For Ye Christian Ones...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]pookie wrote:
His mother was certainly not a virgin, and he didn’t rise from the dead. Now, if anything in there is “mean-spirited” “god-hater” hate speech, there’s simply no way we’ll be able to debate anything.
[/quote]

Here is a good example of your smug attitude on this subject. His mother was CERTAINLY not a virgin, he DIDN’T rise from the dead.

Holy crap, I can’t believe you’re the first person on earth that has proof that these events didn’t take place. Please direct me to your evidence. This is a world changing event. Your pronouncements have just made all Christian faiths irrelevant. I’m being sarcastic but it’s one thing to say I don’t believe (1) that Jesus was God, (2) his mother was a virgin, and (3) he rose from the dead. You’re being a smartass when you say he wasn’t GOD without a shadow of a doubt, his mother CERTAINLY wasn’t a virgin, etc to a bunch of christians. Again, looks like your trying to get that rise out of the crowd in you’re typical mean-spirited fashion.

122

[quote]Billberg wrote:
I appreciate your thought’s and comments. Yes I am a Christian and no I do not share your ideas…which are simply that, ideas. While there are pieces of evidence that support your side, they are exactly that, pieces. There are many fossils but no missing links, all of those things are taken on faith. Just as with my beliefs, there are certain things that are historically proven and documented the rest I have to take on faith. If you care to look at some articles that respond well to some of the things you stated there are quite a few at ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research [/quote]

Oh shit! I just spent an hour perusing those articles. As a Christian and a highschool science teacher I can say honestly that I found non of those articles which were of a scientific origin-as opposed to those in credible journals which are about 95% scientifically developed.

99% of the Christians on earth today belong to a denomonation which does not officially hold to biblical literalism.

123

Pookie:

You are confused. You think that you have a right to demean (not debate) my religion. If I don’t like that you attempt to place the hat of intolerance on my head. Cute trick, but inaccurate. If you make fun of a gay man is he being intolerant of your jokes? No my friend, it’s you who are intolerant of his sexuality!

Next, I think it’s fine that you have friends that you can joke with about their “beliefs.” I have friends like that too. However, since you are on a world wide message board you are going to have to assume that, while I am crazy about you, many out there might not be, so debate, don’t disparage!

Finally, I have not really begun to even attempt to convince you of the existance of God (others have). All I am trying to do is change your tone regarding how you represent your atheism. That you are an atheist does not give you the right to demean God in front of those who hold their faith as important. Just as those who are not gay have no right to attack those who are not gay. Matters not if it’s a choice or it’s a gene.

Be an atheist if you like, don’t be a hatefilled atheist.

124

[quote]randman wrote:
Here is a good example of your smug attitude on this subject. His mother was CERTAINLY not a virgin, he DIDN’T rise from the dead. [/quote]

Well, obviously, that’s just my opinion. Do I have to tack on “in my opinion”, or “I think” or “I believe” on each sentence? Are really so stupid as to forget that from one sentence to the next? I stated not two lines before what my core belief was… the rest is the logical conclusion FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.

My stating something as fact, does not automatically make it so. What are you? Twelve years old?

125

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are confused. You think that you have a right to demean (not debate) my religion. [/quote]

I’m questioning some of its assumptions. It’s you who sees that as demeaning.

You should drop this analogy, it’s not working. I get my best gay jokes from my gay friend. He has tons of them and doesn’t mind poking fun at himself.

Anything I say that disagrees with your beliefs is disparaging to you.

What is it with you and gays? You’ve given me more arguments concerning homosexuality than God. The existence of gays is pretty much established, move on.

Well, you’re the one filling in the hate.

Unless you “begin to attempt to convince me of the existence of God”, I’m done here.

126

[quote]veruvius wrote:
rainjack wrote:
veruvius wrote:
rainjack wrote:
veruvius wrote:
oh, please do tell me about thermodynamics, oh wise rainjack. I certainly wouldn’t know anything about that. I meant relativity, anyways. I’m sorry I’ve upset you. I’ll sacrifice an atheist for you.

It’s the law that refutes the theory of evolution. “Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, only changed.”

I was being sarcastic. I’ve taken three courses in thermodynamics, seeing how I’m a chemical engineer major. That is conservation of energy, which was later revised to be the conservation of energy and mass due to the theory of relativity.

And the second law of thermodynamics is really just a theory. It’s a case where every observable instance shows that all processes increase the entropy of the universe, but it’s impossible to prove that it is true. They just decided to call it a law because they were certain it had to be true.

Ok, let me get this straight - you’ve had 3 courses in thermodynamics, you’re an engineering major of some sort, and you still believe in the THEORY of gravity?

BFG - This guy is exhibit A.

The universal law of gravitation is not the be all and end all of gravity. Unified Field Theory has its own theory of gravity. And didn’t I already say I meant relativity? I make mistakes, sure, but I know plenty about science. What is it that you do, anyway? You can tell me about that.[/quote]

Dudes & Dudettes,

First - let us not make this so freaking personal.

Second - Veruvius is correct on his gravity comments. For example, gravity as we (consider us ALL laypersons) know it does not hold true at quantum scales.

Science understands that “laws” and “theories” considered reality remain open for debate and change. Scientists seek evidence and gather data to prove AND disprove ideas. For example, how many dimensions are there? Well, we laypersons understand that there are 4 (X,Y,Z, and time). Perhaps not so, as some researchers propose that there are 7 more. Do I believe that? I have no f*cking idea, as that level of math and science is over my head and outside my realm of expertise. Still, I neither denounce it or consider it the truth.

Third - That Jesus cat died a horrible death, but almost always there remains a worse way to go. Contact Stephen King for further details.

Fourth - As far as the open-mindedness debate, my general observations are as follows:

I have been approached by religious zealots in random public places, ie. the local coffee joint, the university, etc. “We are right. You are not. Join us or else …” “The world is 10,000 years old. Carbon dating is a hoax …”

I have not been approached with the antagonist scientific points of view.

When talking to persons of strong religious persuasion, they absolutely deny any possibility of scientifical explanations for the topics we are discussing here. Anything contrary goes against their fundamental understanding of and way of life.

When talking to strongly scientifically minded persons, they tend to argue points both for and against both scientific explanations and religious beliefs. Understandably, they propose that religious explanations are highly improbable but not impossible.

Fifth - As you should be able to tell, I tend more towards agnosticism than atheism. I believe that I am very logical and rational in my thought processes. Eliminate all of the impossibilities and what remains is the truth. In my brain, SCIENCE REMAINS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION.

Sixth - I don’t really give a f*ck today, because I get to do 10 x 4 DLs on CW’s ABBH.

Bastard F*ck Guy

127

[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are confused. You think that you have a right to demean (not debate) my religion.

I’m questioning some of its assumptions. It’s you who sees that as demeaning.

If I don’t like that you attempt to place the hat of intolerance on my head. Cute trick, but inaccurate. If you make fun of a gay man is he being intolerant of your jokes? No my friend, it’s you who are intolerant of his sexuality!

You should drop this analogy, it’s not working. I get my best gay jokes from my gay friend. He has tons of them and doesn’t mind poking fun at himself.

Next, I think it’s fine that you have friends that you can joke with about their “beliefs.” I have friends like that too. However, since you are on a world wide message board you are going to have to assume that, while I am crazy about you, many out there might not be, so debate, don’t disparage!

Anything I say that disagrees with your beliefs is disparaging to you.

Finally, I have not really begun to even attempt to convince you of the existance of God (others have). All I am trying to do is change your tone regarding how you represent your atheism. That you are an atheist does not give you the right to demean God in front of those who hold their faith as important. Just as those who are not gay have no right to attack those who are not gay. Matters not if it’s a choice or it’s a gene.

What is it with you and gays? You’ve given me more arguments concerning homosexuality than God. The existence of gays is pretty much established, move on.

Be an atheist if you like, don’t be a hatefilled atheist.

Well, you’re the one filling in the hate.

Unless you “begin to attempt to convince me of the existence of God”, I’m done here.
[/quote]

Wow. That exchange was totally gay.

And, BTW, Pookie absolutely has the right to be a “hatefilled atheist.” I do not think that he is, but as the great philosopher Dave Chappelle once said, “If there’s hate in your heart, let it out.”

BFG

128

I’m a Christian, yes it’s true. This discussion could go on for another 5 pages, so you know what I’m gonna do? I’m going to thank God for another day where I can get out of bed and breath the fresh air. And since today is Saturday and I am feeling particularly energized I’m going to go do some deadlifts! Anybody with me?
-In Faith

129

I am sure I am not covering novel ground here, but a thread like this is useless because the path to faith and the path to proof are not the same.

The person who started is thread is the equivalent of the Biblical literalist he purports to want to challenge.

If you ever ‘proved’ there was a God, there would be no reason to exercise faith. Faith begins where the limits of earthly reason end. And no matter how smart we think we are, there will always be a limit.

Wanting to challenge Christianity - a religion that has had both an Enlightenment and a Reformation and has learned to coexist with the advancement of science and knowledge unlike any other modern religion - on the basis of scientific facts is like trying to clap with one hand. It’s a wasted exercise and it fails to address the issue of what the religion means to people.

130

I’m a graduate of Biology (BSc.), so this sort of debate interests me a lot.

For info on Intelligent Design and one of its better known proponents, Michael Behe, visit www.discovery.org

From lectures in my undergraduate days, the most cogent criticism of Evolution is that it is not refutable or testable in the same sense as a chemical or physics theory. Behe’s argument seems to be a good criticism of Darwinian evolution, but of course, Intelligent Design is not testable or refutable either as a null hypothesis.

As for conservative Christians throwing Bible quotes left and right to defend their often untenable views on science and most everything else, an excellent online resource is the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible with a link to an annotated Koran also:

Enjoy!

131

[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are confused. You think that you have a right to demean (not debate) my religion.

I’m questioning some of its assumptions. It’s you who sees that as demeaning.

If I don’t like that you attempt to place the hat of intolerance on my head. Cute trick, but inaccurate. If you make fun of a gay man is he being intolerant of your jokes? No my friend, it’s you who are intolerant of his sexuality!

You should drop this analogy, it’s not working. I get my best gay jokes from my gay friend. He has tons of them and doesn’t mind poking fun at himself.

Next, I think it’s fine that you have friends that you can joke with about their “beliefs.” I have friends like that too. However, since you are on a world wide message board you are going to have to assume that, while I am crazy about you, many out there might not be, so debate, don’t disparage!

Anything I say that disagrees with your beliefs is disparaging to you.

Finally, I have not really begun to even attempt to convince you of the existance of God (others have). All I am trying to do is change your tone regarding how you represent your atheism. That you are an atheist does not give you the right to demean God in front of those who hold their faith as important. Just as those who are not gay have no right to attack those who are not gay. Matters not if it’s a choice or it’s a gene.

What is it with you and gays? You’ve given me more arguments concerning homosexuality than God. The existence of gays is pretty much established, move on.

Be an atheist if you like, don’t be a hatefilled atheist.

Well, you’re the one filling in the hate.

Unless you “begin to attempt to convince me of the existence of God”, I’m done here.
[/quote]

Wrong again. I don’t mind you questioning assumptions. It’s the santa claus comparison and the other nasty comments I mind (for the third time).

For the second time, it’s good that you have gay friends whom you can joke with about their “gayness.” The reason I use the comparison is because whatever your belief relative to an important life choice, it is only appropriate to respect that, even during debate. You have not done this!

I have respected your choice. Did you read anything from me that would prove otherwise on this thread? Have I insulted your right to atheism? Are you proving that those who believe in God are more tolerant than those who do not have such faith? Seems it at times.

I am not trying to give you any arguments regarding the existance of God (for the second time). What I am trying to do is get you to participate in civil discourse regarding the subject, which you have thus far proven unable to do, for the most part.

If and when you want to have a civil conversation about Christianity, I am ready. Otherwise, I think it’s appropriate for you to end it here, as you suggest.

132

[quote]BFG wrote:
pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are confused. You think that you have a right to demean (not debate) my religion.

I’m questioning some of its assumptions. It’s you who sees that as demeaning.

If I don’t like that you attempt to place the hat of intolerance on my head. Cute trick, but inaccurate. If you make fun of a gay man is he being intolerant of your jokes? No my friend, it’s you who are intolerant of his sexuality!

You should drop this analogy, it’s not working. I get my best gay jokes from my gay friend. He has tons of them and doesn’t mind poking fun at himself.

Next, I think it’s fine that you have friends that you can joke with about their “beliefs.” I have friends like that too. However, since you are on a world wide message board you are going to have to assume that, while I am crazy about you, many out there might not be, so debate, don’t disparage!

Anything I say that disagrees with your beliefs is disparaging to you.

Finally, I have not really begun to even attempt to convince you of the existance of God (others have). All I am trying to do is change your tone regarding how you represent your atheism. That you are an atheist does not give you the right to demean God in front of those who hold their faith as important. Just as those who are not gay have no right to attack those who are not gay. Matters not if it’s a choice or it’s a gene.

What is it with you and gays? You’ve given me more arguments concerning homosexuality than God. The existence of gays is pretty much established, move on.

Be an atheist if you like, don’t be a hatefilled atheist.

Well, you’re the one filling in the hate.

Unless you “begin to attempt to convince me of the existence of God”, I’m done here.

Wow. That exchange was totally gay.

And, BTW, Pookie absolutely has the right to be a “hatefilled atheist.” I do not think that he is, but as the great philosopher Dave Chappelle once said, “If there’s hate in your heart, let it out.”

BFG[/quote]

Dave Chappelle (shaking head and smiling) yes, of course, the great thinker. Well, I’ll have to disagree with the profound Dave Chappelle (still smiling).

My point is vaild. It seems that tolerance ends at the beginning of every debate on Christianity on this board. Allowing all of that hate to spill out of your “heart” against Christians does nothing to deter anyone from their belief in God. In fact, if people were to judge all atheists by the way that that some of you have conducted yourselves you might be doing more for Christianity than you think.

133

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am sure I am not covering novel ground here, but a thread like this is useless because the path to faith and the path to proof are not the same.

The person who started is thread is the equivalent of the Biblical literalist he purports to want to challenge.

If you ever ‘proved’ there was a God, there would be no reason to exercise faith. Faith begins where the limits of earthly reason end. And no matter how smart we think we are, there will always be a limit.

Wanting to challenge Christianity - a religion that has had both an Enlightenment and a Reformation and has learned to coexist with the advancement of science and knowledge unlike any other modern religion - on the basis of scientific facts is like trying to clap with one hand. It’s a wasted exercise and it fails to address the issue of what the religion means to people.[/quote]

Good post. That is why I wish everyone else would take this thread for what it is and leave it alone. It was an attempt to get a rise out of every Christian on these forums. It did a poor job at that because of how obvious it was. That is why there isn’t much to type on this topic and why every argument between individuals will go nowhere.

134

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why is this shit 3 pages long?

Why does any atheist think they are smarter than someone who believes in God?

[/quote]

This athiest doesn’t. Intelligence has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Obviously, you didn’t read the very first thing I wrote, or much of the rest of the thread for that matter.

I,for one, have enjoyed this discussion.

When I say I used to be religious, I mean I followed what I thought was God, read the Bible, prayed, got involved with the Church more, etc.

Maybe none of this amazing atheist intellect, as I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve already stated what the main thing I was trying to point out to you all was, the fossil record on Earth that dates back millions of years.

I think that holds true only for specific circumstances, like those with PhD’s in science fields.

[quote]
This thread was stupid. Seriously. Whatever provoked someone to start a thread this retarded should have been the same impulse that made that person think, “ya know, I just couldn’t be this dim by chance…perhaps there is a God”.[/quote]

Its pretty easy to call someone else’s discussion “retarded” and “stupid”.

Its even harded to let us know about your views on and of the discussion in an intelligent manner…

135

[quote]Bellegueule wrote:
From lectures in my undergraduate days, the most cogent criticism of Evolution is that it is not refutable or testable in the same sense as a chemical or physics theory. Behe’s argument seems to be a good criticism of Darwinian evolution, but of course, Intelligent Design is not testable or refutable either as a null hypothesis.
Enjoy!
[/quote]

No argument-only want to add that determinism is also not falsefiable. and I haven’t yet seen a well worked out scientific explanation for free will.

Also interesting, quantum physiciss “observations” are about as different from a “rebuilding the past” theory of biology and geology than those are from biblical literalism (or more) and the CREATION SCIENTISTS will say that its not valid to rebuild the past, and then they go do it!

I believe in God, bio-evolution, big bang, and I think its a pitiful mind that can not even conceive of evolution and God at the same time, but I would not be shocked if we totally rewrote our theories of evolution and the big bang. If someone denies the logic behind evolution then they should question whether there next step will take them forward (no figure of speech)

136

[quote]Bellegueule wrote:
From lectures in my undergraduate days, the most cogent criticism of Evolution is that it is not refutable or testable in the same sense as a chemical or physics theory. Behe’s argument seems to be a good criticism of Darwinian evolution, but of course, Intelligent Design is not testable or refutable either as a null hypothesis.[/quote]

Evolution is indeed incomplete in some places, but I see Intelligent Design as an attempt to “fill in the gaps” with God. I’d rather we’d fill those gaps with reason and knowledge, instead of bailing out by basically saying “Well this part is wrong, we don’t know how this came to be. It must be God’s work.” Science works slowly, by proposing hypothesises (sp?), testing then, examining them and replacing, improving or discarding them as new facts are discovered that fit or not. But you always work from the observable facts towards your conclusion, not from the conclusion you’re looking for picking and selecting whatever facts fit it.

Just as the Big Bang theory is one of the best model we have in cosmology; it is still full of holes and observations that don’t quite fit. Nevertheless, as it is the “best” theory we currently have (it explains the most of what we can observe) we currently hold it as “probably correct”. If a better model comes along, we’ll adopt it and be closer to understanding the working of the universe.

Evolution is similar, although as far as science goes, evolution is pretty much as close to “proven fact” as science is ever going to give us. Very few serious scientists doubt the veracity of evolution; although some minor points are still debated.

I see Intelligent Design as an attempt to prevent science from finding further answers; a grasping at straws to keep some mystery, or some unexplained event so that we may claim God’s involvement.

137

[quote]haney wrote:
I am not going to go any further than the Noah’s ark story. Get your facts right about other cultures stories. Then I will move on to the rest of your ideas.
[/quote]

Are you a complete fool? Did you read any bit of the thread besides my first post? I’ve been hearing that story since I was 4, from the Bible, on T.V., and from other people in person. How in the HELL is my perception of Noah’s Ark, the story, wrong? Tell me. Now.

Like I said before, many cultures HAVE had floods, on large or small scales, throughout the history of mankind. The level of the major bodies of water on Earth changes with changing temperatures, so its not hard to believe that alot of people would have stories like that.

Many cultures also have stories about monsters and ghosts and ridiculous beasts. If any of them parallel, should we start to think that is what really happened? I hope not, for your sake.

There are all manners of creation stories all over the globe. How are you going to suggest that more than one culture having similar stories makes those creation beliefs more viable?

138

[quote]XCelticX wrote:

Its pretty easy to call someone else’s discussion “retarded” and “stupid”.

Its even harded to let us know about your views on and of the discussion in an intelligent manner…[/quote]

You’re like the guy who comes to the party at 1 in the morning asking where the food is. I mentioned it before, but for you and anyone else who missed it, there was a RECENT HUGE discussion on this very topic. I went into much detail as did many others. It would be a ridiculous waste of time to RETYPE all of that information as well as my position on this topic. Have fun learning how to scroll down and read old threads.

139

[quote]rainjack wrote:
veruvius wrote:
What is it that you do, anyway? You can tell me about that.

I collect beer cans on Rt. 24, behind the new Wal-Mart.

[/quote]

So that was YOU. I was gonna comment on your collection, but you seemed a little surly. God bless Wal-mart and the people it attracts.

140

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Bellegueule wrote:
From lectures in my undergraduate days, the most cogent criticism of Evolution is that it is not refutable or testable in the same sense as a chemical or physics theory. Behe’s argument seems to be a good criticism of Darwinian evolution, but of course, Intelligent Design is not testable or refutable either as a null hypothesis.
Enjoy!

No argument-only want to add that determinism is also not falsefiable. and I haven’t yet seen a well worked out scientific explanation for free will. [/quote]

Well, using the knowledge gained from my fantastically expensive education, quantum mechanics can be used to argue for or against determinism. I can’t remember the arguments themselves, but it involves QM as being either statistical in nature (implying free will) or as having a governing set of rules like classical mechanics.