Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

This one still puzzles me... 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

First off your Genesis story says the godS plural stopped it not a singular god. They are presumably the same gods that separated the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1. That believers are too stupid to understand Elohim is plural for El is not something anyone has to honor in discussions with them.

Second we talk about your idiots gods who thought there was a possibility of building a tower to reach heaven. What kinds of stupid gods do you worship? Your gods were afraid of that? They are as dumb as you.

You do not get to shut off your brain here. It says what it says as INSPIRED word and thus cannot be wrong, period. It is not inspired then it is all fairytale. You do not get a pass on any of it.

That's right.  The plural is the Holy Trinity which includes Jesus.  It is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.  Obviously, you are ignorant about my faith.

So now you are rejecting ALL Christian theology and claiming there is not one god but three gods and that that is how your gods wants it written.

Quote:
There are theological explanations why God was offended at the tower.  But you proven incapable of understanding so no point in explaining it.   Your post is nothing but taking an opportunity to take a cheap shot at my faith.  Disgusting, but typical of immoral atheists.

There is theological BS about it but it reads what it reads and nothing else. You can't change what it says just because some one points out how stupid your three gods are for thinking it was possible. Your three gods are very stupid. And they wanted it written to show they ARE very stupid which in itself is stupid.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
Your post is disappointing.   Strip away your equations, and we have a simple demonstration of extreme contempt for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with this blasphemous rhetoric.
 

No. Contempt for your THREE gods which you invoked to explain the gods of Babel and who created the earth.

Quote:
If you truly consider yourself an intellectual, have you ever considered that your extremely negative perception of God could be wrong?

Which of your three gods are you talking about? 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

This one still puzzles me... 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

First off your Genesis story says the godS plural stopped it not a singular god. They are presumably the same gods that separated the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1. That believers are too stupid to understand Elohim is plural for El is not something anyone has to honor in discussions with them.

Second we talk about your idiots gods who thought there was a possibility of building a tower to reach heaven. What kinds of stupid gods do you worship? Your gods were afraid of that? They are as dumb as you.

You do not get to shut off your brain here. It says what it says as INSPIRED word and thus cannot be wrong, period. It is not inspired then it is all fairytale. You do not get a pass on any of it.

 

That's right.  The plural is the Holy Trinity which includes Jesus.  It is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.  Obviously, you are ignorant about my faith.

There are theological explanations why God was offended at the tower.  But you proven incapable of understanding so no point in explaining it.   Your post is nothing but taking an opportunity to take a cheap shot at my faith.  Disgusting, but typical of immoral atheists.

The Trinity is a Christian cornerstone. It's a shame for you that it's not a Biblical cornerstone. Essentially, it's a feel-good polytheism. So, which god do you worship? 

Please provide these theological explanations instead of simply asserting them. I'd love to see how you try to make God not look butthurt because men weren't spending more time sucking up to him.

 

Sorry for you, but the Bible says otherwise.  John 10:30, one of many.  Now scurry back to your sewer pit of God hate filth.

Only when you misread it. That verse means "one in purpose" as I believe I said earlier (When it says the discioles "were all in one accord" do you visualize 12 guys in a Honda?). I'm tempted to call Poe here on the "God hate filth" thing but I enjoy watching you make God look stupid while you're defending him.

"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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

This one still puzzles me... 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

First off your Genesis story says the godS plural stopped it not a singular god. They are presumably the same gods that separated the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1. That believers are too stupid to understand Elohim is plural for El is not something anyone has to honor in discussions with them.

Second we talk about your idiots gods who thought there was a possibility of building a tower to reach heaven. What kinds of stupid gods do you worship? Your gods were afraid of that? They are as dumb as you.

You do not get to shut off your brain here. It says what it says as INSPIRED word and thus cannot be wrong, period. It is not inspired then it is all fairytale. You do not get a pass on any of it.

That's right.  The plural is the Holy Trinity which includes Jesus.  It is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.  Obviously, you are ignorant about my faith.

There are theological explanations why God was offended at the tower.  But you proven incapable of understanding so no point in explaining it.   Your post is nothing but taking an opportunity to take a cheap shot at my faith.  Disgusting, but typical of immoral atheists.

The Trinity is a Christian cornerstone. It's a shame for you that it's not a Biblical cornerstone. Essentially, it's a feel-good polytheism. So, which god do you worship?

But you have just insisted they are three separate gods to explain away the OT references. In fact there are some 5000 OT mentions of the gods, the Elohim. Care to take a shot at explaining why Christians claim there is only one god instead of three gods as you say there are?

Quote:

Please provide these theological explanations instead of simply asserting them. I'd love to see how you try to make God not look butthurt because men weren't spending more time sucking up to him.

Quote:
Sorry for you, but the Bible says otherwise.  John 10:30, one of many.  Now scurry back to your sewer pit of God hate filth.

Please QUOTE that verse here and demonstrate exactly how it claims there are three gods which should be referred to in the plural as does the bible.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
...TWD, once again, none of us would worship a being who would torture you.

But I would buy it a beer. There might be an after market for audio of his screams.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Dear TWD .. It bears repeating :

 Off-Topic  Comment Only

  Dear TWD  .. It bears repeating . . .

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
It's easy to simply write it all off as myth.  Not as easy to prove some backing proof.  You offer none as usual.  How about providing a scripture passage that shows the Hebrews performing a distinct cultural ritual in Egypt which could leave archaeological evidence?  Can you do that? Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

He who makes the positive assertion bears the burden of producing physical evidence of the assertion. The ball is in the court of the believers.

 

  With the weight of so many many comments, EVEN SO, it this bears REPEATING. In addition, at what point was anyone trying to "demonstrate", poorly or at all "that the Bible is a book of myths". If you want to determine if the preparation of a study on the subject might be in your next thread, then by all means do so. There you can defend the Bible, instead of changing the subject, which in here it is. BTW, All I was able to determine was some members of the forum think it's a complete work of fiction. But, Since your first thread, you have failed to understand in a board of individuals there may be a spectrum of opinion on various matters. Translation -- you cannot paint everyone with the same broad brush.  Furthermore, it has somehow escaped your notice, that 'you' are the one to be providing answers (and not the other way around). 'When you're...er...concentrating,' you exclaim the board hasnt done this or hasn't done that. Apparently, After all this time (I can't understand it myself).  And, You still do not understand how the burden of proof is on YOU! So, It bears repeating, once again, you obviously do  not  grasp how this all works yet. The burden of proof is on 'you' and not the board. You do research, you provide the answers. That is how it is supposed to work, normally it works out well. But, No! Not with TWD though. There is a topic to your current Thread. Something you like to get far from, when you make all your accusations. All the griping is now a new tactic to change the subject. We won't allow you to forget, It's on you. Get It ?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I submit that this thread

I submit that this thread will become the third tower of evidence of theist stupidity on this site. In time, like the other two, there will be thousands of posts proving the theist wrong, but the theist is too brainwashed to do anything but repeat his broken arguments over and over again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I submit that

Vastet wrote:
I submit that this thread will become the third tower of evidence of theist stupidity on this site. In time, like the other two, there will be thousands of posts proving the theist wrong, but the theist is too brainwashed to do anything but repeat his broken arguments over and over again.

so what are the other two?  fonzie's and grampa's?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I submit that

Vastet wrote:
I submit that this thread will become the third tower of evidence of theist stupidity on this site. In time, like the other two, there will be thousands of posts proving the theist wrong, but the theist is too brainwashed to do anything but repeat his broken arguments over and over again.

Psalm 14:1

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Psalm

TWD39 wrote:

 

Psalm 14:1

 

chandogya upanishad 6.8.7


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 Off-Topic  Comment Only

  Dear TWD  .. It bears repeating . . .

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
It's easy to simply write it all off as myth.  Not as easy to prove some backing proof.  You offer none as usual.  How about providing a scripture passage that shows the Hebrews performing a distinct cultural ritual in Egypt which could leave archaeological evidence?  Can you do that? Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

He who makes the positive assertion bears the burden of producing physical evidence of the assertion. The ball is in the court of the believers.

 

  With the weight of so many many comments, EVEN SO, it this bears REPEATING. In addition, at what point was anyone trying to "demonstrate", poorly or at all "that the Bible is a book of myths". If you want to determine if the preparation of a study on the subject might be in your next thread, then by all means do so. There you can defend the Bible, instead of changing the subject, which in here it is. BTW, All I was able to determine was some members of the forum think it's a complete work of fiction. But, Since your first thread, you have failed to understand in a board of individuals there may be a spectrum of opinion on various matters. Translation -- you cannot paint everyone with the same broad brush.  Furthermore, it has somehow escaped your notice, that 'you' are the one to be providing answers (and not the other way around). 'When you're...er...concentrating,' you exclaim the board hasnt done this or hasn't done that. Apparently, After all this time (I can't understand it myself).  And, You still do not understand how the burden of proof is on YOU! So, It bears repeating, once again, you obviously do  not  grasp how this all works yet. The burden of proof is on 'you' and not the board. You do research, you provide the answers. That is how it is supposed to work, normally it works out well. But, No! Not with TWD though. There is a topic to your current Thread. Something you like to get far from, when you make all your accusations. All the griping is now a new tactic to change the subject. We won't allow you to forget, It's on you. Get It ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet wrote:I

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I submit that this thread will become the third tower of evidence of theist stupidity on this site. In time, like the other two, there will be thousands of posts proving the theist wrong, but the theist is too brainwashed to do anything but repeat his broken arguments over and over again.

Psalm 14:1

 

Thanks for providing another instance of incorrect information found in the Bible - you just might come around. Do you actually read the words? You know those squiggly things on the page?

To be honest, this thread reminds me of my high school days. You're moving from room to room being schooled.

"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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
What did I just get done saying . .

 

 

TWD wrote:
So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.

What did I just get done saying. There are 'individuals' on this board. I dont recall calling you stupid. I do not live in Canada. The Moderator does. You are the one who is to provide answers lady. Get it ? Did it ever occur to you to not bring up the Bible, no wonder you have a mountain of questions, by your own doing. There are consequences to not keeping to a narrow subject. Guess Who's fault that is ?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Vastet wrote:I

iwbiek wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I submit that this thread will become the third tower of evidence of theist stupidity on this site. In time, like the other two, there will be thousands of posts proving the theist wrong, but the theist is too brainwashed to do anything but repeat his broken arguments over and over again.

so what are the other two?  fonzie's and grampa's?

Fonzie and Caposkia. Gramp's isn't quite up there. Plus he wasn't as much of a dick if I remember correctly.

"Psalm 14:1"

Sorry, haven't been there. Yet another unsupported assertion from the nutty christian.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:danatemporary

TWD39 wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 Off-Topic  Comment Only

  Dear TWD  .. It bears repeating . . .

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
It's easy to simply write it all off as myth.  Not as easy to prove some backing proof.  You offer none as usual.  How about providing a scripture passage that shows the Hebrews performing a distinct cultural ritual in Egypt which could leave archaeological evidence?  Can you do that? Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

He who makes the positive assertion bears the burden of producing physical evidence of the assertion. The ball is in the court of the believers.

 

  With the weight of so many many comments, EVEN SO, it this bears REPEATING. In addition, at what point was anyone trying to "demonstrate", poorly or at all "that the Bible is a book of myths". If you want to determine if the preparation of a study on the subject might be in your next thread, then by all means do so. There you can defend the Bible, instead of changing the subject, which in here it is. BTW, All I was able to determine was some members of the forum think it's a complete work of fiction. But, Since your first thread, you have failed to understand in a board of individuals there may be a spectrum of opinion on various matters. Translation -- you cannot paint everyone with the same broad brush.  Furthermore, it has somehow escaped your notice, that 'you' are the one to be providing answers (and not the other way around). 'When you're...er...concentrating,' you exclaim the board hasnt done this or hasn't done that. Apparently, After all this time (I can't understand it myself).  And, You still do not understand how the burden of proof is on YOU! So, It bears repeating, once again, you obviously do  not  grasp how this all works yet. The burden of proof is on 'you' and not the board. You do research, you provide the answers. That is how it is supposed to work, normally it works out well. But, No! Not with TWD though. There is a topic to your current Thread. Something you like to get far from, when you make all your accusations. All the griping is now a new tactic to change the subject. We won't allow you to forget, It's on you. Get It ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

And they have been backed up - just not to your liking. Names and dates have been provided for you. What Bible verses actually say has been called to your attention when you bring up references.  The few wikipedia things you've brought up have been examined and found wanting by myself and others.

If you don't want your beliefs looked at don't wave them out there. And since you like Scripture so much have you noticed this little gem? "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," (I Peter 3:15)

When are you going to start doing any of that?

"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


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet wrote:I

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I submit that this thread will become the third tower of evidence of theist stupidity on this site. In time, like the other two, there will be thousands of posts proving the theist wrong, but the theist is too brainwashed to do anything but repeat his broken arguments over and over again.

Psalm 14:1

 

Matthew 5:22

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/


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You do the honest research into primary sources and then you show how it supports your position. When we discuss those primary sources and your interpretation of the physical evidence you found in your research. Argumentation is not evidence. Repetition of the bible is not evidence. Making it up as you go along (e.g., there is no trinity there are three separate gods) is not a response.

Descriptions such a "bold" are immaterial. Perhaps you should specifically state exactly what assertion you think needs further support. Such things cannot be things which are challenges to the claims you have made. When you make a claim it is up to you to produce the evidence for it. It is NOT incumbent upon those who demand your evidence to produce evidence you are wrong. The game is NEVER played that way.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: So I provide

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
( No Subject )

( No Subject )

 

 

 

Verse of the Day  : And whatever you do,  do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men,  knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. 

 

 

 

 

 Thumbnail --

 

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Comment from BrotherDavid

 

TWD39 wrote:

I rather be alive and fellowshiping in joy with my fellow believers than either being annililated or burning in hell. If you honestly think hell will be a party with other sinners then you are truly ignorant.  You won't have company there.   You are either going to be destroyed from existence or weeping and gnashing your teeth forever.    

 

After reacting to TWD's banal and hateful post here I thought I'd get some input from an intellectual christian philologist with a degree in theology and a PHD in philosophy. I asked Brother David: Do you believe in hell? Is there proof of hell in the biblical texts? What motivation might there be for amplifying the oblique hell in Genesis into the Augustinian hell of the Roman Catholic Church? Why do some christians wallow in the idea of hell?

 

BrotherDavid wrote:

 

 

Yes, look, the dogma of hell is a problem, to me; I mean with respect to its textual basis. In brief, these are the difficulties I see.

(i) The biblical language on the subject is often figurative, which means it is vague, eg. ‘the lake of fire which burns eternally’. What does that designate?

(ii) The language on the subject doesn’t all express the same idea, eg. Christ is reported as saying, ‘Beware God who has the power to destroy body and soul in hell’. So is simply passing out of existence a possible way to interpret the biblical writings on the question of some people’s eternal fate?

(iii) If you don’t read the biblical writings selectively, other considerations are pressing. Eg. God is supposed by these writings to be absolutely fair—but how fair would eternal suffering be for even the worst people, the Hitlers for example, given their terrible actions? Such a thing seems entirely unfair, to ordinary human intuition, does it not? Limited consequences which are reformatory are just in response to limited faults; infinite suffering for these faults is not. This mitigates against the traditional idea of hell.

(iv) The biblical writings hardly say anything on the subject of hell. If we wrote a book together on wine-making, it would be detailed, clear, with diagrams etc., so that our readers would understand us well. Should we not expect, given hell’s importance, that if it were so the whole thing would be described in the biblical writings carefully & in unmistakable detail?

(v) Traditionalists cannot read. If they expressed their interpretations tentatively, while honesty placing in the foreground their lack of hermeneutic skill, you could respect their views, even if you disagreed with them. But the only respect they deserve as readers is I think over what is simplest. Otherwise they deserve mockery. It seems to me that the whole of traditional Protestant reading is in essential ways false and even dishonest. Whatever traditional Protestantism asserts about any difficult problem of reading is to be doubted. Catholicism similarly. 

(vi) A person who really believes in hell should be utterly transfixed at the indescribable horror of it. Should they not? Anyone who is not so transfixed does not believe there is a hell, in the traditional sense. So most—all?—traditionalists do not really believe; they only say they do. If they don’t believe, why should anyone else?

My own view is that what the biblical writings say is something like, ‘There is an after-life, and the rejection of God leads to unpleasant consequences there which it is much better to avoid; however, what really matters is behaving in this life with kindness and honesty, while respecting God, and asking the forgiveness of God & Christ for your errors, recognising that as with the acquisition of all forgiveness, you depend in that case upon the graciousness of the other to give it to you’. (Of course there is somewhat more, all as moderate, but this is a start.) 

I think the biblical writings also say implicitly, by their unscientific and inexact linguistic form, ‘Each person who is interested has to work out for themselves as best they can what is going on, with respect to everything not communicated in the simplest sentences’. These views if they were widely embraced among Christians would involve the death of institutionalised interpretations, though.

The question, ‘What motives led to the dogma of hell?’ is fascinating. I don’t really know; but you can see with church leaders that they are often not motivated by a love for truth. Something else is in play...fear? self-importance? love for feeling as though they belong to something important? willingness to tyrannise over others? respect for old things merely because of the oldness? desire to keep their own lives within the pattern to which they are accustomed? stupidity? Several of these? All of them?

 

I think we will search without any success for a traditional Protestant theologian who accepts the old-fashioned position about hell, and who understands these things well, and takes them properly into account. How often are the considerations mentioned above ever raised intelligently and knowledgably, let alone dealt with adequately in the supposed demonstrations made of the traditional view? Yet we have little difficulty in finding teachers in our communions who despite this failing are quite happy to say that they know the truth. Scholar after scholar merely takes the traditional dogma to be obvious, and offers exposition that other than with respect to grammar and semantics is almost entirely rhetorical, ie. that in important ways bears no resemblance at all to proper language-analysis.

Every time one of our leaders confidently expresses their views on this subject, the scorching words of Nietzsche, who was a philologist by profession, enter the mind: ‘How little Christianity educates the sense of honesty and justice can easily be seen from the writings of its scholars; they advance their conjectures as blandly as dogmas…the Bible is pricked and pulled apart, and the people formally inculcated in the art of reading badly’.

 

 

 

 

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Fonzie and

Vastet wrote:
Fonzie and Caposkia. Gramp's isn't quite up there. Plus he wasn't as much of a dick if I remember correctly. "Psalm 14:1

Gramp's thread was a bit fun at first. But towards the end it just got really boring.

Caposkia's thread is one that I never tried to wade all the way through.

I don't know how I got sucked into Fonzie's thread. But somehow, even after seeing all of his talking points reviewed, again, and again, and again and again, I got pulled into it last year for a little while. I finally just gave up. But, THEN, it resurfaced again.

 Speaking of which, what happened to the theists on here that I genuinely liked ? Teralek, Luminon and Eloise being the top of that list. Of course, all of them were a different breed of theists than the Bible followers. Truth to be told, some of Eloise's posts were so in depth that I never was quite sure what she believed, but I liked reading them anyway.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:
Caposkia's thread is one that I never tried to wade all the way through.

I don't know how I got sucked into Fonzie's thread. But somehow, even after seeing all of his talking points reviewed, again, and again, and again and again, I got pulled into it last year for a little while. I finally just gave up. But, THEN, it resurfaced again.

I still recall both topics when they were in their infancy. I believe I'd entered both of them quite early. When I log on and see 50+ new posts in a topic it brings me back.
But I've rarely had a 2 year period of stable internet, and with both those topics there was a day when I logged in and saw hundreds of new posts. That's when I gave up on them.

Lum is chatting with Old Seer in his thread. Less active than previously, but not mia. Eloise haven't seen for a year or two, I also miss her. Teralek I don't remember when I last saw post.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Truth

harleysportster wrote:

Truth to be told, some of Eloise's posts were so in depth that I never was quite sure what she believed, but I liked reading them anyway.

eloise never said one naughty or off-color thing the whole time she was here, and she still had the sexiest posts i've ever seen.  the interest factor of this site has gone down considerably for me since she abruptly disappeared.

i swear, if i wasn't already married to a hot foreign chick, i'd have made my vacation plans for australia long ago.   

well, one shouldn't be greedy...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's my recollection

 

 

that Eloise had a long fight with RedNef, a man at once wonderfully clever and relentlessly obnoxious, who could not bear her ambiguous spiritual conception of first cause. No matter what, he would catalogue her with god people of odious cloth. Every so often he would launch at her like she was a cardinal of the catholic church, not just a mathematician with a sense of universal design.

In the course of this rather pointless fight she felt she wasn't supported by BobSpence, a man she respected mightily, but who does not take sides, and that led to her leaving the site. Later on RedNef left too, in a fit of pique over the style of Brian37's poetry. Brian favours rhyming couplets and RedNef preferred free verse. 

All three were extremely worthwhile regular contributors and Bob still pops in from time to time. Eloise was great in part because her cerebral panentheism was such a pleasing counterweight to the idiocy of monotheistic mythcism, and because, as someone has noted up-thread, she was pretty much the most intelligent woman any of us had met in the wild. And while you won't read about this in Zoo magazine, exceptional brains are very sexy. 

I think, in hindsight, we should have defended Eloise's right to her always self-confessedly Hypatian subjective beliefs. Personally, I don't agree with ideas of universal intelligence but if they're not backed up by dogmas of threat and mythology of vast stupidity, I'm happy to co-exist with them in my universe of I Don't Know

 

 

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

that Eloise had a long fight with RedNef, a man at once wonderfully clever and relentlessly obnoxious, who could not bear her ambiguous spiritual conception of first cause. No matter what, he would catalogue her with god people of odious cloth. Every so often he would launch at her like she was a cardinal of the catholic church, not just a mathematician with a sense of universal design.

In the course of this rather pointless fight she felt she wasn't supported by BobSpence, a man she respected mightily, but who does not take sides, and that led to her leaving the site. Later on RedNef left too, in a fit of pique over the style of Brian37's poetry. Brian favours rhyming couplets and RedNef preferred free verse. 

All three were extremely worthwhile regular contributors and Bob still pops in from time to time. Eloise was great in part because her cerebral panentheism was such a pleasing counterweight to the idiocy of monotheistic mythcism, and because, as someone has noted up-thread, she was pretty much the most intelligent woman any of us had met in the wild. And while you won't read about this in Zoo magazine, exceptional brains are very sexy. 

I think, in hindsight, we should have defended Eloise's right to her always self-confessedly Hypatian subjective beliefs. Personally, I don't agree with ideas of universal intelligence but if they're not backed up by dogmas of threat and mythology of vast stupidity, I'm happy to co-exist with them in my universe of I Don't Know

 

 

I didn't realize that her and Rednef had gotten into it. Of course, I was away for a little while when I had that motorcycle nearly a year and half ago.

I liked Rednef, but he could be quite obnoxious and pretty heavy handed with members.

While Sandycane and I had our major differences, I remember Rednef just practically pummeled her one time over feminism. I noticed that Sandycane's posts started to trickle off when her business got to rolling.

I miss a lot of Bob Spence's posts as well.

Eloise was my favorite theist poster and I never could quite grasp all of her concepts, but I always found her to be a good contributor.

I miss AnswersinGeneSimmons and even though I did not always agree with Kapkao's points of view ( he was another one that I never could figure out) I miss Kapkao as well.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I could be completely

 I could be completely wrong about this but I think Teralek is still working for the cruise line so he goes months at a time without internet access. AIGs I assume cut his internet to save money while looking for work and is probably still looking.

And Kapkao, I hope he is alright, I know he had some health issues and he disappeared rather abruptly in the middle of one of his more serious conversations. Is anyone in a position to know whether or not he is well? 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Speaking of Health issues . . . .

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I could be completely wrong about this but I think Teralek is still working for the cruise line so he goes months at a time without internet access. AIGs I assume cut his internet to save money while looking for work and is probably still looking.

And Kapkao, I hope he is alright, I know he had some health issues and he disappeared rather abruptly in the middle of one of his more serious conversations. Is anyone in a position to know whether or not he is well? 

    The same goes out to tonyjeffers

  Speaking of health issues, everyone may have missed this :

 

Hat's off to RSS from a dying man

Submitted by tonyjeffers on February 18, 2012 - 11:07am.

I have found out that I have a terminal illness, but it may take years to kill me unless science catches up with the disease. I am also among the multitude of those who were systematically brainwashed as a child.  To my mother's despair I finally broke free of christianity. As you say it is not something easy to overcome and has taken me about ten years to completely recover from it's poison.  I am 39 yrs old now and I am bitter because I can't help to think how much further in life I might have progressed, and medical science would have progressed without the yoke of religion.  RSS did not directly deconvert me, but has given me new insight and has armed me with knowledge to "rationally respond" to those who view me as "a lost soul".  My illness took me from a hard-working, prosperous business owner to a poor broken down man. (end quote)

 ¬ Tony

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:   

danatemporary wrote:

    The same goes out to tonyjeffers

  Speaking of health issues, everyone may have missed this :

 

Hat's off to RSS from a dying man

Submitted by tonyjeffers on February 18, 2012 - 11:07am.

I have found out that I have a terminal illness, but it may take years to kill me unless science catches up with the disease. I am also among the multitude of those who were systematically brainwashed as a child.  To my mother's despair I finally broke free of christianity. As you say it is not something easy to overcome and has taken me about ten years to completely recover from it's poison.  I am 39 yrs old now and I am bitter because I can't help to think how much further in life I might have progressed, and medical science would have progressed without the yoke of religion.  RSS did not directly deconvert me, but has given me new insight and has armed me with knowledge to "rationally respond" to those who view me as "a lost soul".  My illness took me from a hard-working, prosperous business owner to a poor broken down man. (end quote)

 ¬ Tony

 

I must have missed that one too. I meant to type in my previous post that I was away when I had that motorcycle wreck, not that motorcycle.

Tony Jeffers has a FB page that he helps another guy run. It hasn't posted much lately.

I'll send them a private message and ask if he is ok.

I liked Tony Jeffers as well.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And

Beyond Saving wrote:

And Kapkao, I hope he is alright, I know he had some health issues and he disappeared rather abruptly in the middle of one of his more serious conversations. Is anyone in a position to know whether or not he is well? 

Seem like I do remember Kapkao saying something about health issues. But, I also remember him saying something about leaving here. I think. I could be wrong.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I did a brief look around.

I did a brief look around. Most recent post by Kapkao that I found in the look was at the end of March, making fun of the asshat Jean. If he said he had health problems or was leaving then he didn't start a topic saying as much, which makes it harder to track down.

It'd be nice if member tracking took note of the members last activity instead of the activity in posts the member took part in. Ah well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
We forgot the rule Jean had to be mentioned in every Thread:

Vastet wrote:
I did a brief look around. Most recent post by Kapkao that I found in the look was at the end of March, making fun of the asshat Jean. If he said he had health problems or was leaving then he didn't start a topic saying as much, which makes it harder to track down. It'd be nice if member tracking took note of the members last activity instead of the activity in posts the member took part in. Ah well.

  Admittedly boarding on Spam, so nobody get too mad . .

 I can't help but wonder what happened to the 'ever loving' ?? Where is Mr. Jeano ? Geology Hiking and Exploring I'd imagine .. (See: Quote)

Mar_26th log wrote:
  Jean wrote: GEOLOGICAL PRIMARY RESEARCH HIKE AT MT. SAINT HELENS.

This summer we are hiking down Mt. Saint Helens in Washington State. It's a 2 day hike. We will be reviewing the logs in spirit lake via Harmony Trail and the Sentimental structure of the little grand canyon through the Johnson trail. The hike is pretty dangerous.

A geologist will lead the way.

This is an intense hike. The geologist that is going is fast and you have to move quickly. Not time to smell the roses but to move on to various evidence and analysis.

The cost is $200 bucks which goes to the geologist. You need a research permit and Ph.D to go where we are going since we are going way way off trail. I'm working on getting a secular geologist to go with us.

Next year, we will be doing the same thing in the Grand Canyon. It will be for 1 week and we will have rafts to take us where we go. Cost is $2000 bucks if you wanna go and includes food. This is pretty intense and the water is usally 45 degrees in August. So it will be cold and hard physically.

If you wanna go, email me and I'll send you a brosure, I'm setting this up. I'm expecting about 150 people for Mt. Saint Helens

Brian37's memorable replies . .

Brian37 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  I would love to take you guys with me. or have people ban and censor this thread since atheism is a dishonest cult of lies.

More of that world famous "Christian love" we keep hearing about?

Like I keep saying you'd make a horrible car salesman "If you don't buy my car here at this dealership, you are a liar".

Sorry, your bullshit doesn't work on us.

. . .

Brian37 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Brian,

I agree with you that this trip will not prove the virgin birth. lol. This trip is simple an analysis of the theory of an old earth. The notion that the earth is billions of years old and the evidence that is used by geologists.

We will analyze evidence of Mt. Saint Helens against the Grand Canyon and the theory that sentiments took millions of years to form.

The virgin mary is a deduction from the Axiom of Scripture in which evidence is seen via the impossiblity of the contrary.

Respectfully,

the Zoo Animal (Jude 3).

 Brian37 Replies : No what you need is a fucking shrink to analyize why you view your god as a vindictive bloodthirsty prick. This recent phony "nice guy" persona you are now trying to peddle does not change that you are a two faced .. Or did you forget that you did that? Because I did not. Too bad for you, you fucked with a guy who was married to a hell bound Japanese gal. And one with TWO biology degrees working on her PHD in biology.

And you stupidly think I am going to trust any bullshit you have to claim now with this fake "nice guy"crap you are hiding behind now?

I woudn't meet you at a fucking police station. YOU ARE A FAKE and a two faced asshat 'troll'. There are plenty of Christians I would and do trust, YOU will never be one of them.

   ==========================================================================================

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Seem

harleysportster wrote:

Seem like I do remember Kapkao saying something about health issues. But, I also remember him saying something about leaving here. I think. I could be wrong.

 Kapkao was diabetic.   Interesting fellow.  I liked his negative view of humanity.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:TWD39

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 

 

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

 

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 

 

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

 

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Except that people have spoken against the article you cited and wikipedia is a piss poor source (you weren't using it a s a reference site - you were citing it as an authority). I use wikipedia only to find a layman's explanation and then I go to the links at the bottom to provide a fuller explanation. (if people ask). Meanwhile, you insist on claiming that no one has provided evidence to counter your assertions while drowning in it. I thought the 9th commandment wasn't an option for you.

I'll leave the rest to Beyond Sacing.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 

 

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

 

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Except that people have spoken against the article you cited and wikipedia is a piss poor source (you weren't using it a s a reference site - you were citing it as an authority). I use wikipedia only to find a layman's explanation and then I go to the links at the bottom to provide a fuller explanation. (if people ask). Meanwhile, you insist on claiming that no one has provided evidence to counter your assertions while drowning in it. I thought the 9th commandment wasn't an option for you.

I'll leave the rest to Beyond Sacing.

 

Wow, again you manage to say something without really saying something.  If my references are wrong, PROVE it instead of bitching about the source. 

 

Speaking of Wikipedia, I'm particularly fond of this one:

 

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

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Translation - well I can't

"Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work."

For the 5th or 6th time, TWD proves he's a horrible translator.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Translation -

Vastet wrote:
"Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work." For the 5th or 6th time, TWD proves he's a horrible translator.

 

Not at all, I just see right through the transparency.  Like your anger against God, but then you claim you can't be angry because He doesn't exist. 

 

 

 Every reply you make is in the negative.  That's pretty telling right there.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Translation -

TWD39 wrote:

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

Many people have directly addressed your wiki links. For the most part, the flaw has been that they are irrelevant to the topic. And wiki is a great reference site, and that is all it is- reference. It is not an authoritative source because it can be added to by anyone and as Dana pointed out often has incomplete or inaccurate information especially when it goes into details or controversial subjects. Tertiary sources have their place, but pointing to a tertiary source as if it is a primary source that conclusively proves your claim is ignorant.

 

TWD39 wrote:

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Well I haven't exactly been documenting it, there may be a few pictures and videos floating around but I assure you I use the scientific method vigorously. I have my hypothesis, I test it regularly and then I observe the results. So far I am still STD free, thank you for your concern. But never fear, I shall continue to test my hypothesis as long as I am able to continue getting volunteers to help, science is a rough job but someone has to do it. Doesn't it make you wonder if there is a god, why he hasn't stricken me for not following his edicts yet? 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 

 

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

 

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Except that people have spoken against the article you cited and wikipedia is a piss poor source (you weren't using it a s a reference site - you were citing it as an authority). I use wikipedia only to find a layman's explanation and then I go to the links at the bottom to provide a fuller explanation. (if people ask). Meanwhile, you insist on claiming that no one has provided evidence to counter your assertions while drowning in it. I thought the 9th commandment wasn't an option for you.

I'll leave the rest to Beyond Sacing.

 

Wow, again you manage to say something without really saying something.  If my references are wrong, PROVE it instead of bitching about the source. 

 

Speaking of Wikipedia, I'm particularly fond of this one:

 

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

 

 

The only reason it looks like I'm not saying something to you is because you refuse to understand it. Must be nice to have that security blanket to fall back on.

To the list:

Overall, I see a lot of people who feel more comfortable in delusion than reality.I also see a lot of people who don't understand what atheism is (Sandage, Genovese, Turner, those listed that "converted"from Communism, Stalinism, Trostkyism, etc.)

Breaking it down, I see some people who became Christians because it was politically expedient to do so (and some of those if you looked at them more closely on the list you wouldn't call them Christians (ex. Anders Borg, Keir Heidle, many of those who converted to Catholicism or Russian orthodoxy).

I see some flat out liars (Kirk Cameron, Lee Strobel). If they were atheists I'm the sitting Pope.

I see some people who have harmonized philosophy and theology like McGrath (usually done by changing the Bible)

Some absolute nuts (Shelly Lubben, Enoch Powell) that you and Christianity can keep.

Just because some people have gone to irrationality in some aspects of their lives doesn't make me want to dismiss them for the work they've done (though some deserve it).

The reason wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source is because it can be edited by anyone. Most times it's caught -sometimes it's not. If you really want to impress me, cite a book (I know they have a lot of words in them but give it a shot). Then quote that book and tell us the title of the book so we can look for ourselves.

Going to bring up Antony Flew next?

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work." For the 5th or 6th time, TWD proves he's a horrible translator.

 

Not at all, I just see right through the transparency.  Like your anger against God, but then you claim you can't be angry because He doesn't exist. 

 

 

 Every reply you make is in the negative.  That's pretty telling right there.

Delusional people aren't qualified to diagnose themselves, sorry. Your lies, misrepresentations, and blatant stupidity continue to prove both you and your religion have nothing to offer.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 

 

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

 

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Except that people have spoken against the article you cited and wikipedia is a piss poor source (you weren't using it a s a reference site - you were citing it as an authority). I use wikipedia only to find a layman's explanation and then I go to the links at the bottom to provide a fuller explanation. (if people ask). Meanwhile, you insist on claiming that no one has provided evidence to counter your assertions while drowning in it. I thought the 9th commandment wasn't an option for you.

I'll leave the rest to Beyond Sacing.

 

Wow, again you manage to say something without really saying something.  If my references are wrong, PROVE it instead of bitching about the source. 

 

Speaking of Wikipedia, I'm particularly fond of this one:

 

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

 

 

The only reason it looks like I'm not saying something to you is because you refuse to understand it. Must be nice to have that security blanket to fall back on.

To the list:

Overall, I see a lot of people who feel more comfortable in delusion than reality.I also see a lot of people who don't understand what atheism is (Sandage, Genovese, Turner, those listed that "converted"from Communism, Stalinism, Trostkyism, etc.)

Breaking it down, I see some people who became Christians because it was politically expedient to do so (and some of those if you looked at them more closely on the list you wouldn't call them Christians (ex. Anders Borg, Keir Heidle, many of those who converted to Catholicism or Russian orthodoxy).

I see some flat out liars (Kirk Cameron, Lee Strobel). If they were atheists I'm the sitting Pope.

I see some people who have harmonized philosophy and theology like McGrath (usually done by changing the Bible)

Some absolute nuts (Shelly Lubben, Enoch Powell) that you and Christianity can keep.

Just because some people have gone to irrationality in some aspects of their lives doesn't make me want to dismiss them for the work they've done (though some deserve it).

The reason wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source is because it can be edited by anyone. Most times it's caught -sometimes it's not. If you really want to impress me, cite a book (I know they have a lot of words in them but give it a shot). Then quote that book and tell us the title of the book so we can look for ourselves.

Going to bring up Antony Flew next?

 

 

Please demonstrate a specific lie that Lee Strobel has made.   Otherwise, it's more biased talk casually writing off Christians as nutballs  because that fits nicely in your mold.  I suppose you include C.S Lewis in that list as well huh?  Then again, you're the one who just makes up lies.  You falsely claimed that Andrew Womack ministiries lies about healing in order to bilk people from their money without a shred of evidence.  You burned up any currency of credibility with that one.

 

I will bring up this one.   Welcome Brother Greene to the family of Christ. Smiling

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Greene_(activist)

 

BTW, yes wikipedia can be edited by anyone including people who as authorities on the subject. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: I will bring

TWD39 wrote:

 

I will bring up this one.   Welcome Brother Greene to the family of Christ. Smiling

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Greene_(activist)

 

BTW, yes wikipedia can be edited by anyone including people who as authorities on the subject. 

Lol, so not only are you using wiki as a source, but did you read your own source? 

your own damn link dumb ass wrote:

The former activist was given monetary donations by the Baptist Church, which had erected the display, in order to assist in Greene's surgery.[6] Two months later, Greene announced his conversion to Christianity,[7], a faith he left again one month later.[8]

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 

 

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

 

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Except that people have spoken against the article you cited and wikipedia is a piss poor source (you weren't using it a s a reference site - you were citing it as an authority). I use wikipedia only to find a layman's explanation and then I go to the links at the bottom to provide a fuller explanation. (if people ask). Meanwhile, you insist on claiming that no one has provided evidence to counter your assertions while drowning in it. I thought the 9th commandment wasn't an option for you.

I'll leave the rest to Beyond Sacing.

 

Wow, again you manage to say something without really saying something.  If my references are wrong, PROVE it instead of bitching about the source. 

 

Speaking of Wikipedia, I'm particularly fond of this one:

 

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

 

 

The only reason it looks like I'm not saying something to you is because you refuse to understand it. Must be nice to have that security blanket to fall back on.

To the list:

Overall, I see a lot of people who feel more comfortable in delusion than reality.I also see a lot of people who don't understand what atheism is (Sandage, Genovese, Turner, those listed that "converted"from Communism, Stalinism, Trostkyism, etc.)

Breaking it down, I see some people who became Christians because it was politically expedient to do so (and some of those if you looked at them more closely on the list you wouldn't call them Christians (ex. Anders Borg, Keir Heidle, many of those who converted to Catholicism or Russian orthodoxy).

I see some flat out liars (Kirk Cameron, Lee Strobel). If they were atheists I'm the sitting Pope.

I see some people who have harmonized philosophy and theology like McGrath (usually done by changing the Bible)

Some absolute nuts (Shelly Lubben, Enoch Powell) that you and Christianity can keep.

Just because some people have gone to irrationality in some aspects of their lives doesn't make me want to dismiss them for the work they've done (though some deserve it).

The reason wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source is because it can be edited by anyone. Most times it's caught -sometimes it's not. If you really want to impress me, cite a book (I know they have a lot of words in them but give it a shot). Then quote that book and tell us the title of the book so we can look for ourselves.

Going to bring up Antony Flew next?

 

 

Please demonstrate a specific lie that Lee Strobel has made.   Otherwise, it's more biased talk casually writing off Christians as nutballs  because that fits nicely in your mold.  I suppose you include C.S Lewis in that list as well huh?  Then again, you're the one who just makes up lies.  You falsely claimed that Andrew Womack ministiries lies about healing in order to bilk people from their money without a shred of evidence.  You burned up any currency of credibility with that one.

 

I will bring up this one.   Welcome Brother Greene to the family of Christ. Smiling

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Greene_(activist)

 

BTW, yes wikipedia can be edited by anyone including people who as authorities on the subject. 

Congrats on buying Mr Greene off - what you cited says as much.

As for Strobel - from caseagainstfaith.com (a critique of all Strobel's "Case for" books)

"But Strobel portrays himself as a former atheist and a tough reporter, and reminds us of this constantly. He seems to try too hard to make us believe that he isn't going to take an easy answer from those he interviews. Does he really expect us to believe that he spoke "in a voice laden with sarcasm" to those he interviewed? It is the fact that Strobel proceeds on the pretense of playing the part of the skeptic, but then clearly stacks the deck against the skeptic..."

Enough of a lie?

Mr. Wommack put up a story about he and God (order intentional) healing a guy from a stroke with no evidence behind it and pictures one could find anywhere captioned to put his claim in a positive light. The donation button on his site is all the poof that I need that his intention is to bilk the faithful.

But then you'll just cover your eyes and insist that I presented nothing of substance - You make this too easy.

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Lol, so

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, so not only are you using wiki as a source, but did you read your own source? 

your own damn link dumb ass wrote:

The former activist was given monetary donations by the Baptist Church, which had erected the display, in order to assist in Greene's surgery.[6] Two months later, Greene announced his conversion to Christianity,[7], a faith he left again one month later.[8]

 

ROFLMFAO !

That's hysterical Beyond.

Your Own Damn Link Dumb Ass Wrote.

Priceless. I haven't had a laugh like that in a while.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
DP

DP


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
 

So I provide research and answers, and then what?  Oh let's see, you call me stupid.  Insult my faith.  Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence.  Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points.  Atheists don't get a free pass either.  At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.

You provided research? Exactly where was that? All you have done is spout bible quotes. The closest you have gotten to "research" is to throw up wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is useful for a general overview of a topic but as Dana succinctly explained, wiki is not exactly the most accurate source on any topic. Wikipedia is only intended to be and is pretty effective at being a tertiary source. It is useful if you are clueless on a topic and want to learn enough to decide an appropriate starting point for learning more or if you are only interested in a broad overview on a topic. It is hardly a source that can be considered complete and authoritative. When I was in elementary school my teacher would have flunked me if I turned in a report that used "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a main source. People call you stupid because your arguments are on par with a second graders (not to insult second graders), start actually providing quality sources and reasoned arguments and people will treat you with more respect. 

try checking out this site for some ideas of what to look for in a quality source

http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/23

 

And exactly which "bold statement" has anyone refused to back up? Even in your criticisms of us you can only make vague blanket statements. Point out a specific and you will probably get a specific response. I know I am personally willing to back up any statement I make when specifically requested and most of the others participating in this thread are as well. 

 

 

 

 

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

 

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Except that people have spoken against the article you cited and wikipedia is a piss poor source (you weren't using it a s a reference site - you were citing it as an authority). I use wikipedia only to find a layman's explanation and then I go to the links at the bottom to provide a fuller explanation. (if people ask). Meanwhile, you insist on claiming that no one has provided evidence to counter your assertions while drowning in it. I thought the 9th commandment wasn't an option for you.

I'll leave the rest to Beyond Sacing.

 

Wow, again you manage to say something without really saying something.  If my references are wrong, PROVE it instead of bitching about the source. 

 

Speaking of Wikipedia, I'm particularly fond of this one:

 

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

 

 

The only reason it looks like I'm not saying something to you is because you refuse to understand it. Must be nice to have that security blanket to fall back on.

To the list:

Overall, I see a lot of people who feel more comfortable in delusion than reality.I also see a lot of people who don't understand what atheism is (Sandage, Genovese, Turner, those listed that "converted"from Communism, Stalinism, Trostkyism, etc.)

Breaking it down, I see some people who became Christians because it was politically expedient to do so (and some of those if you looked at them more closely on the list you wouldn't call them Christians (ex. Anders Borg, Keir Heidle, many of those who converted to Catholicism or Russian orthodoxy).

I see some flat out liars (Kirk Cameron, Lee Strobel). If they were atheists I'm the sitting Pope.

I see some people who have harmonized philosophy and theology like McGrath (usually done by changing the Bible)

Some absolute nuts (Shelly Lubben, Enoch Powell) that you and Christianity can keep.

Just because some people have gone to irrationality in some aspects of their lives doesn't make me want to dismiss them for the work they've done (though some deserve it).

The reason wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source is because it can be edited by anyone. Most times it's caught -sometimes it's not. If you really want to impress me, cite a book (I know they have a lot of words in them but give it a shot). Then quote that book and tell us the title of the book so we can look for ourselves.

Going to bring up Antony Flew next?

 

 

Please demonstrate a specific lie that Lee Strobel has made.   Otherwise, it's more biased talk casually writing off Christians as nutballs  because that fits nicely in your mold.  I suppose you include C.S Lewis in that list as well huh?  Then again, you're the one who just makes up lies.  You falsely claimed that Andrew Womack ministiries lies about healing in order to bilk people from their money without a shred of evidence.  You burned up any currency of credibility with that one.

 

I will bring up this one.   Welcome Brother Greene to the family of Christ. Smiling

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Greene_(activist)

 

BTW, yes wikipedia can be edited by anyone including people who as authorities on the subject. 

Congrats on buying Mr Greene off - what you cited says as much.

As for Strobel - from caseagainstfaith.com (a critique of all Strobel's "Case for" books)

"But Strobel portrays himself as a former atheist and a tough reporter, and reminds us of this constantly. He seems to try too hard to make us believe that he isn't going to take an easy answer from those he interviews. Does he really expect us to believe that he spoke "in a voice laden with sarcasm" to those he interviewed? It is the fact that Strobel proceeds on the pretense of playing the part of the skeptic, but then clearly stacks the deck against the skeptic..."

Enough of a lie?

Mr. Wommack put up a story about he and God (order intentional) healing a guy from a stroke with no evidence behind it and pictures one could find anywhere captioned to put his claim in a positive light. The donation button on his site is all the poof that I need that his intention is to bilk the faithful.

But then you'll just cover your eyes and insist that I presented nothing of substance - You make this too easy.

 

 

A quick review of your website gave me no specific to demonstrate that Strobel was never an atheist.  In fact, unless you know the man personally, I don't think you have a right to make such a judgement. You just can't accept that a person bathed in your science and logic could see the light and become saved.  I don't know Mr. Greene so your statement is another bold faced lie.  I welcome him as a brother in Christ.  You see, Christians help and support each other.  We don't believe in mocking and tearing down people like yourself. 

 

Mr. Wommack presented one of many healing stories with MRI scan images, the full name of his doctor, and a video with his doctor testifying to the miracle.  What more proof do you fricking need?  So what if he has a donation button?  Non-profit ministries cost a lot of money to run.  He never begs for money on his radio show and fully offers to send out materials for free if requested.  That's not indictive of a scam artist.


 

 

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:TWD39

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

Many people have directly addressed your wiki links. For the most part, the flaw has been that they are irrelevant to the topic. And wiki is a great reference site, and that is all it is- reference. It is not an authoritative source because it can be added to by anyone and as Dana pointed out often has incomplete or inaccurate information especially when it goes into details or controversial subjects. Tertiary sources have their place, but pointing to a tertiary source as if it is a primary source that conclusively proves your claim is ignorant.

 

TWD39 wrote:

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Well I haven't exactly been documenting it, there may be a few pictures and videos floating around but I assure you I use the scientific method vigorously. I have my hypothesis, I test it regularly and then I observe the results. So far I am still STD free, thank you for your concern. But never fear, I shall continue to test my hypothesis as long as I am able to continue getting volunteers to help, science is a rough job but someone has to do it. Doesn't it make you wonder if there is a god, why he hasn't stricken me for not following his edicts yet? 

 

I see, so with that logic, a person who has spent years playing and petting alligators with no injury PROVES that alligators are harmless, right?   You really are delusional.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:TWD39

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

I will bring up this one.   Welcome Brother Greene to the family of Christ. Smiling

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Greene_(activist)

 

BTW, yes wikipedia can be edited by anyone including people who as authorities on the subject. 

Lol, so not only are you using wiki as a source, but did you read your own source? 

your own damn link dumb ass wrote:

The former activist was given monetary donations by the Baptist Church, which had erected the display, in order to assist in Greene's surgery.[6] Two months later, Greene announced his conversion to Christianity,[7], a faith he left again one month later.[8]

 

 

No, The joke's on you since the atheist community went nuts over this, and boldy claimed that Mr. Greene was never an atheist.  Oh wait, I guess he is now huh?   It's a good story though showing how Christians do help their neighbors, and we're not evil monsters.  It's called having compassion, something atheists seem to lack.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

I will bring up this one.   Welcome Brother Greene to the family of Christ. Smiling

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Greene_(activist)

 

BTW, yes wikipedia can be edited by anyone including people who as authorities on the subject. 

Lol, so not only are you using wiki as a source, but did you read your own source? 

your own damn link dumb ass wrote:

The former activist was given monetary donations by the Baptist Church, which had erected the display, in order to assist in Greene's surgery.[6] Two months later, Greene announced his conversion to Christianity,[7], a faith he left again one month later.[8]

 

 

No, The joke's on you since the atheist community went nuts over this, and boldy claimed that Mr. Greene was never an atheist.  Oh wait, I guess he is now huh?   It's a good story though showing how Christians do help their neighbors, and we're not evil monsters.  It's called having compassion, something atheists seem to lack.

Compassion like "be a Christian and we'll pay for your medical stuff"? That sounds like extortion to me.  Kind of like the compassion that the chaplain in Iran had when he was trading baths for baptisms to his fellow soldiers only after they listened to his sermon.- http://atheism.about.com/cs/goingtowar/a/cs_chap_bribe.htm

"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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Translation - well I can't really argue against his article, and I certainly can't admit that he is right so I'll just claim wikipedia is a piss poor reference site.  That'll work.

Many people have directly addressed your wiki links. For the most part, the flaw has been that they are irrelevant to the topic. And wiki is a great reference site, and that is all it is- reference. It is not an authoritative source because it can be added to by anyone and as Dana pointed out often has incomplete or inaccurate information especially when it goes into details or controversial subjects. Tertiary sources have their place, but pointing to a tertiary source as if it is a primary source that conclusively proves your claim is ignorant.

 

TWD39 wrote:

Didn't you claim that your sinful practice of having sex with multiple partners carries little or no risk of catching a STD?  I would love to see you back up that claim.  Show me the scientific evidence!

Well I haven't exactly been documenting it, there may be a few pictures and videos floating around but I assure you I use the scientific method vigorously. I have my hypothesis, I test it regularly and then I observe the results. So far I am still STD free, thank you for your concern. But never fear, I shall continue to test my hypothesis as long as I am able to continue getting volunteers to help, science is a rough job but someone has to do it. Doesn't it make you wonder if there is a god, why he hasn't stricken me for not following his edicts yet? 

 

I see, so with that logic, a person who has spent years playing and petting alligators with no injury PROVES that alligators are harmless, right?   You really are delusional.

No, a person who has spent years playing and petting alligators with no injury provides evidence that there are ways to play with and pet alligators safely, which in fact there are because many people wrestle alligators and rarely suffer any serious injuries. All I ever claimed is that one can have sexual relations with multiple partners and can have minimal (not non-existent) risk of STD's through safe practices and using a little sense in determining who they have sex with. If you remember, it was in response to your naked assertion that STD's came from god to punish people having sex outside of marriage.

Your claim that STD's are evidence that god doesn't want people having sex outside of marriage is equivalent of declaring that the fact dogs bite people sometimes is evidence that god doesn't want us having pet dogs, or the fact that people fall down stairs is proof that god doesn't want us building stairs. There is risk in everything in life, and most of those risks can be minimized with a little care. Whether you want to wrestle alligators, own a dog, have an orgy or run up some stairs (or even all four at the same time) the risks of those activities can be managed and none of them are the nearly as dangerous as playing Russian Roulette which if I recall correctly was the absurd comparison you made (unless you cheat when you play Russian Roulette, which if I am playing, I am cheating, promise.) 

I probably also pointed out that by far the most likely way for me to die right now is a car accident, so if you are really concerned about my safety you ought to be convincing me not to drive anywhere rather than worrying about my sex life.