You go first, how long will this continue.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
You go first, how long will this continue.

Once again the fighting has started up again in Palistine. You get pee shooter rockets, accusations that Hammas is using the population as human sheilds. You get Isreal over reacting. And death and continued fighting on both sides. When is the nation crap and religious crap and  politics going to stop?

Every decade since I was born in 66 this has been an issue. I am so sick of this shit and neither side is getting anywhere. Palistine has to give up on it's theocratic politics, and self police and get the violent people out of it's population. Isrial needs to give up on it's invasions and settlements.

It sickens me that people don't get tired of war and violence. How many humans on either side have to die before it becomes clear that it is futile? Neither side is gong anywhere. Humans are involved on both sides.

There was a time when someone could make a case that they were on the right side of history. But I do not see that. All I see is both sides playing victime lo9oking for excuses for more violence. I wish the international community would step in and settle this with peace keeping forces. Palistinians should not live in a prison, their every day civiliians should not be starved to death. But at the same time they also should not be held hostage by those in power.

Isreal needs to give up on a Jewish state and simply be a westerinized secular state. Palistinians need to purge their rulers of the theocrats and zealots. All labels aside flesh is flesh and death is death and this has been going on for far too long and has affected the entire global community for fart too long.

I am tired of the excuses. Both sides are baging their heads against the wall and getting nowhere simply pissing the other side off more. Is a boarder or a tradition or label so important as to fail to realize that in the end when someone dies on either side, you are STILL killing another human being.

 

We are mpt ;;ovomg om any nobal age of conquest anymore. The world is round, not flat. What you do Palistinians to Isreal has an affect on the world. What you do Isreal to Palistinians has an affect on the world. The selfishness and war sickens me because it seems to be nothing more than a cry for attention trying to get the rest of the world to side with one side.

 

PLEASE FUCKING STOP! You are just two groups of people on a populated planet of 7 billion. Please tell me what right either of you have to turn our planet into your childish game of capture the flag. It is my hope that the international commun9ity instead of chosing sides, SHAMES both sides int o cooperations.

 

There has been no end to this shit and I am beyond caring at this point as an outsider who has no horse in the race. This all stems from evolution and nothing more. We side as humans with that which we are familure with and defend it from outside threats. The problem is that there is an utter failure of the WORLD, not just both sides, BUT THE WORLD, to put enough pressure on both sides.

 

ENOUGH! What right does either side after all this and no end in sight have to cry "poor me". Reea;;y? You'd both take a scorched earth policy and drag the region and possibly the entire world int a war over what?

 

There should be no two state solution. I am at the point where I think both of you need to have your asses kicked, your leaders arrested and repl,aced with sane secular leaders.

 

Regardless of which side I lean to, I am not going to take sides when clearly both sides are ussing the same stupid tactics that simply perpetuate this needless conflict.

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
But with scientific findings the results can be reproduced and those results are made public. If the experiment is simple enough I can reproduce it myself. The miracles of your God is that they can't be reproduced. For you that is a strength - for most people in reality it's a weakness.

Can science reproduce over and over that we came from a common ancestor. No, it can't. All we have is bare bones. But you probably accept that with what....FAITH! Of course the miracles of God can't be reproduced because only the spirit of God can do those things.

We have the evidence of that already - they're called transitional fossils and we have way more than we need. No faith needed

We're still doing it. Look in the mirror, Lee. Do you look exactly like one of your parents or do you have traits that favor both of them? That's right - you are a transiti0onal form. Again, no faith needed - not even for you.

But your God is omnipotent Lee - are you saying that not even HE can reproduce his results?

 

"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: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote: You're

Lee2216 wrote:

 You're shifting over to everyday decision making or bible interpretations. That's a whole different topic. Regarding bible interpretations though, there are only 2. A wrong one and a correct one. The JW's have a wrong interpretation and it's easy to tell just by studying the scriptures.

Yet, JW's and Catholics would say that you are the one interpreting it all wrong, what hard evidence do you have, from the very same book that they follow, to disprove them ?

I could almost see this if it were a question of Islam vs. Christian and my god vs your god mentality, but you guys can even agree over the SAME book that you are all following.

“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: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:I know you

Lee2216 wrote:

I know you don't like my logic and you avoid the question because it points to God. Well, Zeus didn't make it because he never claimed to.  No one has ever seen Zeus have they? We know ancient aliens didn't make it either. No one has seen an ancient alien have they? A bunch of people saw the risen Jesus who claimed to be God. If Jesus didn't really rise from the dead it would have been disproven a myth not long after it started.

 

 

And you are basing all of these assertions off of what exactly

“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: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:That quote

Lee2216 wrote:

That quote came right from the mouth of God jc. And you do the same thing with science Jc. You borrow some scientists subjective opinion on the age of fossils or evolution and claim that it's true. So don't be a hypocrit.

Science does not go by opinions and assertions, it goes by testable and observable evidence.

“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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Can science

Lee2216 wrote:

Can science reproduce over and over that we came from a common ancestor. No, it can't. All we have is bare bones. But you probably accept that with what....FAITH! Of course the miracles of God can't be reproduced because only the spirit of God can do those things.

 

Actually, yes.  We also have genetic evidence - the commonality of our genes.  We share 96% of our DNA with chimps, less with gorillas, less still with monkeys, less still with wolves, less still with reptiles, and so on - but we even share genes with bacteria.

Why would an intelligent designer share genes between bacteria and humans?  Lazy?  Or does it make more sense that all life on earth is related because it all evolved over millions of years?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:and whoever

Lee2216 wrote:

and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire

So, Christians who call me a fool are in danger of hell?

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote: jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Why do you deny abiogenesis?

Because it's not scientifically factual that's why. All we have is theories. Gee, weren't you just harping testable repeatable methods. Get back to me when you find a scientist that can reproduce life from non-life will ya.

 

For a list of websites that discuss the oldest fossils found:

http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontologie/Palaeo/Palbot/seite1.html

This article is short and has a picture:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=squiggles-in-sandstone-ma

This is a recent theory on the origin of self-replicating molecules.  It is a fairly long article, and I do not anticipate you will bother to read it.  It won't fit in with your confirmation bias and belief perseverance.  But for those who might be interested, here, in my view, is the meat of the paper:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life wrote:

The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator.

Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them. In those cases where experiments have been published, they have usually served to demonstrate the plausibility of individual steps in a proposed cycle. The greatest amount of new data has perhaps come from Günter Wächtershäuser and his colleagues at the Technische Universität München. They have demonstrated portions of a cycle involving the combination and separation of amino acids, in the presence of metal sulfide catalysts. The energetic driving force for the transformations is supplied by the oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. They have not yet demonstrated the operation of a complete cycle or its ability to sustain itself and undergo further evolution. A "smoking gun" experiment displaying those three features is needed to establish the validity of the small molecule approach.

 

So the idea is that life started not with DNA, or even RNA, but rather shorter molecules that fit the requirements given in the first paragraph quoted.  This is a more probable explanation and experiments are being conducted along these lines.  Eventually, someone will find some answers - they will not likely verify a miracle, but simple chemistry and physics.

The author says to think of it as a grocery list.  The cart full of items you purchase is not the list, but it has the same stuff.  DNA and RNA are lists, this model is the grocery cart full of stuff. 

Here is an article describing a self-replicating molecule scientists created.  If a scientist can create one, why do you need a god to create one?

http://news.discovery.com/tech/scientists-buil-self-replicating-molecule-111014.html

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Please state this good evidence or provide a link to it. Until then I'll stick with the consensus that leaves Mark at 75 CE and the others much later.

See I told you I'd be one step ahead of you. Where is this consensus, provide the link.

 

An easy website to peruse is Early Christian Writings.  http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Otherwise, you will have to look at various university theological departments.

Though I don't think you will as it goes against your belief perseverance.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Why do you deny abiogenesis?

Because it's not scientifically factual that's why. All we have is theories. Gee, weren't you just harping testable repeatable methods. Get back to me when you find a scientist that can reproduce life from non-life will ya.

But it is a tenet of your belief - you have a God that you can't distinguish from nothing that you claim created everything. I notice you missed that part so I brought it up again.

So why do you deny abiogenesis when you need it to believe in a creator god?

 

 

"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: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
These were carried by the Apostles and disciples

These were carried by the Apostles and disciples

 Your Scriptural reference fails to fully address the problem (again!!). You should have included other elements to supplement as an actual response to Beyond. He (Beyond) is a bit of a weapons buff. I knew of the reference  so I purposefully looked up Swords of the time.

Hint    

     The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," Jesus replied.

 

 

 

 The Gladius 'carried' by Ancient Roman foot soldiers was too long. The closest  I could come to an  Image of the actual defensive 'weapons' carried by travelers and the band of disciples was the Windlass Pugio, which is more of a Roman Dagger than a sword (of some length)  it was a civilian sidearm & was a common sight in the ancient Roman Empire, also in the 1 Century C. E. The group 'carried' two of them, that were known of, if Lee had bothered to consult Luke's Gospel writings. And were carried, for extended travel, by the disciples as a means of defense, I should think. The reference is an instance where they brought them, according to what became the account. (See: Ref. and Image)

 (Edit :: Tiny Typeo it's ' closest ' , dropped letter, doing much better now)


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:the evidence

jcgadfly wrote:
the evidence of that already - they're called transitional fossils and we have way more than we need. No faith needed

We're still doing it. Look in the mirror, Lee. Do you look exactly like one of your parents or do you have traits that favor both of them? That's right - you are a transiti0onal form. Again, no faith needed - not even for you

Yes they're are fossils but they're not transitional, that name has only been applied to support that presupposition. I have traits of both my parents sure but my traits aren't transitioning. I have eyes like my mother and father, they may not be the same color but there still eyes. I have hair like my mother and father, may be a different color but none the less it's still hair. So what is exactly transitioning?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
the evidence of that already - they're called transitional fossils and we have way more than we need. No faith needed

We're still doing it. Look in the mirror, Lee. Do you look exactly like one of your parents or do you have traits that favor both of them? That's right - you are a transiti0onal form. Again, no faith needed - not even for you

Yes they're are fossils but they're not transitional, that name has only been applied to support that presupposition. I have traits of both my parents sure but my traits aren't transitioning. I have eyes like my mother and father, they may not be the same color but there still eyes. I have hair like my mother and father, may be a different color but none the less it's still hair. So what is exactly transitioning?

 

Your genes.  Each person has 100-200 genetic mutations on average.  Of which, about 30-40 will be transmitted to any children you might have.

I will supply references - from genetic scientists - if you want to read them.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Is that the barking to YEC Dogma (I hear)

Re ::  Is that the barking of YEC Dogma (I hear)

cj wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
the evidence of that already - they're called transitional fossils and we have way more than we need. No faith needed

We're still doing it. Look in the mirror, Lee. Do you look exactly like one of your parents or do you have traits that favor both of them? That's right - you are a transiti0onal form. Again, no faith needed - not even for you

Yes they're are fossils but they're not transitional, that name has only been applied to support that presupposition. I have traits of both my parents sure but my traits aren't transitioning. I have eyes like my mother and father, they may not be the same color but there still eyes. I have hair like my mother and father, may be a different color but none the less it's still hair. So what is exactly transitioning?

 

Your genes.  Each person has 100-200 genetic mutations on average.  Of which, about 30-40 will be transmitted to any children you might have.

I will supply references - from genetic scientists - if you want to read them.


 

  Lee handed you (C.j.) an AiG reference or link I recall  . .

 

    Outside of the question of a 'creator'. Transitional fossils could being to strongly be suggestive of Evolution since they have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. 

 

 

 

    (quote)Please note, When Darwin first published his "Origin of Species" he stressed that the lack of transitional fossils was the most formidable obstacle to his theory. At that time very little was known about the fossil record and complaints that there were a lack of any transitional fossils were understandable. Since that time, despite the rarity of fossilization, literally dozens of excellent examples have surfaced starting with the discovery of Archaeopteryx in the Solnhofen area of Germany just two years after "Origin" was published. Since transitional fossils are anathema to YEC dogma, they have desperately sought to redefine the term to suit their own purposes or they merely outright deny their existence. An example of the later being the Archaeopteryx, which some YEC assert isn't a transitional between reptile and bird at all, but is instead a true bird despite the fact that it clearly possesses characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds don't have (www.enchantedlearning.com/agifs/Archaeopteryx_bw.GIF). Often you hear a YEC contend that transitional fossils don't exist because nobody can prove the fossil in question is a direct ancestor of any later creature. While this is true to an extent, even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch it still demonstrates that creatures with intermediate characteristics did exist, and thus it is highly probable that a similar creature existed that was an ancestor of a later species. Again, the archaeopteryx serves as an example since science isn't sure whether or not they were ancestors of modern birds or a side-branch that serves to illustrate the changes taking place at that time. YEC advocates simply take it too far in demanding a record of every single creature in the chain before we can say that something is an ancestor of something else. Such "absolute proof" is incredibly unrealistic considering the nature of the fossil record itself. Then there are the YECs that stubbornly see gaps everywhere. As soon as a transitional fossil between two groups of creatures is found they spring into action demanding intermediaries between the intermediaries. And if such fossils are also discovered are they satisfied? No. These critics now demand intermediaries between the newly discovered intermediaries. It's a no-win situation. When more links in the chain are found they only see a chain with more holes. More can be learned about Archaeopteryx at All About Archaeopteryx (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) and at the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx) for Archaeopteryx. "Archie" is far from the only example of a transitional fossil that has been dug up over the years. Very recently up in Canada there was the spectacular discovery of a transitional form between lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods dating back 375 million years. Called Tiktaalik, it is an example of Fish to Amphibian evolution demonstrating, among other things, the change from fin to limb. To learn more about this fascinating extinct creature at, the Tiktaalik roseae: Home (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/). The evolution of whales and other cetaceans from land animals has long been derided by YECs (www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej10_1.jpg) as the ultimate example of evolutionary nonsense. Critics used the fact that a fossil record was lacking to "prove" that there are no such thing as transitional fossils. This situation changed dramatically when an entire slew of whale fossils of several transitional species surfaced, primarily in Pakistan, since the 1990s. More information can be found at the Wikipedia page on the Evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales) There are many other examples of transitional fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). Probably two of the best sources available on the internet for further information include CC200: Transitional fossils (www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html) and the famous Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) by Kathleen Hunt. Considering the number of new transitional fossils being uncovered, especially in recent years, don't you YECs think it might be time to quit hoisting your flag on this particular battlefield? Researchers have taken a new look at the fossilized remains of the long extinct arachnid, Attercopus fimbriunguis, that lived 386 mya (Middle Devonian) and had been interpreted in 1989 as being the oldest known spider. They have now concluded that instead of being the oldest spider it is actually a more primitive ancestor of web-spinning spiders. This means that the oldest "true" spider may have arrived 80 million years later than previously thought. The reason for the reinterpretation is that new analysis has revealed that the parts of the 7mm (0.27&rdquoEye-wink long Attercopus that had been described as spinnerets (the external, modified appendages that allow web-spinning) weren’t actually spinnerets after all. While this proto-spider could still produce silk, it wasn’t in strands like modern spiders, but in the form of broad sheets excreted from spigots arranged along the edges of the segmented plates that made up the underside of the creature’s abdomen. What appeared to be a tubular spinneret was in fact a rolled-up or folded sheet of cuticle (the animals' external skeletal material). The team that made the reassessment, led by Paul Seldon, director and the Gulf-Hedberg Distinguished Professor of Invertebrate Paleontology of the Paleontological Institute at the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas, think that Attercopus could have used the sheets for a variety of purposes including to line burrows, protect eggs, have sex, make homing trails and possibly even subdue prey, but that web-making wasn’t one of them because of the inflexibility of the spigots. Further, they found that Attercopus, unlike any known spider, possessed a long, segmented, flagellum-like tail similar to that seen on a whip scorpion that is commonly seen on some of the spider’s more primitive relatives. And aside from having tails and spinning silk from broad, segmented plates, the team discovered that Attercopus also seem to lack venom glands and openings on the fang of the chelicerae previously thought to be associated with venom glands was the result of a misinterpretation. It was these characteristics that got Attercopus moved into the extinct order of arachnids thought to be close to the origins of spiders named Uraraneida. "The thing that had been called the oldest known spider we have now shown is in fact more primitive than a true spider," Professor William Selden, the Trinkle Professor of Biology at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, and co-author of the report said. “We think these ‘tailed spiders’ represent an entirely new kind of animal, not known before from living or fossil examples,” observed Shear. “They were more primitive than spiders in many ways, and may be spider ancestors,” he added, “This new information also allows us to reinterpret other fossils once thought to be spiders, and this evidence suggests these Uraraneida, or pre-spiders, existed for more than 100 million years, living alongside real spiders, which evolved later.” Now, the oldest known "true spiders,” are members of the Mesothelae, a primitive group now represented only by the Liphistiidae, and dates from the Late Carboniferous period that ended roughly 300 mya, though Professor Selden says that true spiders could have existed earlier but haven’t been discovered. What prompted the reinterpretation of Attercopus was the discovery of an additional specimen since the original was uncovered in Gilboa, in upstate New York almost two decades ago. A slightly younger (374 myo) example with tail still attached to the abdomen, was discovered in nearby South Mountain, New York. The existence of such a tail is also supported by the more recently discovered Permarachne genus from a Permian deposit in Russia, which was also originally and inaccurately described as a spider and whose tail was originally described as an "elongated spinneret". Interestingly, as late as July of this year Shear and Sheldon have been describing Attercopus as having spinnerets: Fossil evidence for the origin of spider spinnerets (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2088/version/1). The oldest silk-producing spigots are known from the Middle Devonian of Gilboa, New York2. This specimen, slide 334.1b.AR34 (See:npre20082002-.PDF; Nature). The findings of the new research were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (source Rouge06 in the year 2009 and this site).

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
the evidence of that already - they're called transitional fossils and we have way more than we need. No faith needed

We're still doing it. Look in the mirror, Lee. Do you look exactly like one of your parents or do you have traits that favor both of them? That's right - you are a transiti0onal form. Again, no faith needed - not even for you

Yes they're are fossils but they're not transitional, that name has only been applied to support that presupposition. I have traits of both my parents sure but my traits aren't transitioning. I have eyes like my mother and father, they may not be the same color but there still eyes. I have hair like my mother and father, may be a different color but none the less it's still hair. So what is exactly transitioning?

What you call presupposition is and has been observed - you could do it yourself if you visited a few museums.

As for the rest of your post - you seem to be under the illusion that "transition" means changing from one species to another - since you like Comfort and Cameron's views that is not surprising.

What they don't tell you is that the crocoduck that they claim would prove evolution would actually be the thing that destroys the theory. Such a chimera is the thing you lot should be looking for.

I will try to help with your question though. Do you have the exact color of eyes as either parent? Can you see better (or worse) than your parents could when they were your age?  Is your hair color exactly the same?

Oops - transitions again. You can't get away from them.

"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: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Beyond Saving

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
What is the objective definition of murder, a definition that does not rely on me attempting to figure out the intent of a subject. 

I'll give it to you once again...please read and listen. Also, this is NOT my definition so don't claim I'm being subjective. This is what God says not me so your problem is with God not me.

 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

So you are saying that god's morality (and therefore yours since you agree with 100% of what god says) is completely subjective? Seriously, if that is all god has to justify murder I have no idea how to figure out whether or not I am committing murder. Do you think it is a good thing that god punishes people for eternity because they broke his law when it is so vague?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Beyond Saving

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why should we necessarily follow his commands? Do you follow the commands of any random person who gives you one?

Because He is the ultimate authority. Of course I don't follow commands of any random person. I follow the rules and regulations given by our government and the local authorities. I presume you follow those as well. Why do you follow them?

You presume too much. I only follow the laws I believe are just. If the government passes an unjust law I have no moral problem with ignoring it. For example, I have been known to break laws against gambling and pot smoking. 

 

Lee2216 wrote:

He is hiding Himself from you? Really? He has given you evidence by His creation. He has given you His word, the bible. Your rejecting Him, He is not hiding at all.

Is the bible the best an omnipotent being can come up with? Seriously? Either he is really stupid for an omnipotent being or he simply doesn't want to go through the effort to provide actual evidence. God is by the way, invited to come to Christmas dinner. I will be surrounded by bible thumpers so he should feel right at home. It would be nice for him to stop by and say "hi idiot, I exist". We will even provide him with dinner (and if Jesus can do the turn water into wine trick that would be sweet because my brother is firmly against drinking so I will be in desperate need of a drink- actually, if he doesn't want to come by for dinner he can just turn the water into wine and I will consider that some pretty good evidence) Then I can come back here in January and spread the good word to everyone on this site. Since god is omnipresent I imagine he has gotten this message, but if he hasn't could you pass it along... please? 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote: Regarding

Lee2216 wrote:

 Regarding bible interpretations though, there are only 2. A wrong one and a correct one. The JW's have a wrong interpretation and it's easy to tell just by studying the scriptures.

I know that most theists will say that "the other religion is not interpreting it correctly" which leads to a better question.

Why does god need his holy word interpreted ? Couldn't he have left clearer instructions if this was going to be his one and only shot at telling the world what to do ?

 

“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


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

harleysportster wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

 Regarding bible interpretations though, there are only 2. A wrong one and a correct one. The JW's have a wrong interpretation and it's easy to tell just by studying the scriptures.

I know that most theists will say that "the other religion is not interpreting it correctly" which leads to a better question.

Why does god need his holy word interpreted ? Couldn't he have left clearer instructions if this was going to be his one and only shot at telling the world what to do ?

 

Exactly - if God had actually written or inspired his "word" couldn't he have written a better book?

"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: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

 Regarding bible interpretations though, there are only 2. A wrong one and a correct one. The JW's have a wrong interpretation and it's easy to tell just by studying the scriptures.

I know that most theists will say that "the other religion is not interpreting it correctly" which leads to a better question.

Why does god need his holy word interpreted ? Couldn't he have left clearer instructions if this was going to be his one and only shot at telling the world what to do ?

 

Exactly - if God had actually written or inspired his "word" couldn't he have written a better book?

Something that could not be disputed or open to interpretation.

Hell, why not leave behind a book, in a language that is not deciphered, but completely understood by every one who reads it in their own native tongue and defies all explanation why everyone can read and understand it ?

Just that tiny little miracle alone would be enough to cause doubt.

Is that too much for an all-knowing, all-powerful and all seeing Yahweh ?

Oh that is right, for him to do that would fuck up my free will.

He didn't have a problem making himself known in the old days though, what made him change his mind ?

“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


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

No Problem - Can you point me in the direction of this science that says life must come from life? The nearest I can get is the fifth of Thomas Aquinas's '5 proofs' but as we both know that's philosophy, not science.

I can find lots of science that says it doesn't have to, but am stuggling to find the science that says it does.

 Appreciated.

 

Here you go. 

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Thank you, but I can't classify this as science.

Who is the author? Well, the article states:

Quote:
Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo.  He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities.  He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.

His biology degree was from a nonaccredited correspondence school which has subsequently been ordered to stop operations.

His tenure at Bowling green University was terminted because he claimed to have credentials in Psychology but in fact didn't.

he has published widely, but not in any peer reviewed scientific journals (a criterion to be taken seriously). This article has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journals of course either.

So this is a guy who has written an article on Abiogenesis who has no scientific qualifications or due scientific process to back it up.

Is it science if I download an online degree in chemistry, write an article about how I can make glass stronger than diamond, then publish it on some non-scientific website, is that science? That's essentially what this guy has done.

so I'll ask again, do you have any real science to support your position?

(From a real scientist who has a PHD in the biological sciences from a real university, and has had his research and conclusions on abiogenesis peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals - this is a prerequisite really for anything to be labelled scientific research.) If you can't then please rescind your claims.

Thanks.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.. even believers can get mad at God

 It's true even believers can get mad at  the Supreme being ?

harleysportster wrote:

Something that could not be disputed or open to interpretation.

Just that tiny little miracle alone would be enough to cause doubt.

  While I was initially searching and exploring  the Bon Religion, but hit a wall, so I had to cease. In exploring, however, I found a noted figure in it  that was both raised and  inherited all of its' ways and traditions and teachings from a tender age (of the Bon), in this wonderland of old-styled mysticism (minus any holy hill). This man later branched out into a more mainstream religion of this country near the turn of the 20th Century. Much of what I read about the man's life was he was always experiencing 'doubt', even when experiencing induced 'vivid' mystical experiences. The man is the one who was credited with the 'rainbow body'. He never ended-up rejecting either one of the two traditions, not even the one he grew up with, that must be stressed. If anything, I think, his doubt ironically pushed him further to maintain his vows, by all the biographical information. It wasn't what I was even researching but sort of happened upon. In it, it was hard to miss though never rejecting, he was personally plagued with 'doubt' nonetheless. This being a key figure.
 
   On this board  a couple, of specifically mentioned examples of causing 'doubt' (mentioned more than once) are the hard to except examples are/of:  Jonah, pissed-off, Prophet and the Great Fish. Apparently you can get mad with God. You know, He is logged in the stomach of the Great Fish says a eloquent prayer. Promises to make good on his vow " .. and the Lord commanded the Fish to vomit up Johan on the beach". In the Gospels it suggests the interpretation of the condition of the Prophet was worse than the text seems to indicate (I imagine because the term 'Sheol' is prominently mentioned in Jonah's Prayer to God within the Great Fish). The correct interpretation  was to mean the man of God didn't survive his ordeal, according to a later reading.  God must have had to resurrected him (cross-reference the words of Jesus). Btw, Jonah was a "prophet". Hint Three-days and three-nights etc. Anyhow. Second example, Another common example cited on this board (especially by Brian37) would be the circumstances surrounding Jesus's birth, to quote only a verse, only a tiny fraction of the 'passage' :

 
 

 (Matthew 1:18a)

Matthew 1:18a

 Now the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,  . . .

 You remember the rest.

  Response ?

 p.s. -- Btw, 'the plant' (read the text), at the very end of the book of Jonah, is a good preaching point, you have my permission to fully quote the end of the book Smiling Smiling

 

¬ Dana

 


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
the evidence of that already - they're called transitional fossils and we have way more than we need. No faith needed

We're still doing it. Look in the mirror, Lee. Do you look exactly like one of your parents or do you have traits that favor both of them? That's right - you are a transiti0onal form. Again, no faith needed - not even for you

Yes they're are fossils but they're not transitional, that name has only been applied to support that presupposition. I have traits of both my parents sure but my traits aren't transitioning. I have eyes like my mother and father, they may not be the same color but there still eyes. I have hair like my mother and father, may be a different color but none the less it's still hair. So what is exactly transitioning?

What you call presupposition is and has been observed - you could do it yourself if you visited a few museums.

As for the rest of your post - you seem to be under the illusion that "transition" means changing from one species to another - since you like Comfort and Cameron's views that is not surprising.

What they don't tell you is that the crocoduck that they claim would prove evolution would actually be the thing that destroys the theory. Such a chimera is the thing you lot should be looking for.

I will try to help with your question though. Do you have the exact color of eyes as either parent? Can you see better (or worse) than your parents could when they were your age?  Is your hair color exactly the same?

Oops - transitions again. You can't get away from them.

Let me correct myself Jc, agree with you on transition of eye or hair color. But regardless of color, eyes don't transition into ears and hair doesn't transition into scales. That's exactly how Darwin defined transition and that's exactly how some scientists define it today. Jc, tell me how a squirrel monkey avoided being eaten by lions before it had a tail?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Do you

Beyond Saving wrote:
Do you think it is a good thing that god punishes people for eternity because they broke his law when it is so vague?

His laws are VERY clear unless one doesn't know how to read and comprehend.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:You

Beyond Saving wrote:
You presume too much. I only follow the laws I believe are just. If the government passes an unjust law I have no moral problem with ignoring it. For example, I have been known to break laws against gambling and pot smoking.

Are you an atheist? If so, why do you follow any laws if there are no absolute standards?

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

 Regarding bible interpretations though, there are only 2. A wrong one and a correct one. The JW's have a wrong interpretation and it's easy to tell just by studying the scriptures.

I know that most theists will say that "the other religion is not interpreting it correctly" which leads to a better question.

Why does god need his holy word interpreted ? Couldn't he have left clearer instructions if this was going to be his one and only shot at telling the world what to do ?

 

He left a clear meaning in the scriptures concerning His plan of salvation. Repent and believe. No interpretation needed?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Beyond Saving

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Do you think it is a good thing that god punishes people for eternity because they broke his law when it is so vague?

His laws are VERY clear unless one doesn't know how to read and comprehend.

Well perhaps you can clear it up for me because obviously I am a dunce. You told me god wrote it on my heart but when I told you what my heart said you said it was wrong... so how the am I supposed to know? Please give me an objective definition so that I can determine what is murder and what is not without relying on subjectivity and guessing. 

 

Then when I asked for God's objective definition you give me this quote,

Quote:

 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

Still it doesn't define "murder". It does tell me that I shouldn't be angry and I shouldn't insult. So does that mean if I kill someone without anger and I don't call them a name while I do it, that it isn't murder? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
His tenure at Bowling green University was terminted because he claimed to have credentials in Psychology but in fact didn't.

Actually, he was fired for sharing his religious beliefs which is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. As far as peer reviewed journals or publications 

creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing.

Not to mention loss of grants for expressing their viewpoints. Simply dishonest is what it is. The truth will be revealed in the end and evil deeds WILL be exposed.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Lee2216

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Do you think it is a good thing that god punishes people for eternity because they broke his law when it is so vague?

His laws are VERY clear unless one doesn't know how to read and comprehend.

Well perhaps you can clear it up for me because obviously I am a dunce. You told me god wrote it on my heart but when I told you what my heart said you said it was wrong... so how the am I supposed to know? Please give me an objective definition so that I can determine what is murder and what is not without relying on subjectivity and guessing. 

 

Then when I asked for God's objective definition you give me this quote,

Quote:

 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

Still it doesn't define "murder". It does tell me that I shouldn't be angry and I shouldn't insult. So does that mean if I kill someone without anger and I don't call them a name while I do it, that it isn't murder? 

I understand you're spiritually discerned. It's right in the passage I gave you. Who ever is angry with someone has murdered them in their heart. This is murder according to God.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:I understand

Lee2216 wrote:

I understand you're spiritually discerned. It's right in the passage I gave you. Who ever is angry with someone has murdered them in their heart. This is murder according to God.

So if I am not angry I can kill whomever I want and god won't consider it murder? Like that guy who beats his girlfriend, after I cool down and am no longer angry I can make the rational decision that the world would be a much better place without him and that means it isn't murder?

What about if I am out and about with my girlfriend and someone attacks us and hurts, kills or threatens her- I guarantee I am going to be extremely angry- so I pull out my Sig and shoot the guy until his body stops moving. I killed in anger, does that make it murder? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
His tenure at Bowling green University was terminted because he claimed to have credentials in Psychology but in fact didn't.

Actually, he was fired for sharing his religious beliefs which is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.

lol

 

Lee2216 wrote:

As far as peer reviewed journals or publications 

creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing.

Not to mention loss of grants for expressing their viewpoints. Simply dishonest is what it is. The truth will be revealed in the end and evil deeds WILL be exposed.

lol. Creationists can't publish their creationist ideas in a science journal because they don't provide real evidence. The irony is that if a deity is ever shown to exist it will be a scientist that discovers the evidence and proves its existence. (By deity I mean any being capable of creating at least this planet and perhaps the whole universe)

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Anyone is allowed to review things here :) :)

Quote:
.. creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing.

Attn. -- To Lee

   Everyone (nearly everyone) is interested in maintaining proper respect   and decorum. It's not as an unruly a bunch you or some may have feared, so you are certainly welcome to discuss pretty much anything (within limits). Please dont feel any  one of us are not allowed to review it here on this board. Last week, without meaning to, I ran across  a creationists website,  in the heading was a link to an article  suggesting  the bulk of the water from Noah's flood was actually, under the earth, seven miles down under asia or china (I forget now). My immediate thought was how long did it take to accumulate in downwelling via the Subduction zones. I glanced at the Heading, though noticed the article. I neither have it in front of me, remember where I saw it nor have I ever looked at it. >For me, I have a imposing and large major appliance to install  by myself   or  I would look up the reference for you.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Actually, he

Lee2216 wrote:

Actually, he was fired for sharing his religious beliefs which is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.

I bet he was fired for teaching his religious beliefs in a class whose subject had nothing to do with religion.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

Simply dishonest is what it is.

Is it okay for Christians to be dishonest?

 

Also, Lee2216, I'd really appreciate a response to my earlier posts.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh dear

Lee2216 wrote:

Creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing. The truth will be revealed in the end and evil deeds WILL be exposed.

 

A wee bit of a nut aren't we, Lee. 

 

 

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
His tenure at Bowling green University was terminted because he claimed to have credentials in Psychology but in fact didn't.

Actually, he was fired for sharing his religious beliefs which is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. As far as peer reviewed journals or publications 

creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing.

Not to mention loss of grants for expressing their viewpoints. Simply dishonest is what it is. The truth will be revealed in the end and evil deeds WILL be exposed.

 

Lee, money is not an issue.  Apply to the ICR or some similar organization.  There is a LOT more money available there than in most scientific grants.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

 Regarding bible interpretations though, there are only 2. A wrong one and a correct one. The JW's have a wrong interpretation and it's easy to tell just by studying the scriptures.

I know that most theists will say that "the other religion is not interpreting it correctly" which leads to a better question.

Why does god need his holy word interpreted ? Couldn't he have left clearer instructions if this was going to be his one and only shot at telling the world what to do ?

 

He left a clear meaning in the scriptures concerning His plan of salvation. Repent and believe. No interpretation needed?

And then Paul changed it to "just believe and ask forgiveness when you need to".

Some of you guys believe in repentance and actually changing your ways - some of you don't. All of you have different definitions for what "sin" is and what actions fall under the definition of "sins"

Hence the need for interpretation.

Incidentally, you've given quite a bit of evidence on which side you stand.

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Beyond Saving

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Do you think it is a good thing that god punishes people for eternity because they broke his law when it is so vague?

His laws are VERY clear unless one doesn't know how to read and comprehend.

Well perhaps you can clear it up for me because obviously I am a dunce. You told me god wrote it on my heart but when I told you what my heart said you said it was wrong... so how the am I supposed to know? Please give me an objective definition so that I can determine what is murder and what is not without relying on subjectivity and guessing. 

 

Then when I asked for God's objective definition you give me this quote,

Quote:

 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

Still it doesn't define "murder". It does tell me that I shouldn't be angry and I shouldn't insult. So does that mean if I kill someone without anger and I don't call them a name while I do it, that it isn't murder? 

I understand you're spiritually discerned. It's right in the passage I gave you. Who ever is angry with someone has murdered them in their heart. This is murder according to God.

But the bible doesn't need interpretation...except when it does.

"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


Professor
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2012-10-31
User is offlineOffline
God and Morality (Forum 33339)

     One of the participants in this forum e-mailed me and solicited my comment, as if I could solve the conflicts of the ages.   Fundamentally the atheist/agnostic wants to find truth within himself/herself, whereas the theist looks to an outside Source.   These views are as old as time and anti-thetical.   A time for argument about each other's world view is fine; in fact we Theists look at such times to peacefully discuss as a gift from God.  In the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc. the theists are thrown in concentration camps.   (Yes, I know about the other side: the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of Servetus, etc.)   But beyond that most of us have jobs, families, church, hobbies, etc., and we just do not have time to argue all day.  

        I am a Christian theist, and I agree with Lee2216.   Yes, the Palestinians and Jews (although many of the Jews are secular, even atheists) have different understandings of God, and so they fight.  The Americans during the Civil War had different understandings of God and slavery, and there was fighting.  On the other side, Stalin and Trotsky had different understandings of communism, and there was bloodshed.  Indeed Stalin and Mao killed millions of their own people in the name of pure atheism; they accused their opponents of being "revisionists," or "reactionaries."   But I am quite willing to work with an atheist such as Nat Hentoff (is he still alive?) who wrote for the VILLAGE VOICE but opposed abortion, as do I.  

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Professor

Professor wrote:

Fundamentally the atheist/agnostic wants to find truth within himself/herself, whereas the theist looks to an outside Source.

I'm pretty sure everyone looks at both themselves and reality to find the truth.

 

Professor wrote:

Indeed Stalin and Mao killed millions of their own people in the name of pure atheism

Really, their thoughts were "I'm going to kill these people because I lack belief in a God"?

 

Professor wrote:

but opposed abortion, as do I

Do you oppose abortion in all cases?

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The Palestinian right to resist occupation is unquestioned.

If Jews do not like the Palestinian right to kill of those who impose the dictatorship that is their problem. If Jews refuse to end their brutal dictatorship over millions of Palestinians they should be thankful this is so far the least they have gotten in return. If Jews refuse to their blockade they should at least have the courtesy to stop whining about the consequences of the blockade. Sorry but indiscriminate bombing of civilians has been lawful since WWII. That is why Jews do it.

To end the problem have the Jews go back where they came from or where their parents or grandparents came from. Get the fuck out and admit it was a dumb idea in the first place. The Palestinians have legitimate property rights which were not negated by the thieving absentee owner laws. Palestine became the designated Jewish target two years before Hitler was born. Jewish terrorists began attacking Palestinians during WWI.

There is no equal blame in this matter. Jews are completely at fault and always intended to be the criminal party in the Zionist enterprise. The very fact of a Zionist enterprise and it being both religious and the foundation of Israel clearly designates the Jews as the religious lunatics in the matter.

The Palestinians have NEVER made a religious claim to the land rather own claimed private property rights to the land. You constant assertion that the Palestinians have the religious foundation without presenting evidence of it and even when challenged you best answer has been "I want to believe it" does not pass the giggle test.

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
.

jcgadfly wrote:
Don't think this is a resource issue as there was never anything there worth having (including real estate). This is a pissing contest over whose deity gave who the sacred sand.

Only Jews have invoked biblical divine property rights. The Palestinians have invoked private property rights as in deeded land titles stolen from them by Jews under the absentee owner laws starting in 1949 the year after independence.

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
.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
This is a classic example of the Hatfields vs. the McCoys.

Neither fucking side knows who started it or why they are fighting. They just know to keep killing each other.

Of course we know the Jews from Europe started it. That is not in question. Even they will tell you that. That is the whole Zionist narrative.

 

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
.

Lee2216 wrote:
The atheist has no right to claim that the atrocities of war are evil without using a Christian worldview.
Granted "evil" is a superstitious and generally religious concept. However other words can be used in place of evil.

However in the long term wars are wars. They happen. Whether or not there is any generic pro or con to them has neither a simple or consistent answer.

 

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
.

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Don't think this is a resource issue as there was never anything there worth having (including real estate). This is a pissing contest over whose deity gave who the sacred sand.

Then why so much outrage over 'Israeli' settlements in 'Palestinian' lands?

Many reasons perhaps the most obvious is the jewish military dictatorship is stealing the land from the lawful owners. As an American or westerner in general one should be against government sponsored segregated housing.

Quote:
There is a competition for survival. Religion is an ancillary issue. Religion is used as an excuse for violent behaviors on both sides. Religion is a convenient way to avoid the real issue of resource competition and instead justify one's violent behavior and overbreeding.

There is no lack of land in Israel to build criminal squattertowns. From the beginning the jewish justification has been a land promised to the by their god.

This stuff is not a secret. You can read it in israeli newspapers damned near every day.

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: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Happy Hanukkah -- Prof.

 Happy Hanukkah  sorry for the reception (in advance)

 #287

   ¬: Translation,  I (the Professor) the touted armchair Theologian, embarrassed the [ALMOST (almost) Expletive deleted] out of myself by some insane remarks and decided to not to stay. Well, These things will happen. After the holidays are through, you havent been properly introduced to a place called trolliville, if you ever decide to head back,  for people who spam the site with Multi-Volumed  Reformed Theological Box Sets. What ?!? I have got to learn to stop paying attention. Apparently you dont pay attention, Captain Clueless, this isnt what the Topic is even currently about. Just playing. Welcome to put in your two cents anytime, pay no never mind. Really. Bit atypical of me mainly. Best to let it drop the references are (very fresh) in my mind, so much so, I dont feel even need to provide a link.  You have a good holiday (Goodbye)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  p.s. -- Little biblical algebra and we can infer by your recent comments you've identified the  S0N OF LAWLESSNESS to be a nutter who killed a sm. group of kids, wording from 2 Thes. and Little "retrain-er -ed" humor  (that is a pun at your expense, atypical). By the tone, best I not have to explain the joke, w/ your remarks.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Professor

Professor wrote:

          On the other side, Stalin and Trotsky had different understandings of communism, and there was bloodshed.  Indeed Stalin and Mao killed millions of their own people in the name of pure atheism; they accused their opponents of being "revisionists," or "reactionaries."  

Fallacy of equivocation, being an Atheist does not automatically make one a Communist.

“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: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Professor wrote:    But

Professor wrote:

    But beyond that most of us have jobs, families, church, hobbies, etc., and we just do not have time to argue all day.  

Most of the Atheists on here have jobs, are in school and have families. We do not sit here 24/7 trying to concoct more arguments. 

Professor wrote:

The Americans during the Civil War had different understandings of God and slavery, and there was fighting.  

Sorry, the Civil War had nothing to do with god and slavery.

Professor wrote:

  But I am quite willing to work with an atheist such as Nat Hentoff (is he still alive?) who wrote for the VILLAGE VOICE but opposed abortion, as do I.  

So, women who will be unfit mothers, neglectful parents and bring children into dysfunctional familes, HAVE to bring them into the world ? Women who do not want children and will be terrible parents should bring a child into the world, knowing full well that it will be passed along from family member to family member and have to struggle to pay child support ? Rape victims should bring children into the world ? Drug addicts that get pregnant by prostitution should bring children into the world ? Mentally disturbed people that are prone to suicidal tendencies and may be a danger to themselves and their children should not be given the option to have a abortion ?

Granted, I think contraceptives are the way to go, I stand by my decision to be careful and not bring any children into this world, but I think if all other alternatives fail, it is morally wrong for a government or religious institution to try and FORCE people to be parents. Especially when the pro-lifers are the FIRST people to claim that they want to do away with welfare and food stamps.

When you really sound it all down, bringing children into this world, knowing full well they will be neglected, is far more immoral to me, than any abortion.

“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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Dana, I've been meaning to

Dana, I've been meaning to say that I really enjoy reading your posts: they can be so clever and informative!  

I do sometimes have difficulty understanding them, however. I think there may be a lot of implicit meaning I'm not picking up on...

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I must get a greater sense of my own typeos . . (big typeo)

  I always said youre too kind.

  It's all about the Professor and his pearls of wisdom in the other Thread. Oh, Opps , Big Typeo I missed  wouldnt help  nor  not even to bother with a link to  the reference  to his original comments. ( I dropped a  letter  it's  "restrainter"  not:  "retrainer" ) Better watch that. I must have a much greater sense of my mistakes with all the typeos . .  

 


The must see comment is by the Professor www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33421 somewhere in the teens, he started running his mouth..  He (the Professor) writes, "Let me not dodge unpleasantness. People know . . ", it goes on. It appears he is implying the shooter or less jokingly the knowledge of evolution will dispose the heart to sin. It's a bit confused if you follow the link. The pun unfortunately ended up much the same with the dropped letter of my typeo especially.  Even now no-one may get it, you had to be there.

p.s.-- You remember the response to his next few statements, I know,  you were there, curiously unanimous response to MOST of his comments throughout. Just follow the link or its' 2 Thes. 2 and not 're-trainer' that would be a typeo on my part   (See: Image then link)


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
His tenure at Bowling green University was terminted because he claimed to have credentials in Psychology but in fact didn't.

Actually, he was fired for sharing his religious beliefs which is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. As far as peer reviewed journals or publications 

creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing.

Not to mention loss of grants for expressing their viewpoints. Simply dishonest is what it is. The truth will be revealed in the end and evil deeds WILL be exposed.

Ok, the findings of the court can be found here:

http://jehovah.to/gen/freedom/bergman.htm

(Not sure why it's on a JW site, but be that as it may, it's the court transcription.

 

The bit you should read is:

Quote:

In support of his contention that religious discrimination is overwhelmingly present in this case, plaintiff discusses at length in his appellate brief his belief that religious discrimination is rampant in America and the world. This, of course, does not prove that his particular tenure denial was based on such [*18] discrimination. Plaintiff also cites at length the comments of people whom he says should have been called as witnesses for the trial of this case. But we, of course, cannot review evidence not presented to the court below. Fed. R. App. P. 10. After winnowing out the irrelevant and the impermissible references in plaintiff's brief, we have determined that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous.

The district court found that one concern of the tenured faculty was plaintiff's ethics. For instance, Dr. Davidson testified that plaintiff's misrepresentation of himself was the reason for the denial of tenure. He stated that Dr. Bergman said he was a psychologist when he had no psychological credentials. Dr. Wiersma indicated difficulty in documenting the actual existence of plaintiff's books. Plaintiff argues that any such allegations of misconduct can be disproved by him. Nevertheless, the evidence reveals that the tenured faculty members were genuinely concerned about plaintiff's ethics and that their confusion over his actual qualifications was premised on the difficulty in verifying his vita.

This specifically refutes your supposition that he was unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of religion, and states quite clearly in the second paragraph that he has NO PSYCHOLOGICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 

As to your quite ludicrous claim about creationists publishing in secular journals - that's not because the secularists have a stranglehold on scientific publishing, it's because creationist papers do not meet the standards of scientific research required to publish in these journals - your view is so skewed that you think "secularists" are actively out to belittle creationists, whereas the reality is that secular journals DON'T CARE about this fringe of creationists who try and unsuccessfully twist science to suit their needs - their papers are so unscientific that they are laughable, and that's the reason they don't get published, not because there's a conspiracy against them.

So I take it that you don't have anything scientific to back up your claims that life must only come from life. Care to rescind this claim then? Or stop using the work 'scientific' as if you know what it means?

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:


 

As to your quite ludicrous claim about creationists publishing in secular journals - that's not because the secularists have a stranglehold on scientific publishing, it's because creationist papers do not meet the standards of scientific research required to publish in these journals

Even college students must provide MLA citation ?(or APA and all the others) to back up any claims that they make in essays.

My nieces handbook on her studies, even says that a student can not cite from something like Wiki or from just some random website that lacks the backing of a legitimate claim.

You can only imagine the standards that would be help up for a scienitific paper.

If I made the claim that a universal force is holding the world together and lacked evidence, well the obvious follows.

The only way that I could see around this, would be if one is a relativist and thinks all claims need equal weight.

Which has to include every claim from the sublime to the ridiculous.

“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