Boy, Howdy!

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Boy, Howdy!

I'm new to this sort of group, so please be patient should I deviate from what is expected of me. My name is David Henson and I am a theist. I'm always looking for good discussion and have to admit that the argumentative side of me as well as an appreciation of at least some knowledge on the subject of the Bible leads me more often than not to the atheist Rather than the theist realm of discussion and debate.

I should probably point out how I may differ from what the atheists tend to expect from a theist. I was raised an atheist and in an attempt to debunk the Bible I began to study it carefully and became a believer. I hate organized religion. Religion always transmogrifies the original teachings. Taoism or Christianity (2 Timothy 4:3-4) I have read many "sacred" texts from various religions. The Dhammapada, Four Noble Truths, Analects of Confucius, Bhagavad-Gita, Quran, Pirque Aboth, Nihongi, Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, etc.

My beliefs could be most accurately described as being very familiar (though not completely in line with) the Jehovah's Witnesses, because they know their Bible pretty good and removed all of the pagan influences. Hell, cross, trinity, immortal soul, Christmas, Easter, rapture, etc.

Since July I have been working on a website called The Pathway Machine which is a response to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

I hope we can have some stimulating conversation and that you are not too put off by my appalling sense of grammar.

 

The Pathway Machine


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I have more

Personally, I have more respect for pagan beliefs then I do for Christianity.  I don't really think either of them is correct, but at least the pagans I have know are a lot more funSmiling.  

 

edit:  Oops, I forgot to say hi.  Hi, hope you have fun here, and maybe learn something to. 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Well, Rat Dog, most of the

Well, Rat Dog, most of the bullshit of Christendom comes from the pagans. Not that correctness is an issue there unless you try and compare those teachings with the Bible. More fun? I'm a drummer in a hard / classic rock band. I have met a few pagans in my day and I would say that they are generally nice but a somewhat timid if not somber lot. When I was in jail for the third time I met a guy who claimed to be a pagan but I think he was just an idiot.

I like some of the things that you might like. Frank Herbert, Douglas Adams, Berkely Breathed, Monty Python, Black Sabbath.

However . . . I do rather fancy myself as having the intellectual capacity of Winnie The Pooh and when it comes to fun I'm as dry as toast. Still. You never know.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5099
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
Nice to meet you, David.

David Henson wrote:

Well, Rat Dog, most of the bullshit of Christendom comes from the pagans. Not that correctness is an issue there unless you try and compare those teachings with the Bible. More fun? I'm a drummer in a hard / classic rock band. I have met a few pagans in my day and I would say that they are generally nice but a somewhat timid if not somber lot. When I was in jail for the third time I met a guy who claimed to be a pagan but I think he was just an idiot.

I like some of the things that you might like. Frank Herbert, Douglas Adams, Berkely Breathed, Monty Python, Black Sabbath.

However . . . I do rather fancy myself as having the intellectual capacity of Winnie The Pooh and when it comes to fun I'm as dry as toast. Still. You never know.

I hope by the bullshit of the pagans you're not just taking a swipe at symbology and numerology and are including such noted horseshit as all miracles, rising from the dead, living for eternity, the existence of a soul, a general belief in spirits, a belief in satan and demons, and the existence of an invisible anthropomorphic deity no one has ever seen who lives in a resplendent separate dimension whose properties are utterly beyond our comprehension yet whose streets are paved with gold?

I feel quite confident that you'll enjoy entertainment and vigorous argument here. Feel free to engage in off-topic threads as well. Most theists (there's a short list of admirable exceptions) don't seem to want to socialise with the forces of evil, which is a shame given a lot of the fun happens when we stop shouting about the lord of hosts and start talking about sex. 

I'm sure we all agree pagan is a derogatory term that like heathen, was an attempt by the early church to put down those who have different and usually local religious beliefs. There was obviously no single pagan religion but any gaia-loving animist tree-hugger could legitimately lay claim to the title if they chose. Pagan just means regional/rural - uneducated might be the best interpretation - uncivilised.  

Funnily enough, if you stormed into a undamaged 'pagan' society today armed to the teeth with bibles, bullshit and smallpox, there would be an international outcry, and justly so.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I find it amusing that

I find it amusing that theists sometimes come here and in their first post say "Please don't hurt me".

It is sooooo cute.

I only speak for myself here. My guess with the admins and owner of this site is they pretty much take a hands off approach. So unless you are trolling, threatening violence, or obtusely preaching, the worst anyone here will do is say "you are full of it".

No we wont hurt you, although some of us have more patience than others. I don't have that much patience with certain arguments. I am much more blunt and blasphemous than others here. You will find a diverse group of people here. Just treat us all as individuals, because although we share the same label, beyond that we are diverse in our thinking, tactics, politics ect ect ect.

My advice to you, or any theist coming here is not to take it personally. We can and do separate the individual, from what the individual claims. We do not hate you for being a theist. If you cant prove what you claim, we merely wont adapt your position.

We wont give you cooties. We don't want a Hitler type fascist state. We won't BBQ your kittens. We simply find the concept of a magical super being absurd as a claim.

I like to take the verbal gloves off, others here like the library approach. We do want you here, but the longer your stay depends on YOU not taking things personally.

WELCOME

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a virgin to throw into a volcano.

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And BTW "I used to be" is a

And BTW "I used to be" is a bad argument. Many of us here "used to be" Christians. Labels don't prove anything. People go from one position to another all the time, all over the world. All that proves is that a person changed their position.

 

"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


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
I hope by the bullshit of the pagans you're not just taking a swipe at symbology and numerology and are including such noted horseshit as all miracles, rising from the dead, living for eternity, the existence of a soul, a general belief in spirits, a belief in satan and demons, and the existence of an invisible anthropomorphic deity no one has ever seen who lives in a resplendent separate dimension whose prorties are utterly beyond our comprehension yet whose streets are paved with gold?

 

The soul, according to the Bible is the blood or the life of any breathing creature. Aristotle and Plato's view of the immortal soul differs somewhat from the more practical application of the Bible, but influenced the apostate church. The Greek pneuma, from which we derive the English pneumonia and pneumatic, is not only translated spirit, but also wind, breeze, breath. It is, in a sense, any invisible active force producing results. Spirit creatures, such as Satan (meaning resister) the Devil (meaning slanderer) can't be simply dismissed because science knows little of them. [Glances at your signature]

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
I feel quite confident that you'll enjoy entertainment and vigorous argument here. Feel free to engage in off-topic threads as well. Most theists (there's a short list of admirable exceptions) don't seem to want to socialise with the forces of evil, which is a shame given a lot of the fun happens when we stop shouting about the lord of hosts and start talking about sex. 

Evil? The Hebrew ra, translated evil, means calamity through justice. Doesn't sound as fun, though, does it? Of course, Jehovah God created evil. I'm no more or less evil than anyone here.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
I'm sure we all agree pagan is a derogatory term that like heathen, was an attempt by the early church to put down those who have different and usually local religious beliefs. There was obviously no single pagan religion but any gaia-loving animist tree-hugger could legitimately lay claim to the title if they chose. Pagan just means regional/rural - uneducated might be the best interpretation - uncivilised. 

Well, there is the common use of a word and then the more educated use. Most people think of pagans as goth.  I'm impressed that you can tell the difference, you don't see that on the "message boards" I am accustomed to. Yes, to the Romans the Christians were pagan and to the Christians the Romans were pagan. It basically means "outside of." The teachings I mentioned are outside of the original Christian teachings.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
Funnily enough, if you stormed into a undamaged 'pagan' society today armed to the teeth with bibles, bullshit and smallpox, there would be an international outcry, and justly so.

 

Times have changed and we change with them. Nice hateful rant AE, very impressive . . . thanks for the welcome.

 

 

 

 

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I find it

Brian37 wrote:

I find it amusing that theists sometimes come here and in their first post say "Please don't hurt me".

It is sooooo cute.

Interesting. I thought my intro was somewhat more antagonistic. You're not trying to take the fun out of it for me, are you? Maybe I'm a little sensitive, I've been banned from Atheist Forums and The SAB in just the last month. I used to think that Atheists were more open minded and capable of debate. How naive of me.

Brian37 wrote:
I only speak for myself here. My guess with the admins and owner of this site is they pretty much take a hands off approach. So unless you are trolling, threatening violence, or obtusely preaching, the worst anyone here will do is say "you are full of it".

No we wont hurt you, although some of us have more patience than others. I don't have that much patience with certain arguments. I am much more blunt and blasphemous than others here. You will find a diverse group of people here. Just treat us all as individuals, because although we share the same label, beyond that we are diverse in our thinking, tactics, politics ect ect ect.

My advice to you, or any theist coming here is not to take it personally. We can and do separate the individual, from what the individual claims. We do not hate you for being a theist. If you cant prove what you claim, we merely wont adapt your position.

We wont give you cooties. We don't want a Hitler type fascist state. We won't BBQ your kittens. We simply find the concept of a magical super being absurd as a claim.

I like to take the verbal gloves off, others here like the library approach. We do want you here, but the longer your stay depends on YOU not taking things personally.

WELCOME

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a virgin to throw into a volcano.

I have heard all of this before and know it to be absolute bullshit, but thanks. I do appreciate it.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And BTW "I

Brian37 wrote:

And BTW "I used to be" is a bad argument. Many of us here "used to be" Christians. Labels don't prove anything. People go from one position to another all the time, all over the world. All that proves is that a person changed their position.

 

Yes, yes, I know, but it is nevertheless a fact that I was raised as, not so much the politically / socially frustrated militant atheist, but irrelegious. I attended a church once when I was about 5 or 6 years old and before the show started had told the preacher to go to hell and ran 8 or 9 blocks home in the rain. Never went back. Atheists that I have talked to are usually bitter ex-Christians who know more now about the Bible than they did then. What they could have possibly expected out of it they didn't bother to look for or they wouldn't have fallen for it in the first place. I knew better at 5 or 6. C'mon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Brian37

David Henson wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I find it amusing that theists sometimes come here and in their first post say "Please don't hurt me".

It is sooooo cute.

Interesting. I thought my intro was somewhat more antagonistic. You're not trying to take the fun out of it for me, are you? Maybe I'm a little sensitive, I've been banned from Atheist Forums and The SAB in just the last month. I used to think that Atheists were more open minded and capable of debate. How naive of me.

I don't think you'll find the same result here.  I believe we haven't blocked a single theist in over a year (sans spammers and stalkers).  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I don't think

Sapient wrote:

I don't think you'll find the same result here.  I believe we haven't blocked a single theist in over a year (sans spammers and stalkers).  

I hope that is true, though when you say spammer I cringe. I was banned at one of those places for posting a positive review of the first two chapters of Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker, by the administrator who had asked me to do so and had that week posted my article Hell on his own blog. I had given no other reason for being banned and he took some heat by most of his regular posters.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5099
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
No personal hate intended, David.

David Henson wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
I hope by the bullshit of the pagans you're not just taking a swipe at symbology and numerology and are including such noted horseshit as all miracles, rising from the dead, living for eternity, the existence of a soul, a general belief in spirits, a belief in satan and demons, and the existence of an invisible anthropomorphic deity no one has ever seen who lives in a resplendent separate dimension whose prorties are utterly beyond our comprehension yet whose streets are paved with gold?

 

The soul, according to the Bible is the blood or the life of any breathing creature. Aristotle and Plato's view of the immortal soul differs somewhat from the more practical application of the Bible, but influenced the apostate church. The Greek pneuma, from which we derive the English pneumonia and pneumatic, is not only translated spirit, but also wind, breeze, breath. It is, in a sense, any invisible active force producing results. Spirit creatures, such as Satan (meaning resister) the Devil (meaning slanderer) can't be simply dismissed because science knows little of them. [Glances at your signature]

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
I feel quite confident that you'll enjoy entertainment and vigorous argument here. Feel free to engage in off-topic threads as well. Most theists (there's a short list of admirable exceptions) don't seem to want to socialise with the forces of evil, which is a shame given a lot of the fun happens when we stop shouting about the lord of hosts and start talking about sex. 

Evil? The Hebrew ra, translated evil, means calamity through justice. Doesn't sound as fun, though, does it? Of course, Jehovah God created evil. I'm no more or less evil than anyone here.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
I'm sure we all agree pagan is a derogatory term that like heathen, was an attempt by the early church to put down those who have different and usually local religious beliefs. There was obviously no single pagan religion but any gaia-loving animist tree-hugger could legitimately lay claim to the title if they chose. Pagan just means regional/rural - uneducated might be the best interpretation - uncivilised. 

Well, there is the common use of a word and then the more educated use. Most people think of pagans as goth.  I'm impressed that you can tell the difference, you don't see that on the "message boards" I am accustomed to. Yes, to the Romans the Christians were pagan and to the Christians the Romans were pagan. It basically means "outside of." The teachings I mentioned are outside of the original Christian teachings.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
Funnily enough, if you stormed into a undamaged 'pagan' society today armed to the teeth with bibles, bullshit and smallpox, there would be an international outcry, and justly so.

 

Times have changed and we change with them. Nice hateful rant AE, very impressive . . . thanks for the welcome.

 

But I am defensive when it comes to theism's endless attempts to take the moral high ground and/or hold a lake of fire to our throats - which I know you're not doing but it colours my tone. I'm an evangelical preacher's son and I'm hostile to fundamentalist

christianity. You either accept it or you hate it as a preacher's kid. Mum and Dad got the other four over the line so I guess they'll be prancing around the backyard of their heavenly Mc'Mansion singing christmas carols anytime soon.

My sig isn't meant to be a subtle acceptance satan exists but an insistence that if christians believe god sent jesus to die for us then they have to admit he also sent satan to deceive us - and sent him before the fall. Personally I think the mythology of Genesis is

ridiculous but I'd like christians to admit this, too.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


free_thinker
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Science

Welcome,

I am just curious about your stance on modern science:

What is your opinion of evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, age of the earth, ect.? How do you justify it.?

Also, do you follow "Bible Science"?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the site!So I go

Welcome to the site!

So I go to The Pathway Machine and click the "What the Bible Says About" link. Right off the bat it is factually inaccurate. I couldn't get even one sentence into that website without running into factual inaccuracy. Have better standards than that.

 

"I can't understand how the SAB could have come to the conclusion that Exodus 21:22-23 would imply that abortion is not murder and that the fetus is not considered a human life. This is not in harmony with scripture and in fact is a gross misunderstanding on the part of the SAB."

 

Book of Exodus
   Chapter 21
21:22 - In Context | Read Chapter | Discuss this Verse ]
Multi-Translation | Make Poster ]
If men contend with each other, and a pregnant woman [interfering] is hurt so that she has a miscarriage, yet no further damage follows, [the one who hurt her] shall surely be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman's husband, as much as the judges determine.

If you cause a woman to miscarriage, you pay a fine. That is (in modern context) legally on the same level as a parking violation. You sure that the SAB people are the ones with the gross misunderstanding? Are you sure that you aren't trying to shoe-horn your modern sensibilities into a text written by semetic herdsmen who don't have a morality system even remotely similar to ours?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Welcome

Jormungander wrote:

Welcome to the site!

So I go to The Pathway Machine and click the "What the Bible Says About" link. Right off the bat it is factually inaccurate. I couldn't get even one sentence into that website without running into factual inaccuracy. Have better standards than that.

 

"I can't understand how the SAB could have come to the conclusion that Exodus 21:22-23 would imply that abortion is not murder and that the fetus is not considered a human life. This is not in harmony with scripture and in fact is a gross misunderstanding on the part of the SAB."

 

Book of Exodus
   Chapter 21
21:22 - In Context | Read Chapter | Discuss this Verse ]
Multi-Translation | Make Poster ]
If men contend with each other, and a pregnant woman [interfering] is hurt so that she has a miscarriage, yet no further damage follows, [the one who hurt her] shall surely be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman's husband, as much as the judges determine.

If you cause a woman to miscarriage, you pay a fine. That is (in modern context) legally on the same level as a parking violation. You sure that the SAB people are the ones with the gross misunderstanding? Are you sure that you aren't trying to shoe-horn your modern sensibilities into a text written by semetic herdsmen who don't have a morality system even remotely similar to ours?

I was just about to do that, Jormangunder, you beat me to it..

David I second this, the skeptics bible pretty clearly has it right -- and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: -- quite obviously refers to the loss of the unborn child being the only injury sustained.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the welcome,

Thanks for the welcome, Tapey.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:But I

Atheistextremist wrote:

But I am defensive when it comes to theism's endless attempts to take the moral high ground and/or hold a lake of fire to our throats - which I know you're not doing but it colours my tone. I'm an evangelical preacher's son and I'm hostile to fundamentalist

christianity. You either accept it or you hate it as a preacher's kid. Mum and Dad got the other four over the line so I guess they'll be prancing around the backyard of their heavenly Mc'Mansion singing christmas carols anytime soon.

My sig isn't meant to be a subtle acceptance satan exists but an insistence that if christians believe god sent jesus to die for us then they have to admit he also sent satan to deceive us - and sent him before the fall. Personally I think the mythology of Genesis is

ridiculous but I'd like christians to admit this, too.

Interesting. I normally think of the Preacher's son as being the, what? Extremist. Alice Cooper, Mick Marrs a couple of the kids I grew up with in the midwestern united state. I don't know if it is true in a general sense, but I always think that the closer to the inner workings of fundamentalism a person is during the formative years the more likely they are to see how that actually is without the pretense and they leave it only to come back when they have a familial structure taking root. It is a traditional or cultural thing. What do you think of that? Of the other four was that the case?

I hate fundamentalist christianity myself, perhaps more than most atheists because it feeds upon its own waste, even though some atheists are the scraps that remain. It takes something good and fucks it up in pretense. That is how I see it, anyway.

At Numbers 22:22 the Hebrew word satan first appears scripture in application to a righteous angel of God because the angel resisted Balaam. A different angel who would  later be known by that name, Satan was put in the garden to protect the first human couple in a paradise in the midst of a hostile creation. (Ezekiel 28:12-14) I don't think that Satan was sent to deceive us or that Genesis is mythology.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Sapient

David Henson wrote:

Sapient wrote:

I don't think you'll find the same result here.  I believe we haven't blocked a single theist in over a year (sans spammers and stalkers).  

I hope that is true, though when you say spammer I cringe. I was banned at one of those places for posting a positive review of the first two chapters of Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker, by the administrator who had asked me to do so and had that week posted my article Hell on his own blog. I had given no other reason for being banned and he took some heat by most of his regular posters.

I think Captain Pineapple, Caposkia and Paisley and Eloise are all theists who have been here long term who can attest that our bark has nothing to do with hate, but pragmatism. They are theists who have stuck it out and whom we enjoy having here, even if they make us go bald pulling our hair out.

You wont be banned for merely saying something someone thinks is "bullshit".

"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


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Welcome

Jormungander wrote:

Welcome to the site!

So I go to The Pathway Machine and click the "What the Bible Says About" link. Right off the bat it is factually inaccurate. I couldn't get even one sentence into that website without running into factual inaccuracy. Have better standards than that.

 

"I can't understand how the SAB could have come to the conclusion that Exodus 21:22-23 would imply that abortion is not murder and that the fetus is not considered a human life. This is not in harmony with scripture and in fact is a gross misunderstanding on the part of the SAB."

 

Book of Exodus
   Chapter 21
21:22 - In Context | Read Chapter | Discuss this Verse ]
Multi-Translation | Make Poster ]
If men contend with each other, and a pregnant woman [interfering] is hurt so that she has a miscarriage, yet no further damage follows, [the one who hurt her] shall surely be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman's husband, as much as the judges determine.

If you cause a woman to miscarriage, you pay a fine. That is (in modern context) legally on the same level as a parking violation. You sure that the SAB people are the ones with the gross misunderstanding? Are you sure that you aren't trying to shoe-horn your modern sensibilities into a text written by semetic herdsmen who don't have a morality system even remotely similar to ours?

 

Did you read further where some versions were influenced by Josephus who was in turn influenced by the Pharisees of his day. They reflect poorly the Hebrew which translates, from righ to left.

strike they and ,men contend when And
,child her forth goes and ,pregnant woman a
,fined be shall he surely ;injury is not and
of husband the him upon put may as
.judges the with give shall he and ,woman the
soul give shalt thou (and) ,is injury if And
,soul for

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I think

Brian37 wrote:

I think Captain Pineapple, Caposkia and Paisley and Eloise are all theists who have been here long term

I believe the Cap no longer identifies as theist, Brian, You guys have turned her to the dark side... damn you all and your damned delicious cookies Sticking out tongue !!!

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:I was just

Eloise wrote:

I was just about to do that, Jormangunder, you beat me to it..

David I second this, the skeptics bible pretty clearly has it right -- and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: -- quite obviously refers to the loss of the unborn child being the only injury sustained.

 

I find it interesting that you take on what seems to me a different perspective than Jormangunder in that you use the word depart in a similar way as the SAB, using the KJV. A plane departs meaning it leaves, the child being born departs from her in this sense. The child isn't departed in death. The fact that ason means fatal accident as well as the absence of the Hebrew lah meaning "to her" gives one no choice but to conclude the SAB was wrong.  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I think

Brian37 wrote:

I think Captain Pineapple, Caposkia and Paisley and Eloise are all theists who have been here long term who can attest that our bark has nothing to do with hate, but pragmatism. They are theists who have stuck it out and whom we enjoy having here, even if they make us go bald pulling our hair out.

You wont be banned for merely saying something someone thinks is "bullshit".

 

Thanks Brian, I'm glad to hear it, and won't be at all offended to be told what I think is bullshit as well. I am, above all else, fair. Like your signature, by the way. In fact looking around I have to say I have never seen a more interesting bunch of them.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Eloise

David Henson wrote:

Eloise wrote:

I was just about to do that, Jormangunder, you beat me to it..

David I second this, the skeptics bible pretty clearly has it right -- and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: -- quite obviously refers to the loss of the unborn child being the only injury sustained.

 

I find it interesting that you take on what seems to me a different perspective than Jormangunder in that you use the word depart in a similar way as the SAB, using the KJV. A plane departs meaning it leaves, the child being born departs from her in this sense. The child isn't departed in death. The fact that ason means fatal accident as well as the absence of the Hebrew lah meaning "to her" gives one no choice but to conclude the SAB was wrong.  

How is it you're sure in your assumption that the implied injury refers to the infant as well?

Why would one assume there was any survival of premature births thousands of years ago. Even today, with all the spoils of medical technology at our disposal we can't presume the survival chances premature baby, so what reason could the writer of Exodus possibly have to presume a premature birth forced by trauma would be live? 

In the domain of possibility, your assumption is way out on a limb (in typical apologetic fashion).

So I reaffirm, IMHO, the skeptics have this one right.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
free_thinker wrote:Welcome,I

free_thinker wrote:

Welcome,

I am just curious about your stance on modern science:

What is your opinion of evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, age of the earth, ect.? How do you justify it.?

Also, do you follow "Bible Science"?

 

I'm not a scientist I am a theist. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to science, I have to be honest, I was never interested in it. I don't believe in evolution, in fact I find it rather poor science (keeping in mind that I have already said I don't know much about science) I can say that the Bible doesn't give any indication of the age of the earth so whatever science concludes regarding the matter is fine with me. I can say that the YEC is as poor theology as it is science. I have never heard the term Bible Science. I think there are probably 2 real conflicts with science and the Bible and that is with evolution and the global deluge.

I don't get hung up on science, though. Some in the atheist community have a sort of science agenda thinking they have to get theology out of the way to promote free thinking in order to advance science and I think that is pretty irresponsible. It is much like the decline of religion who tried the same thing. The thought of "Creationism" or the Bible being taught in public education makes me shudder, but I have very little faith in public education.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:How is it

Eloise wrote:

How is it you're sure in your assumption that the implied injury refers to the infant as well?

Why would one assume there was any survival of premature births thousands of years ago. Even today, with all the spoils of medical technology at our disposal we can't presume the survival chances premature baby, so what reason could the writer of Exodus possibly have to presume a premature birth forced by trauma would be live? 

In the domain of possibility, your assumption is way out on a limb (in typical apologetic fashion).

So I reaffirm, IMHO, the skeptics have this one right.

 

Well, now wait a minute, perhaps this is a discussion about something other than trying to figure out what was originally meant? The issue of abortion, from my perspective, is contextual - outside of any sort of moral or societal dictation. That is very important for me to point out. The ancient Hebrews had the Law which we are talking about which was regarding accidental abortion which applied only to the Jews of that time and now the Christians are up in arms about abortion which is a totally different political issue. I'm an apolitical person. Abortion isn't a concern for me on a political or social level.

 

Having said that what reason do I have for the conclusion I have drawn. The Hebrew word ason which means mortal accident in application to both the child as well as the infant as is indicated by the absence of the Hebrew lah which means "to her."

 

It is obviously meant as a fatal accident to the mother / and or the infant upon delivery.  


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5099
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
Naw, David.

David Henson wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

But I am defensive when it comes to theism's endless attempts to take the moral high ground and/or hold a lake of fire to our throats - which I know you're not doing but it colours my tone. I'm an evangelical preacher's son and I'm hostile to fundamentalist

christianity. You either accept it or you hate it as a preacher's kid. Mum and Dad got the other four over the line so I guess they'll be prancing around the backyard of their heavenly Mc'Mansion singing christmas carols anytime soon.

My sig isn't meant to be a subtle acceptance satan exists but an insistence that if christians believe god sent jesus to die for us then they have to admit he also sent satan to deceive us - and sent him before the fall. Personally I think the mythology of Genesis is

ridiculous but I'd like christians to admit this, too.

Interesting. I normally think of the Preacher's son as being the, what? Extremist. Alice Cooper, Mick Marrs a couple of the kids I grew up with in the midwestern united state. I don't know if it is true in a general sense, but I always think that the closer to the inner workings of fundamentalism a person is during the formative years the more likely they are to see how that actually is without the pretense and they leave it only to come back when they have a familial structure taking root. It is a traditional or cultural thing. What do you think of that? Of the other four was that the case?

I hate fundamentalist christianity myself, perhaps more than most atheists because it feeds upon its own waste, even though some atheists are the scraps that remain. It takes something good and fucks it up in pretense. That is how I see it, anyway.

At Numbers 22:22 the Hebrew word satan first appears scripture in application to a righteous angel of God because the angel resisted Balaam. A different angel who would  later be known by that name, Satan was put in the garden to protect the first human couple in a paradise in the midst of a hostile creation. (Ezekiel 28:12-14) I don't think that Satan was sent to deceive us or that Genesis is mythology.

 

I'm gone from the lord for good. I wasn't alive until I shed my theistic skin which was probably an extended process beginning in my teens. It was something I did pretty much on my own and into the teeth of my family's resistance, though they would tell you it was me who kept bringing it up. It simply made no sense to me and my brain would not be forced into accepting dogma under threat.

Perhaps some of my brothers and sisters weakened their faiths in the transitional 20s and then bedded down again in the 30s but it's not something I could do. I think I lack spirituality/faith/trust. I simply want to know. If I can't know I'll wait to find out. I don't want to sell out on my most reverberating questions. I refuse to accept that my position, which is ultimately a rejection of god, can be described as the greatest sin. As for the moral issues, it's clear to me that none of my siblings are any more upright than I am. In fact as the middle of five I'm far more prone to unthinking generosity than they are, despite all the praying they're doing.

I hope you'll understand it when I say Balaam sounds like something from a New Zealander's breakfast menu.

I am unable to interpret satan's lying to eve in the garden as some sort of fence sitting from a benign angelic protector. God cursed satan for what he had done in the aftermath of eve's snack which suggests satan had done wrong in luring her to eat a celestially encyclopedic  pomegranate in the first place.

We're going to have to disagree on the Genesis mythology. But my mum believes in Noah's Ark so it's no great effort to excuse genesis belief. Incidentally, given there are some serious propellerheads on these boards, I'd suggest you're about to get a crash course in scientific thinking which might be rather fun.

At best it will strengthen your own beliefs and at worst it will strengthen your faith.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Well, now

David Henson wrote:

Well, now wait a minute, perhaps this is a discussion about something other than trying to figure out what was originally meant?

I don't know where you're getting that from. I'm talking abut your interpretation of the text, nothing more, and your interpretation is, in my opinion, underlined by an appeal to extreme possibility. For that reason, your argument is weak.

David Henson wrote:

Having said that what reason do I have for the conclusion I have drawn. The Hebrew word ason which means mortal accident in application to both the child as well as the infant as is indicated by the absence of the Hebrew lah which means "to her."

 

You already said this, I was asking if you had more than that to go on.

So it would seem you're just assuming it applies to the unborn infant. There is no direct reference to the condition of the child other than it was forced delivered by a violent incident.

If there is anything presumable in this scenario it is surely that noone would reasonably expect a live birth.

David Henson wrote:

It is obviously meant as a fatal accident to the mother / and or the infant upon delivery.  

But that's just my point, it's not obviously referring to the infant upon delivery, that needs to be assumed by you and frankly I think your grounds for assuming it are quite shallow.

Oh and PS: On your page you've said the direct translation reads left to right, I believe you meant right to left, yes?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I'm not a

David Henson wrote:

I'm not a scientist I am a theist. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to science, I have to be honest, I was never interested in it. I don't believe in evolution, in fact I find it rather poor science (keeping in mind that I have already said I don't know much about science) I can say that the Bible doesn't give any indication of the age of the earth so whatever science concludes regarding the matter is fine with me. I can say that the YEC is as poor theology as it is science. I have never heard the term Bible Science. I think there are probably 2 real conflicts with science and the Bible and that is with evolution and the global deluge.

Learning how science works, what it is, and why it's important were the biggest factors that initially led me away from god.  I think you are doing yourself a disservice to get so heavily involved in theism without making a bigger effort to understand science and what it can teach us about where we came from.  Two things you'd find at the end of the tunnel are that evolution has an overwhelming amount of data to back it, and there is no evidence for a global flood. 

 

Quote:

Some in the atheist community have a sort of science agenda thinking they have to get theology out of the way to promote free thinking in order to advance science and I think that is pretty irresponsible.

I don't know anyone that thinks like that.  Maybe you're confused and projecting a bizarro argument that Christians present.  It's Christians attempting to insert intelligent design into science classes that is irresponsible.  We don't have to push theology out of the way, it already is out of the way.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I'm not a

David Henson wrote:

I'm not a scientist I am a theist. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to science, I have to be honest, I was never interested in it. I don't believe in evolution, in fact I find it rather poor science (keeping in mind that I have already said I don't know much about science)

Let me show you how this sounds to me:

I'm not a bible scholar I am an atheist.  I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to the bible, I have to be honest, I was never interested in it.  I believe the bible portrays Jesus as gay, in fact I think there is a great deal of support for this (keeping in mind that I have already said I don't know that much about the bible)


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I'm

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'm gone from the lord for good. I wasn't alive until I shed my theistic skin which was probably an extended process beginning in my teens. It was something I did pretty much on my own and into the teeth of my family's resistance, though they would tell you it was me who kept bringing it up. It simply made no sense to me and my brain would not be forced into accepting dogma under threat.

I respect that. The real objective of true Christianity isn't to "convert," I don't even like that term. Spirituality is a personal responsibility, and the true Christian simply offers a seed for another to take or reject, keeping in mind that most will reject it. It was a decision I had to make for myself, and you have made yours.  

Atheistextremist wrote:
Perhaps some of my brothers and sisters weakened their faiths in the transitional 20s and then bedded down again in the 30s but it's not something I could do. I think I lack spirituality/faith/trust. I simply want to know. If I can't know I'll wait to find out. I don't want to sell out on my most reverberating questions. I refuse to accept that my position, which is ultimately a rejection of god, can be described as the greatest sin. As for the moral issues, it's clear to me that none of my siblings are any more upright than I am. In fact as the middle of five I'm far more prone to unthinking generosity than they are, despite all the praying they're doing.

I really don't get the Christian / moral issues. As I've said here elsewhere I think that it is more a cultural / traditional xenophobia out of ignorance. Each society we live in at that specific time creates its own morals for its society to accept or evolve. Judging one from the perspective of another in comparison seems pointless to me. The Christian society has its own morals and those outside of Christianity have theirs. It should be left at that, but I think that both sides are critical of the other.  

Atheistextremist wrote:
I hope you'll understand it when I say Balaam sounds like something from a New Zealander's breakfast menu.

I don't know of this New Zealander of which you speak - is that Ben Stiller? Dreadful stuff, that. Oddly enough though, whether or not you are aware of it, the Hebrew Balaam possibly means "One swallowing down."

Atheistextremist wrote:
I am unable to interpret satan's lying to eve in the garden as some sort of fence sitting from a benign angelic protector. God cursed satan for what he had done in the aftermath of eve's snack which suggests satan had done wrong in luring her to eat a celestially encyclopedic  pomegranate in the first place.

I don't think that there is a more misunderstood portion of the Bible. Satan did deceive Eve and was wrong in doing so. The tree of knowledge was a representation of God's sovereignty. The tree of the knowledge of good and bad is just that, the decision of Adam, who was steward over the Earth, deciding for himself what was good and what was bad rather than listening to God's advice and protection. They got to "know" as in to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad. In doing this the only knowledge they gained was an experience of what was bad. Death as opposed to everlasting life. This isn't, as skeptics often misunderstand it, some knowledge which God withheld from man because God had no personal firsthand knowledge of it. God had to remove himself from this sin to an extent because he couldn't condone it.

Atheistextremist wrote:
We're going to have to disagree on the Genesis mythology. But my mum believes in Noah's Ark so it's no great effort to excuse genesis belief. Incidentally, given there are some serious propellerheads on these boards, I'd suggest you're about to get a crash course in scientific thinking which might be rather fun.

Your mode of speech is sometimes difficult for me to follow, Earthling man. What is this "propellerheads?"

Atheistextremist wrote:
At best it will strengthen your own beliefs and at worst it will strengthen your faith.

I understood that.

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5099
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
Propellerheads

 

Are science and technology nuts. You'll know when you've met one by the feel of their quantum foam.

For Balaam read Baa Lamb - New Zealand is a small country in the south pacific with volcanic soil and a coastal maritime climate which combine to provide lush pasture for one of the world's largest and tastiest flocks of baa lambs.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Eloise,Sorry it took so long

Eloise,

Sorry it took so long to respond. I actually made a response and didn't realize that I had lost my internet connection until I had already clicked Post and was so upset I had to lie down before I stroked.

 

I really don't understand how you could say that my interpretation is assumption, extreme possibility and a weak argument when you seem to offer nothing more than opinion as an alternative. Here are the points I have offered on my website which you have read as well as my posts to you. I know you have already heard it but it is all I have and enough, I think.

1. Exodus 21:22-23 plainly states that a pregnant woman is being considered. How can you consider it to be an exclusive application to the woman when the verse is talking about specifically a pregnant woman and the delivery of the child, especially when I have told you that the Hebrew ason meaning fatal accident is used and the Hebrew lah, which means "to her" is not used if it is in application to only the mother?

 

2. Some translations like the RSV uses the term miscarriage but is influenced by Josephus and the Pharisees of his day rather than the actual Hebrew text. The Septuagint, which Josephus almost always used says that if the woman should miscary the man should pay a penalty, but it doesn't specify what that should be and we have to take into account that the Septuagint is more often than not not as accurate as the Masoretic text.

 

PS - Thanks for pointing out my error on my website. I must have read that a dozen or more times and didn't catch it. I have changed it.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Learning how

Sapient wrote:

Learning how science works, what it is, and why it's important were the biggest factors that initially led me away from god.  I think you are doing yourself a disservice to get so heavily involved in theism without making a bigger effort to understand science and what it can teach us about where we came from.  Two things you'd find at the end of the tunnel are that evolution has an overwhelming amount of data to back it, and there is no evidence for a global flood. 

Everyone in my life is an atheist with the single exception of my mother. When I was younger she was atheist. No one I know believes in evolution or cares for science. They are mostly into music or politics. I know that there happens to be people who are respected in their field of science and are theists, in fact I can name you a half or dozen who are Jehovah's Witnesses and believe very nearly the same theology as myself. I have also had discussions with a few atheists who were theists and like you abandoned it for science. Do you think you had to choose or that perhaps you are more informed about science than you were God?

I can tell you this for sure. If Jehovah God came down to me and transported me through space and time to show me all of the things that science can only speculate about I would be bored within 15 minutes. It just isn't my thing. I don't care about it. Maybe that is the way you are with theology. To each his own. I would logically think you are missing out and you would think that I were missing out.

Sapient wrote:
I don't know anyone that thinks like that.  Maybe you're confused and projecting a bizarro argument that Christians present.  It's Christians attempting to insert intelligent design into science classes that is irresponsible.  We don't have to push theology out of the way, it already is out of the way. 

Hmm . . . well, 99% of creationism is as poor theology as it is science, and I don't at all like the idea of the Bible and creation account being dictated, indoctrinated - spoon fed, if you will - to a bunch of disinterested children to make me think the future is so bright I have to wear shades. However, on the other hand I see a dogmatism in your words and think that you think your approved science is the unquestionable truth and all others should be dismissed. As much as I don't like Creationism - intelligent design as it is propagated, I see it as no less certain that your own propaganda. It is just a matter of how you look at it. Still - having said that, I would rather the Church of Richard Dawkins be taught in science classes as I have alluded to above than have some bastardized version of the Bible being taught by bored arrogant underpaid armchair scientists. Christendom has done enough damage, thank you.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:David Henson

RatDog wrote:

David Henson wrote:

I'm not a scientist I am a theist. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to science, I have to be honest, I was never interested in it. I don't believe in evolution, in fact I find it rather poor science (keeping in mind that I have already said I don't know much about science)

Let me show you how this sounds to me:

I'm not a bible scholar I am an atheist.  I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to the bible, I have to be honest, I was never interested in it.  I believe the bible portrays Jesus as gay, in fact I think there is a great deal of support for this (keeping in mind that I have already said I don't know that much about the bible)

 

Been there done that. I have, actually, had that very discussion with a theist.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Exodus 21:22-23 Abortion?

 22“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

David,

Whatever the Hebrew word is this doesn't sound like a medical procedure. Men are fighting and a pregnant woman is injured. The woman was not a willing participant. So using this text is a farcical twist in the same way using Thou Shalt Not Murder. Murder is with criminal intent. Abortion is not performed under the same condition.

While abortion was practiced during the time of Christ it was not an issue and the crazed Christians today cannot use the Bible as a foundation for it. Need I go to the text where God command Israel to kill every man, woman and child in a town such as Jericho. You know there was at least one pregnant woman there. Also the flood and the destruction of Sodom and G. would have included pregnant women. And of course God's "design" of miscarriages which is not uncommon even today show he doesn't fret over it.

God, evolution just make so much more sense here. Miscarriages take care of weak individuals so that they don't have to suffer a short, miserable life outside the womb.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

David,

Whatever the Hebrew word is this doesn't sound like a medical procedure. Men are fighting and a pregnant woman is injured. The woman was not a willing participant. So using this text is a farcical twist in the same way using Thou Shalt Not Murder. Murder is with criminal intent. Abortion is not performed under the same condition.

While abortion was practiced during the time of Christ it was not an issue and the crazed Christians today cannot use the Bible as a foundation for it. Need I go to the text where God command Israel to kill every man, woman and child in a town such as Jericho. You know there was at least one pregnant woman there. Also the flood and the destruction of Sodom and G. would have included pregnant women. And of course God's "design" of miscarriages which is not uncommon even today show he doesn't fret over it.

God, evolution just make so much more sense here. Miscarriages take care of weak individuals so that they don't have to suffer a short, miserable life outside the womb.

You have to keep in mind that I am not taking a position on abortion or discussing abortion outside of my response at The Pathway Machine to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. That was what was brought to my attention by others here.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

Eloise,

Sorry it took so long to respond. I actually made a response and didn't realize that I had lost my internet connection until I had already clicked Post and was so upset I had to lie down before I stroked.

 

Know the feeling well, myself, it sucks. Sticking out tongue

Quote:

I really don't understand how you could say that my interpretation is assumption, extreme possibility and a weak argument

I didn't, actually.

What I said was that your interpretation is based on an assumption of something not stipulated in the text. You have assumed the implied injury refers to the child. You have, even, admitted as much in your blog by saying : we could assume it referred only to the woman if the text said "lah" but it doesn't so we assume it refers to both.

The only support for your assertion that it refers to both, therefore, is an appeal to the extreme possibility of a violently forced, premature, birth resulting in a live healthy baby. This is special pleading, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the default case for a violently forced premature birth is death to the infant.  

In reality it stands more to reason that injury to the child is not mentioned explicitly in the text because the child is presumed dead by default.

 

David Henson wrote:

when you seem to offer nothing more than opinion as an alternative.

You're misreading my modesty. I'm giving you solid points in refutation, you should not ignore them simply because I have tried to be gracious in debunking your hard work. I'm tempering my reply, only, out of respect for your diligence, don't mistake it for weakness.

 

 

 

Quote:

 

PS - Thanks for pointing out my error on my website. I must have read that a dozen or more times and didn't catch it. I have changed it.

No worries, you are welcome. Smiling

 

 

EDIT: Added link to article with statistics on infant mortality in the case of pregnancy trauma.

NB -- "Direct fetal injury is relatively uncommon because the maternal soft tissues, uterus, placenta, and amniotic fluid all tend to absorb and distribute the energy of the blow. The most common cause of fetal death is maternal shock, which is associated with a fetal mortality rate of 80%. This explains why efforts to assess fetal well-being are secondary to resuscitation of the mother.


Placental abruption is the second most common cause of fetal death, with fetal mortality rates as high as 30-68%. Placental abruption occurs when shearing forces lead to a separation of the rigid placenta from the elastic uterus. Up to 30-50% of patients with major traumatic injuries and as many as 5% of patients with minor injuries have placental abruption after trauma. Blunt injury in pregnancy does not appear to pose higher risk for death than it does in nonpregnant patients, with most deaths occurring as a result of either head injury or hemorrhage.
"

Andrew K Chang, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center

See also:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2700213

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I know

David Henson wrote:

I know that there happens to be people who are respected in their field of science and are theists, in fact I can name you a half or dozen who are Jehovah's Witnesses and believe very nearly the same theology as myself.

Go ahead, if you're offering I'm all ears.  Name 6-12  Jehovah's Witnesses with nearly the same theology as you who are respected in scientific fields.

 

Quote:
. Do you think you had to choose or that perhaps you are more informed about science than you were God?

No, neither.  It was precisely because I am so informed about God that the more science I learned in my life, I realized how impossible the Gods we believe in are.

 

Quote:
I can tell you this for sure. If Jehovah God came down to me and transported me through space and time to show me all of the things that science can only speculate about I would be bored within 15 minutes. It just isn't my thing. I don't care about it. Maybe that is the way you are with theology. To each his own. I would logically think you are missing out and you would think that I were missing out.

 

Obviously you're joking... but does your God permit such a thing?  Was that not the wee bit blasphemous?  How much do you really believe in and respect this God?  You would get bored of his lessons within 15 minutes?  Fucking God comes down from heaven to teach you something, and he bores you within 15 minutes?

 

Quote:
However, on the other hand I see a dogmatism in your words and think that you think your approved science is the unquestionable truth and all others should be dismissed.... As much as I don't like Creationism - intelligent design as it is propagated, I see it as no less certain that your own propaganda. It is just a matter of how you look at it. Still - having said that, I would rather the Church of Richard Dawkins be taught in science classes as I have alluded to above than have some bastardized version of the Bible being taught by bored arrogant underpaid armchair scientists.

If you want to avoid having to repeat yourself over and over without admitting how wrong you are, you should probably just never talk about science.  The last quoted section shows you don't even know what science is at it's most rudimentary level.  I suggested you learn science nicely, and you said even Science Professor God would suck at teaching you science... maybe just never mentioning it would be better.  

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: . .

David Henson wrote:

 . . . The real objective of true Christianity isn't to "convert," I don't even like that term. Spirituality is a personal responsibility, and the true Christian simply offers a seed for another to take or reject, keeping in mind that most will reject it. It was a decision I had to make for myself, and you have made yours.  

 

You realize this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. We have 1 or 2 others that claim to be"True Christians" on this forum. I wonder if y'all have the same belief as to what that means?

If you really don't go on missons to bring 'the good news' to the non-believers aren't you ignoring the directive of Jesus to some extent? I realize he commanded only y'all bring the word to all the world and in fact indicated if the people (especially those in Judea) didn't receive them they were to knock the dust from their feet and walk away.

I have wandered over to your web site and did a look see to get an impression of exactly what it is that you consider as support for your position and see little there that sets you apart from most believers other than extremists and fundies. Perhaps in future discussions we can get into more regarding why you accept ancient writing as reality based and not conjecture to explain those things that ancient man was unable to understand and thus attributed to a higher power they labeled as a god in various forms.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

David Henson wrote:

 . . . The real objective of true Christianity isn't to "convert," I don't even like that term. Spirituality is a personal responsibility, and the true Christian simply offers a seed for another to take or reject, keeping in mind that most will reject it. It was a decision I had to make for myself, and you have made yours.  

 

You realize this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. We have 1 or 2 others that claim to be"True Christians" on this forum. I wonder if y'all have the same belief as to what that means?

If you really don't go on missons to bring 'the good news' to the non-believers aren't you ignoring the directive of Jesus to some extent? I realize he commanded only y'all bring the word to all the world and in fact indicated if the people (especially those in Judea) didn't receive them they were to knock the dust from their feet and walk away.

I have wandered over to your web site and did a look see to get an impression of exactly what it is that you consider as support for your position and see little there that sets you apart from most believers other than extremists and fundies. Perhaps in future discussions we can get into more regarding why you accept ancient writing as reality based and not conjecture to explain those things that ancient man was unable to understand and thus attributed to a higher power they labeled as a god in various forms.

 

That stood out to me too...I know many theists who swear up and down that the only true duties of a religious person are to follow the words of their God, and spread the message of that God.  Not even necessarily in that order.

I also have to second the science stuff...if that is your attitude, just don't bring it up.  You might want to start getting used to other posters making you look like an idiot though.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:David Henson

Sapient wrote:

David Henson wrote:

I know that there happens to be people who are respected in their field of science and are theists, in fact I can name you a half or dozen who are Jehovah's Witnesses and believe very nearly the same theology as myself.

Go ahead, if you're offering I'm all ears.  Name 6-12  Jehovah's Witnesses with nearly the same theology as you who are respected in scientific fields.

Wolf-Ekkhard Lonnig

“Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.”

Byron Leon Meadows

"I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena. I am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Kilmarnock, Virginia, area.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If this conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions? This is not unheard of among scientists. But observation, no matter how convincing, does not presuppose conclusion. For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known as photons. Similarly, those who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way that they view the evidence.

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened. For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6? If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.”

Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka

“I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.”

Paula Kincheloe

“I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.”

Enrique Hernandex-Lemus

“I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs. However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.”

Bernd Oelschlagel

“My search for the meaning of life took 20 years. Two things helped me find it: science and the Bible. My study of science confirmed that life must have meaning. But the Bible revealed that meaning to me and helped me understand it.

You may have heard some people claim that science contradicts the Bible. I have studied both, and I cannot agree with their claim. My study of physics gave me a deeper grasp of the natural laws of the universe. I had hoped that science would ultimately reveal to me what life is all about. However, my search for the meaning of life went beyond physics.

Some may wonder how a person who has spent years studying science can believe what the Bible says. Well, I find no contradiction between science and the Bible. As a physicist, I have studied the laws governing life, and these laws give evidence that they were designed by a superhuman intelligence.

For example, there are many theories in physics, chemistry, and biology. And although the theories may basically be simple, the mathematics associated with them can nevertheless be very demanding. Brilliant scientists suggest theories and are awarded the Nobel Prize for their work. How much more brilliant must be the intelligent Being who designed and brought into existence the universe, which scientists try so hard to understand!

To suggest, as many evolutionists do, that life developed by chance is stretching credibility too far. To illustrate: Place ten soccer balls in a straight line on a soccer field, each ball three feet [1 m] from the other. By kicking the first ball, try to make each ball hit the next one in line, so that all ten balls are hit. Furthermore, try to predict the final position of each ball. The probability of success is so remote that most people would likely regard the feat as impossible.

That being the case, how can anyone claim that the development of the human cell—involving processes far more complex than kicking soccer balls—could ever be achieved simply by chance? The most reasonable explanation is that a super intelligent Being created humans and all other forms of life on earth. Would this Being, who is the Creator, do such a thing without having a purpose? Of course not. He must have had a purpose, and that purpose is revealed and made understandable in the Bible.”

 

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Where did you mine that list

Where did you mine that list of quotes from and by what measure of credulity do you expect anyone to believe that these quotes are either authentic or, if they are, are made by repected scientists in their fields of study?

Cite the souce!

Further, you do realise that those people employ logical fallacies and blatant falsehoods and otherwise appear astonishingly ignorant of the fields which they profess to have studied or study in?  You should be embarrassed that that is the evidence you have to present of Jehovah's Witnesses who are respected scientists in their fields of study.  What an unfortunate bungle.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Six people who's arguments

Six people who's arguments for the theism and against evolution are...puddle fitting the pothole, incredulity and ignorance, total misunderstanding of what evolution is (talks about evolution being the creation of the universe!!!) and incredulity, God of the gaps, more incredulity, even more incredulity, and finally more incredulity.

I hope you have some better resources than that to work with, or this will get embarrassing fast.

I like the last guys point the best...."The most reasonable explanation is that a super intelligent Being created humans and all other forms of life on earth."  Indeed.  When faced with something unlikely, most scientists automatically assume goddidit.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Brian37

David Henson wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

And BTW "I used to be" is a bad argument. Many of us here "used to be" Christians. Labels don't prove anything. People go from one position to another all the time, all over the world. All that proves is that a person changed their position.

 

Yes, yes, I know, but it is nevertheless a fact that I was raised as, not so much the politically / socially frustrated militant atheist, but irrelegious. I attended a church once when I was about 5 or 6 years old and before the show started had told the preacher to go to hell and ran 8 or 9 blocks home in the rain. Never went back. Atheists that I have talked to are usually bitter ex-Christians who know more now about the Bible than they did then. What they could have possibly expected out of it they didn't bother to look for or they wouldn't have fallen for it in the first place. I knew better at 5 or 6. C'mon.

You call us bitter? TO WHAT? A god(by any name?)IN WHAT CONTEXT?

IF a god were real I think it would be perfectly rational to be "bitter" about his "plan". Ecoli, cancer, pediophilia, tsunamis, crime and war. For what? Are we toys for his amusement?

YES, we are bitter, but not because an actual god exists, but because humans still go around selling this crap! Just like Galileo was right in being bitter that he told people the earth was a globe and not flat and was put under house arrest.

Just like a child feels duped when they find out Santa isn't real.

But you use the word "bitter" as a pejorative where we remain in the "bad guy" image where as most atheist I know use that to turn around and fight back against absurdity.

 

 

 

"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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
It goes to show that you

It goes to show that you need to do more for your kids than keep religion away from them, you actually need to teach them to think so they don't get sucked in by obvious tripe.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
All the Jehovah Witness "scientist"

Wow. As much as my brain was god-soaked for decades, I can see the lack of scientific thinking and misunderstanding of evolution these guys exhibit.

It is too complex. I cannot figure this out. Ok. I give. God did it. Them convoluted scientist can't even agree. Ha!

It is tragic that religion lays such trap against free-thinking. Everything in life must be bent to fit into the God-box. Somehow, isolated, primitive, deluded people know more than anyone else. You have to put blinders on to read the Bible "with an open mind".  Check the brain at the door.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

-- Charles Darwin

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Where did you

Thomathy wrote:

Where did you mine that list of quotes from and by what measure of credulity do you expect anyone to believe that these quotes are either authentic or, if they are, are made by repected scientists in their fields of study?

Is it that difficult for you to believe that there are people out there actually in the field of science who don't believe in the ridiculous dogmatic evolution?

Thomathy wrote:
Cite the souce!

The September 22, 2006 Awake! (Watchtower Bible And Tract Society)

Thomathy wrote:
Further, you do realise that those people employ logical fallacies and blatant falsehoods and otherwise appear astonishingly ignorant of the fields which they profess to have studied or study in?  You should be embarrassed that that is the evidence you have to present of Jehovah's Witnesses who are respected scientists in their fields of study.  What an unfortunate bungle.

 

Of course! That is all of your defense against anyone who disagrees with your monkey bullshit, it doesn't matter if its someone who knows almost nothing about it or someone that knows a hell of a lot more than you. You have to have faith in your quasi science and start freaking out when someone dares question it.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:It goes to

mellestad wrote:

It goes to show that you need to do more for your kids than keep religion away from them, you actually need to teach them to think so they don't get sucked in by obvious tripe.

 

Yeah, good luck with that. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Double Post

This somehow ended up as a double post.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Six people

mellestad wrote:

Six people who's arguments for the theism and against evolution are...puddle fitting the pothole, incredulity and ignorance, total misunderstanding of what evolution is (talks about evolution being the creation of the universe!!!) and incredulity, God of the gaps, more incredulity, even more incredulity, and finally more incredulity.

I hope you have some better resources than that to work with, or this will get embarrassing fast.

I like the last guys point the best...."The most reasonable explanation is that a super intelligent Being created humans and all other forms of life on earth."  Indeed.  When faced with something unlikely, most scientists automatically assume goddidit.

Anyone who posts here and have listend to what I have to say about Christians knows that it is far from flattering, but I have to say that when I go to a bullshit religious apostate Christian idiot message board, they, not at all unlike you people, and I mean all of you, are almost astoundingly lacking knowledge in their beliefs, and like you people, defend them blindly and with great zeal, but unlike you - and this you should all be ashamed of - they can AT THE LEAST - give a half ass reason for doing so.