The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It would be nice if they

It would be nice if they would actually understand english for once, eh? lol.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You're under

jcgadfly wrote:

You're under grace and not under law, right? And where there is no law there is no transgression, right?

Since Paul isn't specific on the "law" he means, I am left to guess that he means the whole of Mosaic law (that 10 Commandments stuff, etc.).

By that, the only thing you need fear is the justice of men. God will let you slide no matter what you do because you believe in the Christ that Paul constructed.

If you're "following Christ", what exactly would God be "letting slide"?

jcgadfly wrote:

You want an inconsistency? Here:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17 - Jesus)

We wouldn't need Jesus if people were able to follow those laws.

jcgadfly wrote:

"For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14 - Paul)

In context this verse is talking about how you can only follow one master.  In this case, either God rules over you, or sin does.  It cannot be both.  No, that doesn't mean Christians are sinless, but it does mean followers of Christ do not let sin rule their lives. 

Read on:  "What then? Shall we sun because we are not under law but under grace?  May it never be....."  Romans 6:15-19

jcgadfly wrote:

"And where there is no law there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15 - Paul)

In context this verse is talking about how there are people who are "of the Law" (Jews) and everyone else who is not of the law.  Law in this case being the way of life of a Jew. 

This verse simply says you cannot be held accountable for something you did not know was wrong as well as extending God's grace beyond the Jews to everyone.  It was understood in the OT that one had to "become a Jew" in order to be with God, this shows that Jesus made that no longer the case.  Anyone can "be with God" regardless if they're a Jew or not. 

 

So far I have not seen a contradiction.  Just verses from the Bible taken out of context. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Yeah

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Yeah caposkia, I do of course read from the sites I post. Many of the sites are large  so I try to indicate what I thought was helpful there. Some sites I've spent a lot of time, and revisit, others not so much.

I only ask because the quote that I left that question on seemed to contradict what one of your links revealed.  The one that clarifies the difference between Churchianity and Christianity. 

If you're referencing to churchianity, then unfortunately it's true, you have to find a real in the fake. 


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I wonder how

jcgadfly wrote:

I wonder how many you've talked to. Names we'd know?

 

Personally, I think it's less than one but I'd love to be wrong.

I've never met a "famous" one no.  They're mostly people I met from place to place.  I don't know how many.  yes much more than one.  Glad to make you happy. 

jcgadfly wrote:

As for probability, it does damage your God but you guys ignore it so it really doesn't matter anyway.

If you want to talk probability it doesn't damage my God because the probability of the Theories that people try to use to disprove my God are shown to be less probable. 

No I don't know all the numbers off the top of my head. 

I do know that belief depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities among other things. 

Probabilities only work for those who want to accept their results as proof. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:I am going

latincanuck wrote:

I am going to call  BULLSHIT on this one. Sorry evolutionists/Darwinists that say that evolution does not have any random changes at all.  Since random changes in the genes (genetic drift I believe this is refered to) is one of the major drives in evolution, (OK basic terms here I am not a biologist) the other being natural selection. There is no way to reliably predict changes in genes. since Mutations can occur due to enviormental changes, genetic mutation during genetic recombination there are a host of reasons for random changes. But to say they never occur, well that's really not understanding evolution at all, that's not even opening the most basic book on evolution.

You said they never occur.  I said most evolutionists/Darwinists would disagree with the "random" claim due to the idea that there is a method and reason for each evolutionary step.  Granted we cannot follow them all and we don't know why many of them happen, but it is theorized that they were not random.  Random would mean a baby is going to be born with a third arm and thus all their offspring will feature that third arm.  There'd be no rhyme or reason for it, it'd just happen. 

Again, just to clarify, I spit out facts and none of my personal belief has been inserted above. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You're under grace and not under law, right? And where there is no law there is no transgression, right?

Since Paul isn't specific on the "law" he means, I am left to guess that he means the whole of Mosaic law (that 10 Commandments stuff, etc.).

By that, the only thing you need fear is the justice of men. God will let you slide no matter what you do because you believe in the Christ that Paul constructed.

If you're "following Christ", what exactly would God be "letting slide"?

jcgadfly wrote:

You want an inconsistency? Here:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17 - Jesus)

We wouldn't need Jesus if people were able to follow those laws.

jcgadfly wrote:

"For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14 - Paul)

In context this verse is talking about how you can only follow one master.  In this case, either God rules over you, or sin does.  It cannot be both.  No, that doesn't mean Christians are sinless, but it does mean followers of Christ do not let sin rule their lives. 

Read on:  "What then? Shall we sun because we are not under law but under grace?  May it never be....."  Romans 6:15-19

jcgadfly wrote:

"And where there is no law there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15 - Paul)

In context this verse is talking about how there are people who are "of the Law" (Jews) and everyone else who is not of the law.  Law in this case being the way of life of a Jew. 

This verse simply says you cannot be held accountable for something you did not know was wrong as well as extending God's grace beyond the Jews to everyone.  It was understood in the OT that one had to "become a Jew" in order to be with God, this shows that Jesus made that no longer the case.  Anyone can "be with God" regardless if they're a Jew or not. 

 

So far I have not seen a contradiction.  Just verses from the Bible taken out of context. 

1. What would God be letting slide? Those annoying little commadments that your God supposedly wrote and your Jesus took seriously. All that went away with Paul's Christ.

2. Romans 6:15 really doesn't matter because Paul got rid of sin in chapter 4.

3. Paul said nothing about the dietary laes or the ceremonial laws (being a Jew). He used the word "law" which means the entirety of Mosaic Law - not just the trivialities in Leviticus. Or are you really saying that Paul (supposedly an intelligent man) didn't know the words for "dietary" or "ceremonial"?

Why is it when theists are confronted with what their God says, they whip out their own interpretations and call it "context"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I wonder how many you've talked to. Names we'd know?

 

Personally, I think it's less than one but I'd love to be wrong.

I've never met a "famous" one no.  They're mostly people I met from place to place.  I don't know how many.  yes much more than one.  Glad to make you happy. 

jcgadfly wrote:

As for probability, it does damage your God but you guys ignore it so it really doesn't matter anyway.

If you want to talk probability it doesn't damage my God because the probability of the Theories that people try to use to disprove my God are shown to be less probable. 

No I don't know all the numbers off the top of my head. 

I do know that belief depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities among other things. 

Probabilities only work for those who want to accept their results as proof. 

So you have these experts who apparently have never published so we can't look up anything they say or if they even exist. Lovely game - "create a source". Still would love to be provben wrong.

As for the theories, it's hard for you to look objectively at them (I imagine) because you already have the conclusion that makes you happy.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


DudefromNorway
DudefromNorway's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-08-24
User is offlineOffline
well

 

 

As Jesus once said: If the fruit is rotten, chop down the tree....

This book seems like utter bs...

ake the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.

- Henrik Ibsen


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I don't know if

Vastet wrote:

I don't know if he hasn't responded due to lack of time or due to sheer frustration, but the fact of the matter is that you went and defined the scientific method well enough, but then you don't apply it at all to the topic as he has repeatedly requested you do. As is perfectly evidenced in his response, and perfectly ignored by yourself who goes off on a tangent which has nothing to do with anything.

If you focus on our conversation, you'll notice I was simply asking for his personal definition which he still has neglected to give me.   Plus, he's had plenty of time to answer that among 2 other simple questions I was asking and has successfully evaded them every time. 

The topic was "his personal definition of Scientific Method"  I cannot apply it to his personal definition because I do not know it.  I will not apply the generic definition until I know that he and I are on the same page. Please read more carefully

The conversation between him and I was a tangent.  This whole forum is a tangent.  If you read the Forum topic, you'll see that.  I'm just following the lead of the people responding, I have not led any tangent on here. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I have defined

Brian37 wrote:

I have defined it. AND, I also said in prior posts, mind you this thread is 8 pages long. But I also said that if you put bad data in(naked assertion) you are not going to get good data out, so there is no point in ME trying to apply a universal method to HIS CLAIM because he has nothing to put into it in the first place.

"Spirits and deities, just like vampires and snarfwidgets cannot be plugged into scientific method and that is because they are baseless whims of imagination. Why should I waste my time trying to do his work for him?

How can you ride a bike when you have no wheels, no frame, no handle bars or seat?

This is why I don't waste my time with meandering tactics. It is not up to me to prove his claims. How can I apply method to something that starts as a naked assertion?

You are one who likes to have a conclusion with no research.  You have not tried to level with me or even attempt to get onto the same page as me.  I"m not going to throw random claims at you so you can aimlessly conclude they're bogus.  If you want information.  Work with me.  Stop reaching conclusions with no support. 

There are conversations I'm having that make progress, and there are others that don't.  Ours is one that doesn't.  It's up to you if you want a direction.

 


DudefromNorway
DudefromNorway's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-08-24
User is offlineOffline
 The good ol´ "we´re not

 The good ol´ "we´re not talking about the same thing" argument..

 

 Man, you´re off the mark here

ake the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.

- Henrik Ibsen


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. What would

jcgadfly wrote:

1. What would God be letting slide? Those annoying little commadments that your God supposedly wrote and your Jesus took seriously. All that went away with Paul's Christ.

uh... ok, that narrowed it down.  You're saying Paul said it's ok to kill someone, rape someone, etc?

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Romans 6:15 really doesn't matter because Paul got rid of sin in chapter 4.

Ch 4 is about Abraham and how he ties in with what Jesus  is and what he taught.  I admit you got me to read the chapter again.  I don't see where Paul got rid of sin in Ch 4.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Paul said nothing about the dietary laes or the ceremonial laws (being a Jew). He used the word "law" which means the entirety of Mosaic Law - not just the trivialities in Leviticus. Or are you really saying that Paul (supposedly an intelligent man) didn't know the words for "dietary" or "ceremonial"?

"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."  Rom 4:16

Those "of the Law" are the Jews.  That is easily understood throughout the Bible.  The Law is referring to everything a Jew had to be and followed. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Why is it when theists are confronted with what their God says, they whip out their own interpretations and call it "context"?

hmmm, if theists come up with the same conclusion and call it context, then it could possibly be what is in context.  If there are different interpretations of the same thing, i'd like to hear them. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
DudefromNorway wrote: The

DudefromNorway wrote:

 The good ol´ "we´re not talking about the same thing" argument..

 

 Man, you´re off the mark here

never said we weren't talking about the same thing, though it seems pretty obvious if you take a look back at the topic of this forum. 

Anyway, I ask for people to be on the same page as me.  If you're going to jump to conclusions without a legitamate conversation, then you're on your own. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote: See, this

daedalus wrote:

 

See, this is what I just don't get.  "Waste his time"?  What time? 

Ok, so time was a bad choice of words when referencing to God

daedalus wrote:

Why is it a waste?  I thought your god WANTED people to know him.  He certainly (allegedly) makes his presence known to you everyday? Why? Why not others? 

He does in both instances.  The point is God would not waste.

daedalus wrote:


And whats the point anyhow?  Belief in God isn't necessarily required for salvation - only your religion claims it.

What would salvation be then?

daedalus wrote:

 

You really have a funny god: omnisicent and omnipotent but won't waste his time on people, or does things even though he knows they are useless.

 

I never said he won't waste his time on people or does things that are useless.  The point was that he doesn't waste his time and that he doesn't do anything useless. 

daedalus wrote:

 

The difference is that we actually THOUGHT about what we read. 

ooh, I'd be careful here.  I've constantly been talking to people on here who conclude without basis and don't think before they speak.  Many of them make matter of fact comments about something I said only for me to reiterate exactly what I said to prove that their conclusion was because they didn't carefully read. 

You may be able to claim that about yourself.  I dont' know yet.

daedalus wrote:

 You do realize your god doesn't exist, right?  You are trying to convince me of believing in a figment of your imagination?  Do you see your problem?  You are asking me to come up with my own method of making myself believe in a fantasy.

stalemate conversation waiting to happen

daedalus wrote:

 

Just because you have convinced yourself of something utterly asinine doesn't mean you ask others to come up with their own method of delusion.

I should be proof that even giving someone a method of delusion doesn't mean they're going to follow it.  Do you see why this is a stalemate conversation?

daedalus wrote:

 

Imagine: I believe pixies paint my hair brown every night.  Don't believe me?  Well, instead of giving you silly reasons (like, you can't see them but you have to believe in them first), why don't I ask you: "What will it take for you to believe in pixies?"

I'd probably start by trying to understand what makes you believe in them and I'd start researching your claims.  I'd probably ask many questions based on the research I have done.  If your belief is real, it is my understanding I will conclude the same as you if I go about it using the methods/sources you have used.

daedalus wrote:

 

Would you care to think of an answer for that?  Would you waste your time?  i know you're not omnisicent, but come on, you can't be that stupid - like your God.

Oh crap.  an unfounded conclusion.  I had so much hope for you.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Cap, I've tried to find the

Cap, I've tried to find the "special idol" to no avail. God just means all existence for me, so I can't find a way to worship. When all is one, what is there to be "saved" from, but separatism ideas, which is all religion of God of Abe design? Isn't Christianity an antichrist theology, against the principal of Oneness? Isn't science the real study of gawed? Isn't traditional religion just clever make believe dogmatic spin, for lots of wrong reasons?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. What would God be letting slide? Those annoying little commadments that your God supposedly wrote and your Jesus took seriously. All that went away with Paul's Christ.

uh... ok, that narrowed it down.  You're saying Paul said it's ok to kill someone, rape someone, etc?

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Romans 6:15 really doesn't matter because Paul got rid of sin in chapter 4.

Ch 4 is about Abraham and how he ties in with what Jesus  is and what he taught.  I admit you got me to read the chapter again.  I don't see where Paul got rid of sin in Ch 4.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Paul said nothing about the dietary laes or the ceremonial laws (being a Jew). He used the word "law" which means the entirety of Mosaic Law - not just the trivialities in Leviticus. Or are you really saying that Paul (supposedly an intelligent man) didn't know the words for "dietary" or "ceremonial"?

"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."  Rom 4:16

Those "of the Law" are the Jews.  That is easily understood throughout the Bible.  The Law is referring to everything a Jew had to be and followed. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Why is it when theists are confronted with what their God says, they whip out their own interpretations and call it "context"?

hmmm, if theists come up with the same conclusion and call it context, then it could possibly be what is in context.  If there are different interpretations of the same thing, i'd like to hear them. 

 

But he's not writing to Jews in the epistle to the Romans. He's writing to Christians and telling how much better off they are following the religion he built than they would be being Jews. They don't have to follow that pesky Law of Moses.

I don't know whether Paul would consider it OK to rape or kill. All I know is that it wouldn't be considered a sin against god (in Paul's view) to break any part of Mosaic law.

You're under grace, after all, not under law. And one can't violate a law that doesn't apply to them. Example - I can't run a red light because I don't own a car - the law doesn't apply to me.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:daedalus

caposkia wrote:

daedalus wrote:

  I just happen to be reading a book on the history of science....  spheres to a mere 13 or so, but got him into problems, especially with the Church.  It was between Copernicus and Galileo that people started getting rid of the ideas of the spheres.

obviously you don't know much about your church history do you?  Churches during that time were understood to be corrupt.  (ergo the denominational standards I've been talking about were in play to the extreme)

daedalus wrote:

Yes, Cap, the Bible writers ABSOLUTELY believed the Earth was the center of the universe and that spheres of elements rotated around it.

why, because the church at the time said so?  c'mon, since when do you believe in the church? 

The church didn't consider the context of the passages and made all of it according to how they wanted it.

If the Bible writers absolutely believed the Earth was the center of the universe, then they must  have also believed the Earth was flat due to popular understanding at the time and future.  However, Isaiah 40:22 references to the Earth as a circle. 

daedalus wrote:

I say again: NO ONE knew that the Sun was at the center of the Solar System, or that there weren't spheres of elements.

no one knew for sure about any of that, but followers didn't sell the belief that Earth was the center.  The churches may have.  It's actually quite irrelevant.  In fact, the Bible writers could have cared less I imagine. 

daedalus wrote:

I know Xians try to rewrite history to make themselves look good but guess what?  It gives the opposite impression.

that way your understanding that there no God has to be real, because Xians... though I"m not sure if I fall in that category... try to rewrite history. 

Is that your basis for unbelief?

 

Do you TRY to miss the point?  The Bible writers didn't know jack shit about the Universe - its obvious. The fact that you point out contradictions proves that they were just a bunch of people making shit up - like modern theologians - like yourself.

 

The fact that most of what you believe of Xianity is BECAUSE of the church (and, in fact, the reason Xinanity has persisted) is a great irony.

 

Tell me, what view of Xianity is true?  Only your own? The Church of Caposkia?  And if the writers couldn't be trusted to get basic ideas of the world right, why do you trust them to tell you stuff about things that are impossible to know? (Like the - ooooohhohh - Supernatural.)

 

The problem is, Cap, you flit between any real understanding of the world - adjusting your belief system to fit different discoveries but always - somehow - making it fit into Xianity.  It is, frankly, stupid.  It's like forcing everything into a Ptolemaic system.

You are defending Bronze Age beliefs.  Doesn't that bother you?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I have defined it. AND, I also said in prior posts, mind you this thread is 8 pages long. But I also said that if you put bad data in(naked assertion) you are not going to get good data out, so there is no point in ME trying to apply a universal method to HIS CLAIM because he has nothing to put into it in the first place.

"Spirits and deities, just like vampires and snarfwidgets cannot be plugged into scientific method and that is because they are baseless whims of imagination. Why should I waste my time trying to do his work for him?

How can you ride a bike when you have no wheels, no frame, no handle bars or seat?

This is why I don't waste my time with meandering tactics. It is not up to me to prove his claims. How can I apply method to something that starts as a naked assertion?

You are one who likes to have a conclusion with no research.  You have not tried to level with me or even attempt to get onto the same page as me.  I"m not going to throw random claims at you so you can aimlessly conclude they're bogus.  If you want information.  Work with me.  Stop reaching conclusions with no support. 

There are conversations I'm having that make progress, and there are others that don't.  Ours is one that doesn't.  It's up to you if you want a direction.

 

It is not up to me to prove bullshit. Just like it is not up to you to prove that Thor did not make lighting.

YOU are the one who has bought a CONCLUSION rooted in myth and superstition based on a naked assertion. You want me to do your homework for you, and then get pissed when I merely point out you have nothing to start with in the first place.

DADDY DADDY, the naughty doubter wont buy my naked assertion!

You are the one with no evidence. YOU are the one who desperately wants a magical daddy in the sky to protect you. When you come up with his DNA or his atom I'll consider it. But believe me, since I like breathing I wont hold my breath waiting for your evidence that will floor the entire world.

Your daddy is nothing but your imagination. I am sorry you cant see that.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
LOL RRS atheists. Xains are

LOL RRS atheists. Xains are the Nihilists looking for meaning .... inventing and holding on to religion of dogmatic separatism. Religion is poison, bunk, hocus pocus wishful Bull Shit. Fuck all gods of religious separatist invention. Shout at that devil, of wrong thinking crap.

Thermodynamics says fuck that separatism too. Thanks so very much science.  LOL   


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:

I don't know if he hasn't responded due to lack of time or due to sheer frustration, but the fact of the matter is that you went and defined the scientific method well enough, but then you don't apply it at all to the topic as he has repeatedly requested you do. As is perfectly evidenced in his response, and perfectly ignored by yourself who goes off on a tangent which has nothing to do with anything.

If you focus on our conversation, you'll notice I was simply asking for his personal definition which he still has neglected to give me.

And if you paid much attention to the site and his responses, you'd have already known his personal definition does not differ from the accepted definition.

caposkia wrote:
   Plus, he's had plenty of time to answer that among 2 other simple questions I was asking and has successfully evaded them every time. 

The topic was "his personal definition of Scientific Method"  I cannot apply it to his personal definition because I do not know it.  I will not apply the generic definition until I know that he and I are on the same page. Please read more carefully

What is it with you theists and redefining things? The definition is the definition. We are not creating a language here, we're debating within the realms of science and mythology. Definitions are predetermined by a dictionary.

caposkia wrote:
The conversation between him and I was a tangent.  This whole forum is a tangent.  If you read the Forum topic, you'll see that.  I'm just following the lead of the people responding, I have not led any tangent on here. 

Your inability to recognize reality is not helping.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia wrote:daedalus

 

Caposkia wrote:

daedalus wrote:

 

Imagine: I believe pixies paint my hair brown every night.  Don't believe me?  Well, instead of giving you silly reasons (like, you can't see them but you have to believe in them first), why don't I ask you: "What will it take for you to believe in pixies?"

 

I'd probably start by trying to understand what makes you believe in them and I'd start researching your claims.  I'd probably ask many questions based on the research I have done.  If your belief is real, it is my understanding I will conclude the same as you if I go about it using the methods/sources you have used.

 

I DO understand what makes you believe in God. I HAVE researched the claims of NUMEROUS Theists.  I have asked many questions, read many articles, debates, etc.  I am amazed that you feel you, out of all the Theists I have spoken with, have some better understanding.  I have read William Lane Craig, Habermas, J. P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Søren Kierkegaard, Thomas Aquinas, and numerous other philosophers and apologists. And the Bible, the Gnostic Texts and some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.   Have you?  Are you suggesting that if only I'd listen to YOU that I would have a better understanding?

 

And you are exactly right: If your belief is real, I should come to the same conclusion.

I don't.  It seems the most likely conclusion is that your belief isn't real. 

 

If you have new insight that some of the greatest minds of your religion haven't come up with, please let me know.  Remember, just because you have convinced yourself, doesn't mean it is true.

 

 

Out of curiosity: How many Atheist philosophers have you read?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote: Caposkia

daedalus wrote:

 

Caposkia wrote:

daedalus wrote:

 

Imagine: I believe pixies paint my hair brown every night.  Don't believe me?  Well, instead of giving you silly reasons (like, you can't see them but you have to believe in them first), why don't I ask you: "What will it take for you to believe in pixies?"

 

I'd probably start by trying to understand what makes you believe in them and I'd start researching your claims.  I'd probably ask many questions based on the research I have done.  If your belief is real, it is my understanding I will conclude the same as you if I go about it using the methods/sources you have used.

 

I DO understand what makes you believe in God. I HAVE researched the claims of NUMEROUS Theists.  I have asked many questions, read many articles, debates, etc.  I am amazed that you feel you, out of all the Theists I have spoken with, have some better understanding.  I have read William Lane Craig, Habermas, J. P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Søren Kierkegaard, Thomas Aquinas, and numerous other philosophers and apologists. And the Bible, the Gnostic Texts and some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.   Have you?  Are you suggesting that if only I'd listen to YOU that I would have a better understanding?

 

And you are exactly right: If your belief is real, I should come to the same conclusion.

I don't.  It seems the most likely conclusion is that your belief isn't real. 

 

If you have new insight that some of the greatest minds of your religion haven't come up with, please let me know.  Remember, just because you have convinced yourself, doesn't mean it is true.

 

 

Out of curiosity: How many Atheist philosophers have you read?

Quote:
Remember, just because you have convinced yourself, doesn't mean it is true.

Great point. Even deists such as Thomas Jefferson admitted that it is better to question and be willing to be open to the idea of being wrong, than it is to attempt to retrofit current knowledge to fit an ancient tradition.

"Question with boldness even the existence of god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear".

I would suspect highly, that such a man, even if he still held his belief, and were living today, would NOT be frightened or intimidated by the challenge of being proven wrong, he would quite welcome it. I would also guess that given what we know today, he could have potentially  given up on his idea of a generic god if he had the current knowledge we do today.

I am not asking Cap to do anything differently than I would if a Muslim had claimed their god was real. I am not asking a Hindu to do anything differently if they had claimed their gods were real. I am not doing anything differently than if a Jew said Yahwey was real.

Just because humans have had a history of claiming the super natural doesnt make the super natural real. What has been consistant in scientific discovery is that every time a cealing is hit in knowlege, humans falsely place a deity beyond that cealing, which they defaulted to long before modern science, only to have  future scientists to find a natural answer.

Cap unfortunatly has convinced himself that a magical being exists and the grip it has on the human mind is powerfull, but not unbreakable. It is only when one is willing to accept that they might be wrong, is when the learning happens.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hundreds of wise quotes come

Hundreds of wise quotes come to mind .... from my 'atheist bible' ....

"Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity."  Saul Bellow

I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't. - Jules Renard

"All postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." - Christopher Hitchens

Prejudice is often no more than a lazy person's substitute for thinking - Aunt Tomee

The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window. - Stephen King

"Love" is acceptance, awe, and questions (so science). "Faith" is separatism, fear, and wishful dogma (so religion)  "Wisdom" is a summary of knowledge (so philosophy)  ~ me

If god is the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the end, knows what has passed and what is to come, like it states in the bible, why do people pray and think it will make any difference. - Mark Fairclough

If we expect God to subscribe to one religion at the exclusion of all the others, then we should expect damnation as a matter of chance. This should give Christians pause when expounding their religious beliefs, but it does not. - Sam Harris

Incurably religious, that is the best way to describe the mental condition of so many people. - Thomas Edison

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this." -- Einstein

"People who don't want their beliefs ridiculed shouldn't hold ridiculous beliefs." ~ was that Bertrand Russell ???

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire

Man is a marvelous curiosity … he thinks he is the Creator's pet … he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea.
-- Mark Twain

"The trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people are so full of doubts" -- Bertrand Russell.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov

“The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.” - Harlan Ellison"

Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change." - Confucius

  .... ETC etc, as on and on, the merry go round, of seemingly endless darkness goes.

To be an engaged atheist is a personal victory. ~ me

Atheists are the Arsons of Darkness! ~ me

Umm, do religious idol worshipers actually read? ~ me

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Watch

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Watch this one video for starters, Cap:

Alright, sorry it took so long, but I finally watched this video.  It's a good start, but really too vague for much comment.  I have to say using Kirk Cameron as an example is a poor excuse.  The debate between him that science dude and Sapient is why I got onto this site in the first place.  I originally wanted to explain to Sapient how not only was it stupid of Kirk and his collegue to try to explain God through science alone, but his support was out in left field where the dandelions grow. 

I've also heard the whole transitional fossel thing, (see science vs. religion forum).  We can go from questions that arise from that forum if you have some. 

I also have to say the narrator of this video took the way of Kirk when trying to explain interspecial evolution through the growing up of George Bush.  The problem with that example?  The species was born a George Bush, granted through time The George Bush species looks different, but it's still a George Bush.  Conclusion, it's the same species.  I'm not saying that has anything to do with what the video was talking about.  In fact, I really don't see the relevence.  I know what he was trying to say, but it ranks up there with the croco-duck or whatever that was. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Cap,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Cap, I've tried to find the "special idol" to no avail. God just means all existence for me, so I can't find a way to worship.

I guess I'd have to ask what you were looking for that you didn't find.  The fact that you were looking for a "special idol" leads me to believe you may have been looking in the wrong place or in the wrong way.  One doesn't worship because they found a special idol... er... wait, ok some do, but one doesn't worship God just because they found him.  It's what they discover God has done for them in their lives and how much God loves them that they worship him for. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

When all is one, what is there to be "saved" from, but separatism ideas, which is all religion of God of Abe design?

All is one, but choice is not.  Free will is given to all, therefore walking away or being pulled away is possible.  Saved is only understood when you're at the point where you're ready to accept Christ.  It's otherwise a waste for me to try to explain it due to the fact that it's going to mean nothing to you. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Isn't Christianity an antichrist theology, against the principal of Oneness?

no, Churchianity is.  Christianity is about Oneness.  Churchianity is about separatism.  I thank you for that link btw, it really helped better explain what I've been trying to say. 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Isn't science the real study of gawed? Isn't traditional religion just clever make believe dogmatic spin, for lots of wrong reasons?

Yes, science can be seen as the study of God be it that God created everything. 

Yes, religion is there for lots of the wrong reasons.  If religion was understood for what it is by those who want to know God, there would be no religion. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:But he's not

jcgadfly wrote:

But he's not writing to Jews in the epistle to the Romans. He's writing to Christians and telling how much better off they are following the religion he built than they would be being Jews. They don't have to follow that pesky Law of Moses.

He is writing to the Christians.  He is explaining how a Christian is suppose to live.  There are no contradictions that I've seen between what Paul teaches and what Jesus taught. 

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't know whether Paul would consider it OK to rape or kill. All I know is that it wouldn't be considered a sin against god (in Paul's view) to break any part of Mosaic law.

Reread the Bible quotes I referenced to you earlier.  Paul clearly states that though we are forgiven through the blood of Christ it is NOT ok for us to be not trying to live the mosaic law.  It's a representation.  Just as when you're wearing a uniform for a prestigious company, your behavior will not only reflect on you, but your company as well.  It is understood this way for the Christian.  They understand how God wants them to live and tries to represent God in the best way they are able to. 

jcgadfly wrote:

You're under grace, after all, not under law. And one can't violate a law that doesn't apply to them. Example - I can't run a red light because I don't own a car - the law doesn't apply to me.

Right, you don't have to worry about running red lights because you're not going to be in that situation if you don't drive, therefore you really don't have to worry about it.  I guess in the same situation if a Christian is put in a place where there is no way they could break a law, then of course it could not be broken. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:Do you TRY to

daedalus wrote:

Do you TRY to miss the point?  The Bible writers didn't know jack shit about the Universe - its obvious. The fact that you point out contradictions proves that they were just a bunch of people making shit up - like modern theologians - like yourself.

be it that knowlege of the scientific universe was useless information to them at the time do you really find it necessary that they knew much about it?  OR if they did that they'd put it in a book that summarizes the walk of a follower? 

daedalus wrote:

The fact that most of what you believe of Xianity is BECAUSE of the church (and, in fact, the reason Xinanity has persisted) is a great irony.

That's funny be it that I didn't find my belief in the church.  In fact, I had to step outside my church to find my belief.

daedalus wrote:

Tell me, what view of Xianity is true?  Only your own? The Church of Caposkia?  And if the writers couldn't be trusted to get basic ideas of the world right, why do you trust them to tell you stuff about things that are impossible to know? (Like the - ooooohhohh - Supernatural.)

 

no. I guess I was wrong.  It must be the church of daedalus that is true.  My apologies. 

daedalus wrote:

The problem is, Cap, you flit between any real understanding of the world - adjusting your belief system to fit different discoveries but always - somehow - making it fit into Xianity.  It is, frankly, stupid.  It's like forcing everything into a Ptolemaic system.

You are defending Bronze Age beliefs.  Doesn't that bother you?

I have never adjusted any belief of my own unless I had credible reason to do so.  If I had, I would then have a good explanation of why my belief changed from what it was. 

just for the record, from what I can remember, so far on this site, I have not changed any of my claims and I've been crystal clear when I was wrong.  (no harsh wording intended, just matter of fact statement)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is not up

Brian37 wrote:

It is not up to me to prove bullshit.

I would hope not

Brian37 wrote:

Just like it is not up to you to prove that Thor did not make lighting.

right.

Brian37 wrote:

YOU are the one who has bought a CONCLUSION rooted in myth and superstition based on a naked assertion. You want me to do your homework for you, and then get pissed when I merely point out you have nothing to start with in the first place.

I haven't gotten pissed.  I'm sorry if I come across that way.  It's not my intention. 

Now.  I could say the same exact phrase back to you from my perspective.  Are you trying to continue a stalemate conversation?  I'm trying to come to an agreement on a simple source for research. 

Mind you I have followed your lead and all I really want to talk about on this forum is the topic.  Go figure. 

Brian37 wrote:

You are the one with no evidence. YOU are the one who desperately wants a magical daddy in the sky to protect you. When you come up with his DNA or his atom I'll consider it.

Ah, maybe finally we're getting somewhere in your ramblings.  You want me to come up with physical evidence for a being that isn't physical.  We have gone through this already.  Now we need a credible source for research before EITHER of us can conclude anything. 

I think after 8 pages everyone is pretty clear what you believe and what I believe.  What say you about progressing? 

Brian37 wrote:

Your daddy is nothing but your imagination. I am sorry you cant see that.

good, so you're ready to present your source now???


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And if you

Vastet

wrote:

And if you paid much attention to the site and his responses, you'd have already known his personal definition does not differ from the accepted definition.

It's my impression that if I don't get a clear answer from him, he's going to adjust his conclusion.  I want it written out so he can't change his mind later. 

yea, it does seem pretty obvious, but he can't just give me the answer and move on, he has to piss and moan (no anger intended here) about how he's right and I'm wrong and avoid what might reveal who knows truth. 

Vastet wrote:

What is it with you theists and redefining things? The definition is the definition. We are not creating a language here, we're debating within the realms of science and mythology. Definitions are predetermined by a dictionary.

What is it with you non-believers ignoring the obvious.  It's not the "definition" I was looking for now is it.  I was looking for his "personal" definition.  No one knows his personal definition except him.  If it is exactly what the actual definition is, then good, we're on the same page and we can move on.  If not, then we know and we can move on from there. 

Are you trying to redefine the obvious?  I prefer sticking with what is actually said. 

...and why when you get backed into a corner does the "redefining" excuse come out?  Do you see now why I need a clear cut answer?  I want to avoid all that. 

Vastet wrote:

Your inability to recognize reality is not helping.

...and you've helped in bringing no progress to the forum.  Thank you. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote: I DO

daedalus wrote:

 

I DO understand what makes you believe in God. I HAVE researched the claims of NUMEROUS Theists.  I have asked many questions, read many articles, debates, etc.  I am amazed that you feel you, out of all the Theists I have spoken with, have some better understanding.  I have read William Lane Craig, Habermas, J. P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Søren Kierkegaard, Thomas Aquinas, and numerous other philosophers and apologists. And the Bible, the Gnostic Texts and some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.   Have you?  Are you suggesting that if only I'd listen to YOU that I would have a better understanding?

I'm actually not familiar with any of those names.  If any of them are apologists, I would question their methodology.  I'm not sure if apologetics is something I'd support.  I'm not familiar with that method. 

I never said I was the only one in the world that had a better understanding.  I'm one of millions in the world.  Just because they're "theists" doesn't mean they preach all the truth either. 

daedalus wrote:

 

And you are exactly right: If your belief is real, I should come to the same conclusion.

I don't.  It seems the most likely conclusion is that your belief isn't real. 

So you've done same as me and concluded that?  Now I have to hear your story.  You can PM it to me if you'd like. 

daedalus wrote:

If you have new insight that some of the greatest minds of your religion haven't come up with, please let me know.  Remember, just because you have convinced yourself, doesn't mean it is true.

 

True, remember that yourself.  "just becasue you have convinced yourself, doesn't mean it's true."

I dont' know where everyone keeps coming up with the idea that I have a "new perspective".  This is what it is.  The stereotypical view of Christianity that I see plastered all over this site is the "new perspective".  It may be old hat to you, but my following was the way it is long before those perspectives and hypoctricial sects of churchianity. 

daedalus wrote:

 

Out of curiosity: How many Atheist philosophers have you read?

I don't know.  I've read bits and peices of numerous atheistic authors.  Most of what I have read was recommended to me by others.  I was less concerned with who wrote it verses what was said. 

If you're asking if I've actually picked up a book from a particular Atheist philosopher, no I haven't.  Though because Richard Dawkins is so popular, I'm interested in seeing what he has to say. 

I hope you're not suggesting philosophy is the way to disprove God.  I say that because I've heard some Christian philosophers (not saying I agree with them) that would flatten anyone who got in their way.  Though their views may be wrong, they knew how to use words against others. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Great point.

Brian37 wrote:

Great point. Even deists such as Thomas Jefferson admitted that it is better to question and be willing to be open to the idea of being wrong, than it is to attempt to retrofit current knowledge to fit an ancient tradition.

Sure, Thomas Jefferson says that and everyone takes notice, but when I say it, no one cares.

Brian37 wrote:

I would suspect highly, that such a man, even if he still held his belief, and were living today, would NOT be frightened or intimidated by the challenge of being proven wrong, he would quite welcome it. I would also guess that given what we know today, he could have potentially  given up on his idea of a generic god if he had the current knowledge we do today.

I hope you're not saying that I don't welcome a challenge to my beliefs or that I'm intimidated by the challenge.  If you are you need to stop wasting your time on here and start reading this forum very very carefully.

Brian37 wrote:

I am not asking Cap to do anything differently than I would if a Muslim had claimed their god was real. I am not asking a Hindu to do anything differently if they had claimed their gods were real. I am not doing anything differently than if a Jew said Yahwey was real.

You have not asked me anything that you were willing to follow through with.  You ask me for evidence, I ask you for a basis that we can agree on so I can show you evidence that you might actually take into consideration and you run to your comfort zone.

Brian37 wrote:

 

Cap unfortunatly has convinced himself that a magical being exists and the grip it has on the human mind is powerfull, but not unbreakable. It is only when one is willing to accept that they might be wrong, is when the learning happens.

listen to your own advice my friend. 

Beliefs are powerful.  Truth is more powerful.  Are you willing yet to work with me?  Don't tell me you've been trying because you haven't.  I've asked you a simple question.  If you want to teach me something, maybe try answering it. 

(none of the above was meant to be taken in an angry or synical manner.)  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
DudefromNorway wrote:  As

DudefromNorway wrote:

 

 

As Jesus once said: If the fruit is rotten, chop down the tree....

This book seems like utter bs...

I see where you're coming from here honestly.  If you're still following this randomness, I'm willing to open up a new forum about why you think the book is bs. 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm actually

caposkia wrote:

I'm actually not familiar with any of those names.  If any of them are apologists, I would question their methodology.  I'm not sure if apologetics is something I'd support.  I'm not familiar with that method. 

I never said I was the only one in the world that had a better understanding.  I'm one of millions in the world.  Just because they're "theists" doesn't mean they preach all the truth either.

So, why should I believe anything you say?  If you are one of a million and the other people have actually studied the Bible, know the language, studied theology, logic and other works, what do you bring to the table?  A personal story?

 

How am I supposed to know if you know the truth or not?  How do you know you know the truth?  You say the truth is more powerful than belief?  Um, no, that is not true at all.  People go to their graves believing things that aren't true.  For 99.9% of human history we have not known truths that have only come to light in the last few hundred years.

Quote:
So you've done same as me and concluded that?  Now I have to hear your story.  You can PM it to me if you'd like.
WTF?  My personal story has nothing to do with this.  I may be more insane than you!  What is this crap about a personal story?

 

The point is that you claim to know the truth based on studying your beliefs (which you have shown very little of, btw.  The fact that you don't know some of the greatest minds in Theology only shows how ignorant you are).

Quote:

True, remember that yourself.  "just becasue you have convinced yourself, doesn't mean it's true."

I dont' know where everyone keeps coming up with the idea that I have a "new perspective".  This is what it is.  The stereotypical view of Christianity that I see plastered all over this site is the "new perspective".  It may be old hat to you, but my following was the way it is long before those perspectives and hypoctricial sects of churchianity.

You have no way of knowing what version of Xianity you practice.  You are poorly informed - ignorant - of so much of Xianity.

 

Yet, we know, in fact, that you have your own perspective because you break from key aspects of Xianity. Even the early forms. Most people do.  But most astounding is that you seem to proudly announce your ignorance and then try to convince us that you know something about what you are talking about.

Quote:
I don't know.  I've read bits and peices of numerous atheistic authors.  Most of what I have read was recommended to me by others.  I was less concerned with who wrote it verses what was said. 

If you're asking if I've actually picked up a book from a particular Atheist philosopher, no I haven't.  Though because Richard Dawkins is so popular, I'm interested in seeing what he has to say. 

I hope you're not suggesting philosophy is the way to disprove God.  I say that because I've heard some Christian philosophers (not saying I agree with them) that would flatten anyone who got in their way.  Though their views may be wrong, they knew how to use words against others. 

 

Cap, it is obvious you are a poorly-read, ignorant person who just declares themselves as Knower of Truth because you were told by some guy that the Bible is true and you don't have the capacity to intelligently question your beliefs.

 

It is also obvious that we have little to discuss.  If you haven't heard of Saint Thomas Aquinas, then I'm afraid I know more about your religion than you do.

 

And it's hilarious that you claim there are Xian philsophers that can win an argument.  Which one?  Name ONE.  And, its more hilarious that you think they win an argument even if they are wrong...  WTF, man?

 

Seriously, if I were you, I would slink back to a nice Jesus site where you can enjoy your ignorance with other ignorant people.  We have nothing to talk about.

 

You won't even give us the basic decency of reading our point of view when everyone here has read 10 times what you have read about your religion.  And then you have the gall and idiocy to claim that its about your personal story. Your warm fuzzy feelings.  Your knowledge of the truth above millions of other people.  You are an ignorant and arrogant idiot.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh Jesus

caposkia wrote:
The problem with that example? The species was born a George Bush, granted through time The George Bush species looks different, but it's still a George Bush. Conclusion, it's the same species.

Aaaaaahhh, please don't discuss evolution. You're scientifically illiterate, and you don't know what you're talking about. 

Of course it's still the same species, it's the same fucking person. It's George Bush! The video was simply explaining that a huge change can occur through many little steps. The baby never woke up and discovered he was a teenager. The teenager never woke up and discovered he an adult. In fact, everyday, he looks exactly the same. Yet, somehow, through many years of tiny changes, the baby changed into an adult. The video by itself does not prove that one species changed into another species, only that it can. Sure, you can debate with some of the points in the video, but, ad hominem? Pathetic.  

It's the decrepit micro/macro argument again, sigh...so, have the Creationists explained the progression of the genome, the inactive genes in the genome, debunked the tens of thousands of transitional fossils (or more) other than the few pieces that they keep ignorantly spewing, created their own system for dating the age of the Earth, and found the invisible DNA wall yet?

caposkia wrote:
I know what he was trying to say, but it ranks up there with the croco-duck or whatever that was.

No, you didn't understand it at all. It's obvious from your post that you didn't even understand the point he was making.

caposkia wrote:
It's what they discover God has done for them in their lives and how much God loves them that they worship him for.

Or, maybe they're afraid that if they don't worship this all-powerful and all-loving Heavenly Father, they will be tortured in the fiery pit of hell for all eternity.

caposkia wrote:
Free will is given to all, therefore walking away or being pulled away is possible.

We have the freedom to worship God or burn in hell. Freedom with limitations, rules, imaginary responsibilities. 

caposkia wrote:
Paul clearly states that though we are forgiven through the blood of Christ it is NOT ok for us to be not trying to live the mosaic law.

What about the rest of the Old Testament?

caposkia wrote:
be it that knowlege of the scientific universe was useless information to them at the time do you really find it necessary that they knew much about it?

I guess not. God didn't really think it was necessary to tell them these things, like the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit. Sure, it's a scientific fact, but the Bible is about God, not the solar system. A few mistakes is no biggie. Plus, God can use it to test later generations of humans. 

caposkia wrote:
You want me to come up with physical evidence for a being that isn't physical. We have gone through this already. Now we need a credible source for research before EITHER of us can conclude anything.

You want us to find a credible source of research for something that, by its very definition, cannot be researched by man? What the hell are we supposed to refer to in this debate then? Prayer? The Pope? 

caposkia wrote:
I dont' know where everyone keeps coming up with the idea that I have a "new perspective". This is what it is.

Ah, of course, caposkia has the ultimate, Jesus-approved, accurate interpretation of everything that has anything to do with God. All other Christians, unless they agree with caposkia on EVERYTHING, are just unholy blasphemers. 

caposkia wrote:
I ask you for a basis that we can agree on so I can show you evidence that you might actually take into consideration and you run to your comfort zone.

You've already shunned all physical evidence, which, I'm guessing, includes history, science, geography, etc. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Churchanity is Christianity,

Errrr. Churchanity is Christianity, and is antichrist, where as in going for perfection as knowledge, is to simply abandon all church superstition separatism dogma idol worship. The bi bull of contradictions is a mess. The story character jesus who represents some simple buddha like wisdom, is also so dogmatised and turned into an idol. That is wrong, as the church is wrong.

The dirt simple "saving" message of revelation is no superstition, and went against common thinking and authority in it's ancient times and still to this day. Xainity still reeks of superstition and idol worship. Xainity is often call Paulinism. I call it the devil of wrong thinking gospel. Xainity is wrong and unrepairable. I say this as an atheist buddhist Jesus fan, and xainty is the enemy of wrong thinking to heal, and the jesus of the likes of paul and the church today. My buddha jesus would call all you christian idol worshiping praying dogmist, Satans, as he did peter.

That fucking bible is a damn nightmare of darkness and ignorance, disguised with bits of simple elementary truths. How do we awaken the world from this dreaded nightmare of superstition and idol worship.. Well, by any peaceful means we can devise ..... "I am god as you, as we are the christ, as all things are god" ..... "God of Abraham is the enemy of humanity, an idol invention of human ignorance" .....      Jefferson and his friends tried ....  

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society.  - Thomas Jefferson

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus." - Tom Hardy

"The greatest act of faith is when a man decides that he is not God." - Oliver Holmes Jr 

  Umm, that last quote is like an oxymoron. Not really sure how he intended it. God as all nature, or god of religion? Either way, it works for me.  

Interesting - "The Atheist" -  

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/athnews1.html

    Holmes Jr

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/oliver_wendell_holmes_jr.html

           No to Religion, No appeasment .....


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Probablility

caposkia wrote:

Probablility is brought up constantly to try to disprove my God. 

To challenge anyone to disprove god is an incoherent demand. It is impossible to refute the existence of something that hasn't been proven to exist.

Probability can only be applied to evidenced entities.

 So, the burden is on you to prove god.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Cap, you would be much more

Cap, you would be much more effective if you prayed for people to understand your religion than actually write anything about it.  You are a poor spokesperson and knowing how useless prayer is, it would still be better than your meanderings.  But perhaps that's your goal?  To turn people away from Xians?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:So, why

daedalus wrote:

So, why should I believe anything you say?  If you are one of a million and the other people have actually studied the Bible, know the language, studied theology, logic and other works, what do you bring to the table?  A personal story?

Are you saying because I"m not familiar with those names, then have not:  Studied the Bible, studied theology, studied logic and other works? 

I'm guessing you haven't read much about what I've said, but I found God not through a church or what people taught me, but through research, using science, geology, history among other things.  Personal experience does have a play in it as well. 

What do I bring to the table??? why don't you read the topic of this forum.  That is what I have brought to this table.  I have much other stuff I could bring to the table, but unlike many I've conversed with on this site, I like to stay focused. 

daedalus wrote:

 

How am I supposed to know if you know the truth or not?  How do you know you know the truth? 

Well, that would depend on whether you care to take into consideration anything I have to say and how open minded you are to the possibility that truth may not be what you understand to be true.  Yes this statement can apply to me too. 

I know I know the truth because I have opened my mind to accepting the fact that what I understand to be true may not be.  If I hadn't I'd still be a traditional catholic. 

daedalus wrote:

You say the truth is more powerful than belief?  Um, no, that is not true at all.  People go to their graves believing things that aren't true.  For 99.9% of human history we have not known truths that have only come to light in the last few hundred years.

you are right.  However, how were the "truth's" found out to be true?  Because they ultimately held more power than the false understandings.  Just because someone doesn't find out the truth in their lifetime doesn't mean the truth is weaker.  If it was, all truth would always be in question because false beliefs would hold more water in many cases.

When a truth is discovered, there is no question to its validity.  When an assumed truth is discovered whether through belief or otherwise, there is always question and doubt. 

daedalus wrote:

WTF?  My personal story has nothing to do with this.  I may be more insane than you!  What is this crap about a personal story?

to claim what you did, you'd had to have come to your conclusion through years of research and discovering false docterns.  I'm curious on the path you took to your unbelief. 

I'm not asking you to give me your life story, just your belief journey.  I could care less what cheek the dock slapped you on when you were born. 

daedalus wrote:

 

The point is that you claim to know the truth based on studying your beliefs (which you have shown very little of, btw.  The fact that you don't know some of the greatest minds in Theology only shows how ignorant you are).

Who says they're the greatest minds in theology?  Popular world belief?  Just because they know a lot doesn't mean they have it right.  The catholic heirarchy has an immense amount of knowlege.  They couldn't be further off the truth when it comes to doctern. 

Again, why do I have to know who they are in order to be sure what I know is true.  If that was where I got my knowlege from, then my case would fall apart because I would then have a single unit or source for my understanding.  My point is without the aid of people or religions guiding me, like many others in the world, I have come to the same conclusion. 

daedalus wrote:

You have no way of knowing what version of Xianity you practice.  You are poorly informed - ignorant - of so much of Xianity.

I could care less about Xianity.  I follow Jesus Christ.  Sure, maybe that's that following, but i"m not familiar with the term, so I'm not going to claim anything about it. 

It sounds to me like you're still trying to place me into some sort of religous following.  Do you get it yet that I don't follow religion? 

daedalus wrote:

 

Yet, we know, in fact, that you have your own perspective because you break from key aspects of Xianity. Even the early forms. Most people do.  But most astounding is that you seem to proudly announce your ignorance and then try to convince us that you know something about what you are talking about.

Well, this clarifies to me that I'm not a part of Xianity then.  If you want to conclude that I'm the only one with the perspective I have then power to ya. 

I know what most people who claim to follow Jesus believe.  I also know that many of them are wrong in many different aspects mainly because they've allowed dispensationalism to suck them in.

Who knows, I may not even have it all right, but I'm learning as I go and I'm willing to change if the truth is brought to me.  I just have to see it.

daedalus wrote:

Cap, it is obvious you are a poorly-read, ignorant person who just declares themselves as Knower of Truth because you were told by some guy that the Bible is true and you don't have the capacity to intelligently question your beliefs.

who's ignorant here?  You need to read what I have repeatedly written through all of my forums. 

daedalus wrote:

 

It is also obvious that we have little to discuss.  If you haven't heard of Saint Thomas Aquinas, then I'm afraid I know more about your religion than you do.

Of course I've heard of him, but I'm not going to say I know him because I couldn't specifically reference his works. 

It is obvious from the few statements above that you know nothing of my following but are trying to categorize me into something that I'm not. 

daedalus wrote:

And it's hilarious that you claim there are Xian philsophers that can win an argument.  Which one?  Name ONE.  And, its more hilarious that you think they win an argument even if they are wrong...  WTF, man?

 Again Xian. Sorry, from what you've told me, it's not what I follow. 

daedalus wrote:

Seriously, if I were you, I would slink back to a nice Jesus site where you can enjoy your ignorance with other ignorant people.  We have nothing to talk about.

You're right, I'm only interested honestly in talking about the topic of this forum which just like the others, you have effectively ignored. 

Thank you for your honesty though.

daedalus wrote:

 

You won't even give us the basic decency of reading our point of view when everyone here has read 10 times what you have read about your religion.  And then you have the gall and idiocy to claim that its about your personal story. Your warm fuzzy feelings.  Your knowledge of the truth above millions of other people.  You are an ignorant and arrogant idiot.

oooh, don't get all testy now.  tsk. tsk. 

I have not given much information here for a few reasons:

1.  It's not about the topic of this forum.  If you want to talk about something else, let me know and start another SPECIFIC forum.

2.  No one seems to care about being on the same page.  It seems to me that everyone wants me to just stay stuff about my following so they can imediately harrass me about it and say I"m an idiot.  It's a lot harder to do that when you've agreed upon a basis for conversation.  I finally dragged scientific method out of one person.  If he's willing to agree that his own understanding of it coensides with the generic definition, then we can actually make progress. 

Are you willing to give me a basis for topic and a credible source?

3.  Many people including yourself on here seem more eager to talk big than to actually have an intelligent conversation. 

Honestly, do you blame me for not going futher?  I know 99% of the people on this site would have told me to get the F*&^ off their forum if I tried any of the above.  (just an example of the response I would have gotten.  There was no anger or frustration intended through this response)

 

{fixed aiia}


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap is just frustrated that

Cap is just frustrated that he cant come up with godsperm. He still confuses claims with evidence. Claims are like sphincters, everyone has one. Evidence is not backing up a claim with a claim. Maybe if he is lucky enough to figure that out, there will be some hope for him.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Aaaaaahhh, please don't


 

butterbattle wrote:
Aaaaaahhh, please don't discuss evolution. You're scientifically illiterate, and you don't know what you're talking about. 

 

Of course it's still the same species, it's the same fucking person. It's George Bush! The video was simply explaining that a huge change can occur through many little steps. The baby never woke up and discovered he was a teenager. The teenager never woke up and discovered he an adult. In fact, everyday, he looks exactly the same. Yet, somehow, through many years of tiny changes, the baby changed into an adult. The video by itself does not prove that one species changed into another species, only that it can. Sure, you can debate with some of the points in the video, but, ad hominem? Pathetic.  

yea... that was.. brhem... my point

Quote:

It's the decrepit micro/macro argument again, sigh...so, have the Creationists explained the progression of the genome, the inactive genes in the genome, debunked the tens of thousands of transitional fossils (or more) other than the few pieces that they keep ignorantly spewing, created their own system for dating the age of the Earth, and found the invisible DNA wall yet?

See forum "science vs. religion"  and find the links about 50,000 fossil species.  Then ask me some questions.

Quote:

No, you didn't understand it at all. It's obvious from your post that you didn't even understand the point he was making.

It's obvious from your post that you don't understand the point of this forum.

Quote:

Or, maybe they're afraid that if they don't worship this all-powerful and all-loving Heavenly Father, they will be tortured in the fiery pit of hell for all eternity.

That's what the dispensationalists want you to believe.

Quote:

We have the freedom to worship God or burn in hell. Freedom with limitations, rules, imaginary responsibilities. 

cup cakes if you do, charred toast if you don't. right? 

Quote:

What about the rest of the Old Testament?

very general, depends on what your referencing to and what part of the OT you are talking about.

Quote:

I guess not. God didn't really think it was necessary to tell them these things, like the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit. Sure, it's a scientific fact, but the Bible is about God, not the solar system. A few mistakes is no biggie. Plus, God can use it to test later generations of humans. 

The Bible was written by people, not by God, therefore they wrote only what they knew.  Mistakes?  I guess if you want to call them that, but they are not detrimental to the existence of God or his following. 

Uh oh, They described the sun as moving around the Earth.  Even though we still say that the Sun rises I guess because it was written in the same manner in the Bible that must mean God's a fake. 

Quote:

You want us to find a credible source of research for something that, by its very definition, cannot be researched by man? What the hell are we supposed to refer to in this debate then? Prayer? The Pope? 

who said it cannot be researched by man??  Just because you can't accept some methods as research doesn't mean they don't follow the scientific method and cannot be accepted as credible research. 

Prayer may be a good start for you. 

Quote:

Ah, of course, caposkia has the ultimate, Jesus-approved, accurate interpretation of everything that has anything to do with God. All other Christians, unless they agree with caposkia on EVERYTHING, are just unholy blasphemers. 

says you. 

It's clear that you don't care about the following of Jesus Christ and are obsessed with Churchianity.  Therefore don't waste any more of your time.

Quote:

You've already shunned all physical evidence, which, I'm guessing, includes history, science, geography, etc. 

For the particular focus that I have tried to set on, of course.  Why use physical evidence to prove or disprove the non-physical? 

{fixed aiia}


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I d

aiia wrote:
Quote:

Probablility is brought up constantly to try to disprove my God. 

To challenge anyone to disprove god is an incoherent demand. It is impossible to refute the existence of something that hasn't been proven to exist.

Probability can only be applied to evidenced entities.

 So, the burden is on you to prove god.

I never... at least on this forum challenged anyone to disprove my God.  I don't believe that I have claimed that on any other forums either, but I dont' remember, so I'm not going to say for sure. 

It's really just as incoherent of a demand as Prove God. 

Many would disagree about God not being proven to exist.  Where we are at in this forum is completely off topic which is one reason why the ball is not in my court.  We are talking about coming to a consensus for a basis of credible research into the spiritual world.  It is obvious that people are convinced that the spiritual world does not exist, so to conclude in such a matter of fact manner, there must be a source.  I'm willing to discuss on the basis of that source.  yes, I do have my sources. 

We've also established that physical sources are not logically useful when talking about the spiritual.  Therefore, due to the fact that I"ve been waiting for even one person to level with me on a relevent source also puts the ball out of my court. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:Cap, you

daedalus wrote:

Cap, you would be much more effective if you prayed for people to understand your religion than actually write anything about it.  You are a poor spokesperson and knowing how useless prayer is, it would still be better than your meanderings.  But perhaps that's your goal?  To turn people away from Xians?

My goal was to talk about the topic of this forum.  wanna?

also, if you want more detail from me, research my other forums, then get back to me with questions.  I learned the hard way that speaking information on here without a specific basis is a huge mistake. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap is just

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is just frustrated that he cant come up with godsperm. He still confuses claims with evidence. Claims are like sphincters, everyone has one. Evidence is not backing up a claim with a claim. Maybe if he is lucky enough to figure that out, there will be some hope for him.

Who are you trying to convince here?  You can't even reply with a simple yes or no and yet you want to claim you know it all?  Why is it so hard for you to have a logical conversation? 

We're almost there.  All you have to tell me is yes or no.  Does your personal definition of the Scientific Method coenside with the generic definition.  If it does, we can actually move on!

You seem like someone that might actually be intelegent.  You just need to stop diving back into your comfort zone and take a chance.  If you'd feel more comfortable doing this through PM, I'm willing to do that. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is just frustrated that he cant come up with godsperm. He still confuses claims with evidence. Claims are like sphincters, everyone has one. Evidence is not backing up a claim with a claim. Maybe if he is lucky enough to figure that out, there will be some hope for him.

Who are you trying to convince here?  You can't even reply with a simple yes or no and yet you want to claim you know it all?  Why is it so hard for you to have a logical conversation? 

We're almost there.  All you have to tell me is yes or no.  Does your personal definition of the Scientific Method coenside with the generic definition.  If it does, we can actually move on!

You seem like someone that might actually be intelegent.  You just need to stop diving back into your comfort zone and take a chance.  If you'd feel more comfortable doing this through PM, I'm willing to do that. 

 

Is that pesky godsperm getting to you? You are so cute when your angrey.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
To talk about the

To talk about the immaterial, supernatural, spiritual world, omni gods, etc is talk of imagination and emotion. Most we humans innately and wrongly think we are special. We are only special due to our innate ignorance of our place and time on this "atomic speck of dust" we call earth.

All is one, and eternal, while nothing is actually special. Science is humbling, while reality is truly more awesome than we could have ever simply imagined. LOL


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yea... that

caposkia wrote:
yea... that was.. brhem... my point

Uuuuhh, no, you still don't get it. The entire micro/macro argument is based on ignorance, in that Creationists believe that a small dog can change into a big dog, but it can't change any more because it would be "changing too much." This video was simply an analogy to help people understand how evolution actually works, it doesn't morph animals by utilizing rare abominations, but through small changes. It didn't provide any actual evidence for evolution, but just to explain what the theory of evolution actually states. If you understood that, then why did you say,

caposkia wrote:
In fact, I really don't see the relevence.

And

caposkia wrote:
I know what he was trying to say, but it ranks up there with the croco-duck or whatever that was.

Let's see what else you came up with.

caposkia wrote:
See forum "science vs. religion" and find the links about 50,000 fossil species. Then ask me some questions.

Lol, where is the forum science vs. religion? Is it on this site? I'm lost. 

There's probably a treasure trove of links on RRS, but I'll waste my time anyways. I don't want to count up to 50,000, can u kount fo mei pweese? Have fun!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolites

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=7

Fish>amphibian. Definitely possible. http://www.bountyfishing.com/blog/images/mudskipper.jpg

Is a dog always a dog? Well, they used to be wolves. So, are wolves and chihuahuas part of the same species? Want to see a grey wolf mate with a chihuahua? http://jon-atkinson.com/Large%20Images/La_Grey_Wolf2.jpg

Scientific Creation, haha. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/overview/overview4.html

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=0006-3568&volume=051&issue=12&page=1037&ct=1 http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/afri.html

We have the fossils. We win.  If you want to see more, just ask. If you want to see the actual fossils, go to a nearby museum.

You don't even know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. You're one of the least informed people on this site, even about your own Bible. I don't know what questions I'm supposed to ask you. 

caposkia wrote:
It's obvious from your post that you don't understand the point of this forum.

Oh, scary assertion. What's the point of this forum? Enlighten me.

caposkia wrote:
That's what the dispensationalists want you to believe.

That's what the Bible says.

caposkia wrote:
Very general, depends on what your referencing to and what part of the OT you are talking about.

Okay, just for poops and giggles, let's look at something specific.

Leviticus 12:2-5 wrote:
Say to the Israelites: "A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be cermonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding."

caposkia wrote:
The Bible was written by people, not by God, therefore they wrote only what they knew. Mistakes? I guess if you want to call them that, but they are not detrimental to the existence of God or his following.

If they Bible was written by people and contains many mistakes, why do you believe in it? Furthermore, how do you know which parts are accurate. Also, you don't think Leviticus 12:2-5 has any effect on Christianity?

caposkia wrote:
Who said it cannot be researched by man??

You.

caposkia wrote:
Just because you can't accept some methods as research doesn't mean they don't follow the scientific method and cannot be accepted as credible research.

I accept history, science, logic, etc. What unacceptable methods are you referring to?

caposkia wrote:
Prayer may be a good start for you.

You think we can use prayer with the scientific method??? You're a fucking idiot. If scientists actually prayed to find evidence for God (and they don't because it's bullshit), God would be disproven overnight.  

I prayed for several YEARS trying to find God. Do you know what I discovered? I discovered that I wasted several years of my life! I'm not going to waste any more of it asking for guidance from an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, imaginary, white male that lives outside of our universe and encouraged the Israelites to go into cities and "kill everything that breathes," but to take all the virgins as loot so they can take them home and rape them while yelling "in the name of the Lord, praise Jesus. Help me take this infidel."

caposkia wrote:
It's clear that you don't care about the following of Jesus Christ

No shit, genius.

caposkia wrote:
and are obsessed with Churchianity.

Again, you assume that everyone who "actually follows Jesus" will believe the same things you do. Want to curse some fig trees? This is more than just a rift among denominations, but individuals.  

caposkia wrote:
Therefore don't waste any more of your time.

I will certainly not waste any more of my time worshipping imaginary deities, but I will never cease fighting those who dare to impose their lies upon me.

caposkia wrote:
Why use physical evidence to prove or disprove the non-physical?

Prayer 101. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:

And if you paid much attention to the site and his responses, you'd have already known his personal definition does not differ from the accepted definition.

It's my impression that if I don't get a clear answer from him, he's going to adjust his conclusion.  I want it written out so he can't change his mind later. 

Excess step not required. In my experience, it is a theist who will alter definitions halfway through an argument in order to survive his destruction. Not the atheist. And as for it being written out, look in a dictionary. You have wasted at least 10 posts on this stupidity, when none of it was even remotely necessary.

caposkia wrote:
yea, it does seem pretty obvious, but he can't just give me the answer and move on, he has to piss and moan (no anger intended here) about how he's right and I'm wrong and avoid what might reveal who knows truth. 

No. He knows that the definition is the definition, and that you are consistantly wasting time and effort on a question that is answered by a dictionary. You ignore this reality, and continue to waste time requesting a definition which is unalterable. I expect your next post to assert the same bullshit that all  of your posts have asserted. Accept reality, for ONCE, and move on already.

caposkia wrote:
Vastet wrote:

What is it with you theists and redefining things? The definition is the definition. We are not creating a language here, we're debating within the realms of science and mythology. Definitions are predetermined by a dictionary.

What is it with you non-believers ignoring the obvious. 

What is it with you theists resorting to lies when your arguments have collapsed into obscurity? 

caposkia wrote:
It's not the "definition" I was looking for now is it.

Yes, it is.

caposkia wrote:
  I was looking for his "personal" definition. 

And you are too brainless to figure out that his definition doesn't exist.

caposkia wrote:
 No one knows his personal definition except him.

Everyone knows it except you, apparently.

caposkia wrote:
  If it is exactly what the actual definition is, then good, we're on the same page and we can move on.  If not, then we know and we can move on from there. 

There is only one definition. Get that through your head.

caposkia wrote:

Are you trying to redefine the obvious?  I prefer sticking with what is actually said. 

*Slams head into wall*

caposkia wrote:

...and why when you get backed into a corner does the "redefining" excuse come out?  Do you see now why I need a clear cut answer?  I want to avoid all that. 

By the gaming gods. You really live in your own little world, don't you?

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Your inability to recognize reality is not helping.

...and you've helped in bringing no progress to the forum.  Thank you. 

Quit speaking to yourself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:daedalus

caposkia wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Cap, you would be much more effective if you prayed for people to understand your religion than actually write anything about it.  You are a poor spokesperson and knowing how useless prayer is, it would still be better than your meanderings.  But perhaps that's your goal?  To turn people away from Xians?

My goal was to talk about the topic of this forum.  wanna?

also, if you want more detail from me, research my other forums, then get back to me with questions.  I learned the hard way that speaking information on here without a specific basis is a huge mistake. 

 

Cap, you don't know anything about the topic of this forum or any other.  You appear to be an idiot, and ignorant as well.

 

Perhaps if you knew even the slightest fact about the world, or even a moderate amount of facts about your own religion or beliefs we could have a conversation.

 

Would you care to crack open a book?  Seriously, how about reading the Bible at least once?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Come on guys, don't be so

Come on guys, don't be so hard on Cap. It isn't his fault he thinks disimbodied brains exist and magically knock up girls and that human flesh magically survives rigor mortis.

You all don't understand how hard it is to give up a fictitious security blanket.

(NOTE TO CAP: Still waiting for that Godsperm)

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Is that

Brian37 wrote:

 

Is that pesky godsperm getting to you? You are so cute when your angrey.

Why do you keep thinking I"m angry? You really don't read what I write do you.