.

How does one reason with "You're a superstitious koolaid drinker who will soon pass into irrelevance. Boo!"?

How does one dialogue with, "I've never read the Bible, but I know it's false and you're dumb!"?

Look at your brief comment here: Ad hominem ("it's exactly your kind"), stereotyping ("religious folk"), outright falsehood and ironic projection ("can't be swayed by intelligent argument"), misrepresentation of my position ("blind faith"), and condescension ("sad . . . I pity you").

Produce something approaching an intelligent argument, and we can talk. What you and your co-ideologues have offered here is neither intelligent nor an argument.

Keep up this way, and atheists might develop a reputation for being ugly, hateful, ignorant, anti-intellectuals.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
105. Re: Left Behind Sequel Next Month May 27, 2009, 22:33 Amillennialist
 
that thing in Iraq . . . come up with some story about how we're over there spreading freedom and democracy . . . lie to the military . . .

We went into Iraq because everyone -- including Clinton, Gore, and France -- believed Saddam had WMD. He had used them against Iran and against his own people.

You feel comfortable implying the military are ignorant, gullible dolts. Not like you, right?

(On a side note, spreading freedom and democracy to those whose entire worldview is composed of tyranny and oppression is hardly prudent. "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and, "Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9) is incompatible with the equality of unalienable rights confessed by the Declaration of Independence and safeguarded in the Constitution.)

get in their while your victim is still young . . . Do your damage during the formative years . . . strike while Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also seem pretty plausible . . . And as for examining them, I've spend more than enough time being exposed to your various "teachings" as child. Including six years of nightly chapel while away at school. I know bullshit when I hear it. It's right up there with world being supported on the back of giant turtle, pure fiction--and not even good fiction at that.

Like I said before, if it makes you happy and it's not hurting anyone, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to convince everyone else to drink the koolaid.

Since I did not know you as a child, it is impossible for you to have been "exposed" to "my" teachings.

More importantly, you don't even know "my" teachings. I've not been arguing doctrine; I've merely been pointing out facts regarding the Biblical texts, all of which support their validity as historically-reliable documents.

All you've been able to offer is "Santa Claus," "Easter Bunny," and "koolaid," answers completely devoid of any historical, archaeological, or textual substance, responses demonstrating a remarkable resistance to facts.

By the way, my statement that no one dies for what they know is a lie was a reference to the fact that every Apostle but John died brutal deaths for their confession that Christ rose from the dead.

This comment was edited on May 27, 2009, 22:34.
 
"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
104. Re: Left Behind Sequel May 27, 2009, 13:03 Ecthelion
 
If you ban gay marriage then less people will be gay?
Since fundamentalist Christians believe sexual orientation is strictly a life choice, they probably believe that some of the gays and lesbians would convert to heterosexuality. But that's not the core of the issue. They believe that gay marriage "threatens" the concept of marriage, so that's why they want to outlaw it. I'm married myself, and from my point of view nothing can cheapen the special value and sense of commitment that my marriage represents. Why the hell would I care if 2 guys want to get married, or even if someone wants to marry an animal? That doesn't affect my marriage in the slightest. If you want to look at threats to marriage, then how about the appalling rate of divorce?

Maybe it doesn't bother me because I don't put a lot of value in the piece of paper that says I'm married (besides the legal benefits it gives my wife and I). To me, the value of my marriage is in the emotional commitment we have made to each other, not in our legal status. It's nice to have that marriage certificate because of its benefits, but it's just a formality.

I think everyone should have the right to make that commitment formal and legal, no matter who they're marrying.


If you outlaw abortion then people won't get pregnant accidentally? Or people will love being parents in the end?

I don't get it. There was a youtube video that asked a very simple question to abortion protestors, "What should be the punishment for Abortion?" And the people who answered were dumbfounded...Punishment? Yeah if you want something to be illegal it needs to be punished if you do it...so what should happen to women who get abortions...almost no one wanted any form of punishement. (I think one did but there always has to be one) WTF are you standing out there asking for abortion to be illegal for if you have no clue what you want to happen once it's illegal. It's like they only see this one objective and nothing else matters. Just make that thing illegal and everything will be ok...WHAT?! When is anything in your life that simple!? Whenever you do anything it has consequences of same shape or form but you blindly support this bill with no idea what you're even asking for.
This one bothers me as well, and it hits close to home for me since my Conservative Christian parents have adopted several kids. I don't like abortion in non-rape/abuse/mother-threatening cases, because I don't think it's fair for a fetus to have to die because its parents were irresponsible. Ideally, people would actually practice safe sex and unwanted pregnancy would become all but unknown. Unfortunately, that's probably never going to happen, especially since to my knowledge nobody has created a condom that doesn't lessen sensation; there's also the simple fact that most people are careless and just don't give a damn about the consequences of their actions (so they might not wear a condom even if it felt as good as not wearing one).

Anyway, even though I don't like abortion, it's very reckless for the anti-abortion community to blindly advocate outlawing abortion. Besides the question of punishment that you raised, the big question is what would be done with all those unwanted babies? Many of the mothers in question wouldn't be able to support their babies, and even now adoption agencies have trouble placing adoptions. So what's going to happen when we have thousands of babies unloaded on adoption agencies? That group doesn't have a solution, they just want to make abortion illegal and foolishly think that the problem will solve itself. There simply aren't enough people with big enough hearts to adopt all of those kids.

I don't get it. I'm all for churches on the community level but where did this need to govern come from? A church should be a church. We don't need any more politicians.
Personally, I don't plan on taking my kids to church. I don't need them surrounded by groupthink and rhetoric - I'll find them another outlet for social interaction.

This comment was edited on May 27, 2009, 13:05.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
103. Re: Left Behind Sequel May 27, 2009, 12:13 Tumbler
 
I'm still waiting for a serious explanation how being a religious person improves your life in general and how the church organizing policy decisions for our society benefits the general public.

I've been thinking about why I don't go to church and why I might go to church in the future. I think it boils down to knowing people in the church. When you are friends with someone it's fun to do things together with them and church is an excellent way to keep contact with these people. You go to church because you get to see your friends and family and it can strengthen you social connection in general.

But I don't know anyone who goes to church. And I've been plenty of times, none lately. But each time I end up wondering what is the point because I don't seem to be "like" anyone in the church. There is no social connection there.

With kids I think it's a different story. (I'm having one soon...well not "me" exactly...) Only recently found out I'm going to be a daddy so it's still a new concept, but I've noticed a major change in our friends that already have kids. I'd say it's like a night and day difference about them wanting to spend time with us. "Oh you have kids? Lets get together!" It's been kind of funny so far but I'm realizing there is like a whole other side to society that doesn't really let you in until you're "part of the club". And it makes sense, it's a major experience that you don't appreciate until you've been through it.

In this respect I see church becoming a part of my life. Lots of parents take their kids to church, and I think we're going to as well, but it servers as an excellent place for parents to talk to other parents. Lets kids mingle with other kids. I'm not interested in the lessons the church teach, I think most of them are absurd. Some are things I still live by, honesty, integrity, the desire to help your fellow man. Maybe those aren't even mentioned anymore, maybe it's all Hate this, or hate that, or fear this group cause they did this...I have no idea what to expect.

But outside the community level organizations I fail to see what the policies that the churches are pursuing really give back to society. I mentioned abstinence education, gay marriage bans, right to die court cases, abortion rights, I don't see society in general benefiting from pursuing any of those goals.

If you ban gay marriage then less people will be gay?
If you don't let people have the right to die then families will be stronger?
If you outlaw abortion then people won't get pregnant accidentally? Or people will love being parents in the end?

I don't get it. There was a youtube video that asked a very simple question to abortion protestors, "What should be the punishment for Abortion?" And the people who answered were dumbfounded...Punishment? Yeah if you want something to be illegal it needs to be punished if you do it...so what should happen to women who get abortions...almost no one wanted any form of punishement. (I think one did but there always has to be one) WTF are you standing out there asking for abortion to be illegal for if you have no clue what you want to happen once it's illegal. It's like they only see this one objective and nothing else matters. Just make that thing illegal and everything will be ok...WHAT?! When is anything in your life that simple!? Whenever you do anything it has consequences of same shape or form but you blindly support this bill with no idea what you're even asking for.

I don't get it. I'm all for churches on the community level but where did this need to govern come from? A church should be a church. We don't need any more politicians.
 
99gamers.com-Game trading site, PC digital trading!
Kickstarter "Game Developer"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
102. Re: Left Behind Sequel May 27, 2009, 06:34 Dades
 
Amillennialist, it's exactly your kind of dismissive attitude that others hate about religious folk. You can find no fault with it nor ever be swayed through intelligent argument. Blind faith is sad to see, I truly pity you.  
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
101. Re: Left Behind Sequel Next Month May 26, 2009, 23:56 Unexploded
 
No one dies for what they know is a lie.

Right, that's why it's good to get in their while your victim is still young and malleable. Do your damage during the formative years before their brain has fully formed; strike while Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also seem pretty plausible.

It's like that thing in Iraq, most of the free world thinks we went in there over oil, but you're still going to come up with some story about how we're over there spreading freedom and democracy to sell it to the general public.

And you’re still going to have to lie to the military—-no ones going to charge a machine gun nest just because you don’t like riding the bus...

And as for examining them, I've spend more than enough time being exposed to your various "teachings" as child. Including six years of nightly chapel while away at school. I know bullshit when I hear it. It's right up there with world being supported on the back of giant turtle, pure fiction--and not even good fiction at that.

Like I said before, if it makes you happy and it's not hurting anyone, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to convince everyone else to drink the koolaid.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
120 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo