[quote]orion wrote:
We shall crush the ass-whorship thread![/quote]
But you will never beat the Anabolic Diet thread 
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
miniross wrote:
What i mean is that the details of evolution in the most proper and exact terms are understood by relatively few people. danile Dennett writes on this, and writes well, but a a concept to explain to the uninniciated, it is heavy, to say the least.
The rest of us have to do witha simplified version until we can build upon that, or not. What you say is what can only be considered an oversimplification of the highest order. The volumes and probonilities in evolution are mind boggling, as seems to be the case here.
This is intelligent design propaganda, telling us that:
Evolution has been proven to be completely wrong (bullshit)
It’s real use is so scientific that normal people cannot comprehend it (While this is true with the theory of relativity, here it is …bullshit again)
a missing link? This is so low it’s unbelievable. The term was used wrongly as an argument against Darwin in 19th century. Since then some 1000 “missing links” have been found. Evolution is scientific, and it’s proven itself time and again.
[/quote]
True ID actually accepts all of evolutionary history, and mechanism (it has to as a starting point, because it “tries” to demonstrate that this TOTALLY TRUE mechanism would not work fast enough on its own-although most who claim to espouse ID do not know that it does this.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
miniross wrote:
Evolution as a component of this discussion is something of such magnificence that it does not suprise me that it is lost on you. In that i do not mean to be patronising.
What i mean is that the details of evolution in the most proper and exact terms are understood by relatively few people. danile Dennett writes on this, and writes well, but a a concept to explain to the uninniciated, it is heavy, to say the least.
The rest of us have to do witha simplified version until we can build upon that, or not. What you say is what can only be considered an oversimplification of the highest order. The volumes and probonilities in evolution are mind boggling, as seems to be the case here.
If you say that your faith is based where you have stated, then this is a simple issue of the worsip of the gap god. the gap god happilysits in those distant reaches of the unexplainable, the before the big bang, the areas where we cant currently measure. the gap god is a weak god, where sooner or later the facade of mystery will fall to information.
be wary of the gap god. he has survived for milenia, but is chased to further and further reaches of existence as we discover more. Eventually he may de disclosed as a moused in a beard.
or not…
Bro, neither you nor science can explain why there is no factual missing link or where or how matter originated. I explain this gap with God, and you explain it with science. You believe that if you just wait long enough science will find the answers. So science is your “gap-god” because your faith is in science.
Next, theory is not proof. You can get all the deep ideas you want to, but proof is proof and science has none for the missing link and the origins of matter. So once again it is your faith in the gap-god of science that helps you sleep at night.
And if you don’t think it is faith, explain to me how something that is supposed to be scientific continues when proven wrong?
The theory of evolution has been proven wrong many times and yet the theory remains. The scientific method dictates that you start with an idea (hypothesis) and then test that idea. If that idea is not proven, you throw it out or revise it and try again. So when has the hypothesis that man evalued ever been changed or throw out? NEVER! That my friend, makes evolutionary science, unscientific. And if it is unscientific because it doesn’t follow the scientific method, then it is faith-based and a belief system.
So you are just exchanging one religious belief system for another. But without proof it is all just faith.
[/quote]
How precisely has it been “proved wrong”. What happens is an original idea is modified. there has been nof evidence that outweighs that of natiral selection and fossil record.
Dipshit comments like that just make my blood boil. I may as well go to a frenchman and accuse him that his language is fake as i dont speak it.
This missing link issue is old. there are billions of “missing links”, as evolution is one long walk up one long gradual hill. dingbats like you who have only the faintest iea of what evolution is (you may think mutations and leaps, you may even have an idea of natural selection).
What we do have is numerous associated groups of evidence from fossil record from all around the world that build up into one picture that SUPPORT A THEORY. support is the important issue.
By your blatantly moronic statments which some twoddle in a chuch has more than likely spat out, you dismiss hundreds of years of work by thousands of INDIVIDUALS who have found evidence that is gogent from thousands of places in the world.
Now, i am not churlish enough to say…go and find out ALL about it. but do yourself a favour and recognise the weight of this, rether than dismiss it in the same bracket as religion, which is, as you stated, faith oriented.
The gap god is a great god to be shown, as it flies in the face of every testiment that says about creationism. the gap god used to make the sun come every morning, now we know and understand why that happens. The Gap god used to blight crops, now we know why this happens. The improvment of knowledge pushes the gap god back from the foreground the the back stage. From an almighty controller to somone who may just have started things off, because that is the one place the gap god currently hides.
One thing you have done is make the association between science and atheism, as the 2 are intrinsically linked. Me, on the operating table would pot for a scientific methodology of reason and evidence. you it seems, may just pick faith.
Good luck
[quote]orion wrote:
He if we play this right this will become the ultimate gay marriage/evolutuion vs ID/ does god exist thread.
We shall crush the ass-whorship thread![/quote]
Once we’re that far it’s only a matter of time before we include GWB, Iraq/WMDs and democrats v. republicans. It will be thread singularity.
[quote]haney wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
This is totally out of line!
It shows how misinformed you really are.
Even two centuries ago, the most pro-christian scholars have all agreed that the evangelia are written well after Jesus demise, at LEAST 40 years, some (John, Matt) probably after hundred years.
It would be impossible for John to have been 100 years after since we have papal dating as early as 115 AD
I assume that you are nformed that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and then later translated it into Greek. Which might give it an even earlier date than Mark. I would actually date the gospels pre 70 in most instances. WHich I am sure you will take issue with, and I am fine with that. The question is though what does the dating have to do with your claims about Christ and the history of the Church.
However that is irrevelent since you also ignore oral traditions as a prominent part of the day, and written word came secondary.
This includes schoolars like Adolf von Harnack, John A. T. Robinson, Werner Georg Kummel, Raymond E. Brown or the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
I will include alist at the end of this post of scholars that would take issue with some of your dates.
Now to your amazing feats of logic.
Don’t assume I’m negating anything. Nobody here wants to doubt anything he is aware of.
If you now approach us with this god of yours, be so kind and show us a proof.
You’re the one who directly starts with god and bases all arguments around this pretension. Now SHOW US your god. I’m not denying anything I can comprehand through rational or empirical proof.
I believe you are denying the world around you by living in some kind of Fantasy a la “Lord of the Rings”.
Just believing the Bible or Tolkien won’t do the trick.
I have not asked you to believe in God, or miracles. I have asked you to give me a scholars who debate Jesus being Crucified.
Alb.Mt Albright, W. F. and C. S. Mann. Matthew. New York: Doubleday, 1971.
Ander.GM Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Beck.TGJ Beck, Dwight M. Through the Gospels to Jesus. New York: Harper Brothers, 1954.
Blom.Mt Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Blom.Jn Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. IVP, 2001.
Bock.L Bock, Darrell. Luke. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994.
Boyd.CSSG Boyd, Gregory A. Cynic Sage or Son of God? Chicago: Bridgepoint, 1995.
CarMoo.Int Carson, D.A., Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Chars.JDSS Charlesworth, James H. John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Crossroad, 1991.
Davi.INP Davies, W. D. Invitation to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
Dunn.CS2 Dunn, William D. G. Christ and the Spirit Vol. 2. Eerdmans, 1998.
Ell.Lk Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.
Evan.Lk Evans, Craig A. Luke. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1990.
Fitz.Lk Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. New York: Doubleday, 1981.
Fran.EvJ France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.
Fran.MET France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.
Full.CNT Fuller, Reginald H. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., 1966.
Gran.GOG Grant, F. C. The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth. London: Faber and Faber, 1957.
Gran.HNT Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963.
Gund.Mk Gundry, Robert H. Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Gund.Mt Gundry, Robert H. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Hag.Mt Hagner, Donald. Matthew 1-13. Dallas: Word, 1993.
Heib.Int Heibert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.
Heng.Mark Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM, 1985.
Heng.4G Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Trinity Press International, 2000.
Keen.Mt Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Kelb.OWG Kelber, Werner. The Oral and the Written Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Kiste.GCS Kistemaker, Simon. The Gospels in Current Study. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972.
Kumm.Int K?mmel , Wener G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
Mack.Q Mack, Burton L. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q. San Francisco: Harper , 1993.
Mack.WhoNT Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament? San Francisco: Harper, 1995.
Mart.NTF Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Meie.MarJ Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Mine.MTG Minear, Paul S. Matthew: The Teacher’s Gospel. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1982.
More.ScCy Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Moul.BNT Moule, C.F.D. The Birth of the New Testament. Cambridge: Harper and Row, 1982.
Moun.Mt Mounce, Robert H. Matthew. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
Nick.SGI Nickle, Keith F. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1980.
Patz.MNT Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Gove: IVP, 1995.
Perr.NTI Perrin, Norman. The New Testament: An Introduction. New York: HBJ, 1974.
Pric.INP Price, James L. Interpreting the New Testament. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
Pritch.Lit Pritchard, John Paul. A Literary approach to the New Testament. Norman: U. of Oklahoma Press, 1972.
Reic.Root Reicke, Bo. The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Ridd.Mt - Ridderbos, H. N. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.
Robin.PJ Robinson, J. A. T. The Priority of John. London: Meyer and Stone, 1985.
Robin.RNT Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Sen.GM Senior, Donald. The Gospel of Matthew. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997.
Spiv.ANT Spivey, Robert A. and D. Moody Smith. Anatomy of the New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1989.
Stone.OSG Stonehouse, Ned B. Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. London: Tyndale, 1963.
Stree.4G Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1951. (published 1924)
Tayl.FGT Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan, 1957.
Thie.EvJ Thiede, Carsten Peter. Eyewitness to Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1996.
Thom.HG Thomas, Robert L. and Stanley Gundry. A Harmony of the Gospels. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.
Walk.RAG Walker, William O. The Relationshps Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978.
Wenh.RMML Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke. Downers Grove: IVP, 1992.
Wilk.JUF Wilkins, Michael J. and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
With.AA - Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Paternoster, 1998.
Wrig.PG Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
[/quote]
Tell me you’re kidding.
If not, you’re surely the most ignorant creature I’ve encountered on the web, hiding behind an pityful account of books.
You’re here to DISCUSS!
Is this your way of claiming to prove god’s existance? Boy, there are ten thousands of books full with christion Bullshit.
Next time try to include them all.
This is a forum debate.
If you cannot, with your own words, tell my why you think it’s OK that your funny book mentions different versions of Jesus demise, which were even written well after his death you can post hundreds of books you haven’t read.
But you will not convince anyone.
[quote]haney wrote:
However that is irrevelent since you also ignore oral traditions as a prominent part of the day, and written word came secondary.
[/quote]
Is that your best?
There are oral traditions…sure, now I see, Jesus has indeed risen from the dead, because two thousand years ago, people were not totally superstitious and
two generations + propaganda won’t warp any real events at all.
Again you arguments are always based upon the bible. This way it’s not really possible to communicate with you.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
miniross wrote:
What i mean is that the details of evolution in the most proper and exact terms are understood by relatively few people. danile Dennett writes on this, and writes well, but a a concept to explain to the uninniciated, it is heavy, to say the least.
The rest of us have to do witha simplified version until we can build upon that, or not. What you say is what can only be considered an oversimplification of the highest order. The volumes and probonilities in evolution are mind boggling, as seems to be the case here.
This is intelligent design propaganda, telling us that:
Evolution has been proven to be completely wrong (bullshit)
It’s real use is so scientific that normal people cannot comprehend it (While this is true with the theory of relativity, here it is …bullshit again)
a missing link? This is so low it’s unbelievable. The term was used wrongly as an argument against Darwin in 19th century. Since then some 1000 “missing links” have been found. Evolution is scientific, and it’s proven itself time and again.
[/quote]
hey, i am with you bro, it is about size of evolution. Most people cannot appreciate its magnitude.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Romans 1:20:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his etnernal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from the what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
[/quote]
I say your Bible is a pile of shit.
And this is a DISCUSSION!
You cannot defend the bible with the bible.
[quote]orion wrote:
He if we play this right this will become the ultimate gay marriage/evolutuion vs ID/ does god exist thread.
We shall crush the ass-whorship thread![/quote]
Tell these blistering holy man they can pry my blasphemious keyboard from my cold, dead fingers!
I will stand godmockingly by your side, Orion & Massif!
[quote]miniross wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
miniross wrote:
What i mean is that the details of evolution in the most proper and exact terms are understood by relatively few people. danile Dennett writes on this, and writes well, but a a concept to explain to the uninniciated, it is heavy, to say the least.
The rest of us have to do witha simplified version until we can build upon that, or not. What you say is what can only be considered an oversimplification of the highest order. The volumes and probonilities in evolution are mind boggling, as seems to be the case here.
This is intelligent design propaganda, telling us that:
Evolution has been proven to be completely wrong (bullshit)
It’s real use is so scientific that normal people cannot comprehend it (While this is true with the theory of relativity, here it is …bullshit again)
a missing link? This is so low it’s unbelievable. The term was used wrongly as an argument against Darwin in 19th century. Since then some 1000 “missing links” have been found. Evolution is scientific, and it’s proven itself time and again.
hey, i am with you bro, it is about size of evolution. Most people cannot appreciate its magnitude.[/quote]
Oh!
So I assume I will lick my spilled venom off the floor?
Welcome on MS Nietzsche. We can use every Heretic on board.
Just as a point to note, what started off as a jolly get toghether has now become a discursive piece on atheism vs religion, therefore falling down into the hole that many threads do.
Is it now time to invade the christian thread?
Shame, i was enjoying it. I can bash religious types (like bishop?) any time, rather that talk with like minded individuals.
Haney and crew, take your leave, start another thread, but now is the time to stop killing this thread.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Just as a point to note, what started off as a jolly get toghether has now become a discursive piece on atheism vs religion, therefore falling down into the hole that many threads do.
Is it now time to invade the christian thread?
Shame, i was enjoying it. I can bash religious types (like bishop?) any time, rather that talk with like minded individuals.
Haney and crew, take your leave, start another thread, but now is the time to stop killing this thread.[/quote]
As much as I hate cliches like this, two wrongs don’t make a right. Let’s keep things civil.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Romans 1:20:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his etnernal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from the what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
I say your Bible is a pile of shit.
And this is a DISCUSSION!
You cannot defend the bible with the bible.
[/quote]
2 Timothy 3:16:
“All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking correcting and training in righteousness.”
I just had a look at the T-Nation Christians thread. Some of it is quite scary, as in:
“My purpose here on earth is not to live a happy life, or to become holy, or to be fulfilled. My purpose is to be the vessel of God and attempt to bring as many souls with me to Heaven as possible before I die. I need to be willing to submit to His will for me, even if that includes poverty, loss, rejection, humiliation or persecution.”
This sort of attitude, especially the “…attempt to bring as many souls with me to Heaven as possible before I die” part gets under my skin. The whole thread reads like a “Cheerleaders for Jesus” script.
It gave me the heebie-jeebies just reading it.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Fix It Again Trevor (FIAT)[/quote]
Fix It Again Tony
Chuck Norris was the fourth wise man, who gave baby Jesus the gift of beard, which he carried with him until he died. The other three wise men were enraged by the preference that Jesus showed to Chuck’s gift, and arranged to have him written out of the bible. All three died soon after of mysterious roundhouse-kick related injuries.
Pray to CHUCK NORRIS!!! There is a greater chance he will get shit done vs. some make believe god!!!
[quote]haney wrote:
here is a rough example.
The positive is God exist
Negative is God doesn’t
A typcial argument might look like this
If there is a God he would give proof that he exist, since I don’t see any proof there must not be a God.
It leaves out the possiblity for other options which is a negative fallacy.
I am personally not aguring against anything other than a dogmatic stance that God does not exist. People like buel are the reasons why I even stated it. They claim intelectual superiority, yet they don’t fall with in the constructs of the rules for debate and philosophy.
[/quote]
We don’t live in a perfect world, there are very few things that can be proven definitively, and most arguments will not take place within the ‘rules’ of debate and philosophy.
Technically, you are correct in saying the outright declaration of God’s non-existence is a logical fallacy, however, that does not mean it isn’t true.
There are many reasons not to believe in the Christian God, the most important of which I believe is the complete lack of evidence for his existence, save the bible, which is not really evidence at all.
Even if we were to take it as evidence, it was written after man’s ‘fall from grace’, so how can we know it wasn’t written with the intention of deception?
If God is really so benevolent, why does he not ensure that his message is clearly received by all his children? Why the plethora of competing religions and acrimonious disputation, even between members of the same faith?
As well as failing to communicate the central message effectively, way too many important questions are left unanswered by the scriptures, so how could they be divinely inspired? You would think the deity could compose something that would seem airtight and irrefutable to his intended audience
Again, you can cry ‘logical fallacy’ all you want, but the bulk of the evidence lies on the side of the non-believers.
[quote]Massif wrote:
I just had a look at the T-Nation Christians thread. Some of it is quite scary, as in:
“My purpose here on earth is not to live a happy life, or to become holy, or to be fulfilled. My purpose is to be the vessel of God and attempt to bring as many souls with me to Heaven as possible before I die. I need to be willing to submit to His will for me, even if that includes poverty, loss, rejection, humiliation or persecution.”
This sort of attitude, especially the “…attempt to bring as many souls with me to Heaven as possible before I die” part gets under my skin. The whole thread reads like a “Cheerleaders for Jesus” script.
It gave me the heebie-jeebies just reading it.[/quote]
That stuff creeps me out too. If they need it to make it through the night then I am happy for them. If finding Jesus helps them straighten ot their lives I am happy for them and I may even envy them their faith.
Just don’t spread it my way. I don’t share in it.
I seperate my disbelief in god from my issues with religeon. I think that this is what seperates agnostics from athiests. Agnostics are often struggling with the stupidity of religeon, athiests can discount all dogma automatically.
I dont believe in a god, in the form of something with a personality. Ie: a creater with likes and dislikes. If you can say that god is the universe and the laws the order it. Then i can work with that. I find a impersonal higher strucure, that is purely mathematical to be true.
As for religeon. Things like christianity. I dont believe jesus ever claimed to be a god. The cult that jesus led, was a jewish faith, how paul took this religeon to the west is a crock though. He focused purely on the parable of resurection rather then the underlying jewish religeon, the resurrection was secondary to the true followers. He didnt understand the rest.
Who did he learn these things from? jesus’s brother. Jesus ran the cult for one year. JEsus’s brother (i think it was james) ran it for the following 20 years. There is so much symbols, cultural practices, dogma, and mythology that just could not be transmitted to the european “christians”. They just interpreted it literally. Cut and pasted from jewish documents, things they didnt understand. Paul was never trained by the jews/nasoreans, he met them thought “i could use this” and went to rome. Then did the “i have the true training dont listen to the other imposters”. thing
This is why i feel christianity is a total lie.
If i had to choose a religeon i would choose something harder to argue with, an original faith. Rather then a corruption of a faith. I feel that even muslims have a better foundation to understand the events referenced in the bible then christians. Because they have a regional historical perspective, have close proximity to the original jews, speak the original languages, recognise the traditions/cultural aspects (even if they arnt their own). Hell the muslims refer to jesus as a prophet but not the literal son of god. Which is just metaphorical crap that the greeks couldnt grasp.
Dogma can be twisted, underlying principles are more stable. If we could focus on the good things, rather then the authority of some historical figures then the world would be a better place.
/rant off
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m wondering, from what I’m seeing, if non-theists should be attempting to convert people away from religion in the Christians thread.
Hmmm?[/quote]
I told them to stay out of our thread, so now I’m considering it.
You don’t change the dragon, the dragon changes you!
[quote]Massif wrote:
It gave me the heebie-jeebies just reading it.[/quote]
Right, Massif.
And now look to that zebbish guy:
We have here our own cozy thread where we discuss politely the gleeful meaning of atheism and then the stalking begins.
WTF?
Politely, I tell him to stop stalking like some Zebalot and to go away
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I say your Bible is a pile of shit.
And this is a DISCUSSION!
You cannot defend the bible with the bible.
[/quote]
But, he simply comes back with more
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Romans 1:20:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his etnernal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from the what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”[/quote]
Instead of arguing, someone intends to speak only through the wisdom of amassed fortune cookies.
What can I do against that?
What can man do against madness?