Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 192 of 192

Thread: Atheist Manifesto

  1. #101  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    you wouldbe wrong. when you were in school and you had 'mandatory' study time...did every one study? of course not. it was time set aside for it but it rarely took place.
    I never had mandatory study time. I did have mandatory tests. They are called 'finals.'

    yet you ignore the fact that almost all laws from almost all countries of the world took them from the Bible and God's morality. even many of your school's rules are found in the Bible.
    You would be wrong. They were taken from the stone wall of Babylon. He came up with the law around 3,000 BC. The old testament came around roughly 300 BC. We have had RULES in countries for as long as we can remember. They were NOT taken from the bible.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    learn to be patient. ask me again and i won't do it.
    You bloody well told me that you did not recall seeing my questions and I in kind merely reposted them! It takes constant restraint on my part to not simply curse the day you were born and tell you to go to hell, but this kind off snottiness just really pisses me off. That you are a simpleminded fool is already beyond contestation on this forum and my questions were aimed at getting you to try and think further than the barrier you have erected around you. Your inability to do so coupled with your constant arrogant, illogical self-righteousness is enough to make it not worth it. I can only hope that you infect as little people as possible with this counterproductive wilful delusionary fundamentalist crap, because I don't want my future kids to live in a world dominated by your kind. I have a complex mix of emotions reading your posts, ranging from exasperated anger to a deep sadness. May you one day wake up from your stifled world, breathe in the fresh air and really start to experience the wonder around you.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Deep breath.....Hold it........And relax.....

    Kalster I am sure you echo the feelings of several members here. You certainly hit the nail on the head for me. The single most galling thing is his brutal rudeness. As you pointed out he said he had not seen your questions and you, rather than tell him to go look for them, politely offer them again. And he comes back with a snotty, juvenile, patronising reply. **** him. That sort of coarse behaviour can only arise out of non-existent social skills, or serious mental deficiencies.

    Let me repeat - and this time its for me - Deep breath.....Hold it........And relax.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I'm ignoring him now, with the handy ignore button. I suggest you guys do the same.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i haven't read most of the replies this morning as i want to point something out:

    the atheists on this board or the anti-prayer time crowd are up in arms about being 'forced' to pray and they make compelling arguments BUT they refuse to apply those arguments to THEMSELVES and the science classroom.

    they will find any justification or excuse they can to avoid placing themselves under their own point of view and willFORCE christians and other religious people to study evolution even when it is a lie.

    the hypocrisy is quite evident and they really do not have an argument because they only want a one way street--their way-- regardless who is affected by their actions (and sinful ways).

    You bloody well told me that you did not recall seeing my questions and I in kind merely reposted them
    right but then you re-posted them again yesterday. i have many resp. i do not have the time to drop everything and answer your questions. it takes time. be patient. i won't have time to do it till this weekend. so stop knotting up your shorts and be patient.

    you are an impatient lot as i know a majority of MY questions still lay unanswered. so expect to be treated the same as you treat me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i haven't read most of the replies this morning as i want to point something out:

    the atheists on this board or the anti-prayer time crowd are up in arms about being 'forced' to pray and they make compelling arguments BUT they refuse to apply those arguments to THEMSELVES and the science classroom.

    they will find any justification or excuse they can to avoid placing themselves under their own point of view and willFORCE christians and other religious people to study evolution even when it is a lie.
    A lie that is proven not to be a lie

    Study of both evolution and christianity is standard in most countries. Whether or not to believe them is left to the student.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the hypocrisy is quite evident and they really do not have an argument because they only want a one way street--their way-- regardless who is affected by their actions (and sinful ways).
    Well, since one is a theory which is proven, and the other is an act related to a theory that is unproven, this does not quite fit as hypocrasy.

    If there were more scientific dispute as to whether evolution is the cause of variation, then I suspect education systems might review the case and teach some alternatives. However, creationism is not a scientific alternative, since it is based solely on belief; there is no science to it. Unless you've come up with that mechanism yet?

    Or, to put it in another context; evolution is taught in science just as christianity is taught in RE. You call for creationism to be taught in science, does this mean I can call for astrophysics to be taught in RE lessons?

    Keep education about religion and science seperate, and let the kids decide for themselves. Unless you want to confess to wanting to brainwash children?

    And how about children who are neither atheist nor christian? Do you want to teach, in a science lesson, about creation from the point of every religion?

    Your claims are rediculous and groundless.

    To reiterate: Creationism is not science.
    Court cases can back me up on this, actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you are an impatient lot as i know a majority of MY questions still lay unanswered. so expect to be treated the same as you treat me.
    I answer every question of yours. Whether or not you read what I write is another matter.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    right but then you re-posted them again yesterday. i have many resp. i do not have the time to drop everything and answer your questions. it takes time. be patient. i won't have time to do it till this weekend. so stop knotting up your shorts and be patient.

    you are an impatient lot as i know a majority of MY questions still lay unanswered. so expect to be treated the same as you treat me.
    You did not recall seeing the questions, so I merely reposted them so you'd remember. I never made any kind of nagging statements. But none of this is important any more.

    Perhaps you did not understand me. I am no longer interested in your responses.

    PS: Thanks John and AM. He must be thinking of himself as some kind of authority figure trying to impress his views on lesser people, while showing absolutely no reason for us to accept it. This type of nonsense class and authority driven drivel can only be tolerated up to a point. No more.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    PS: Thanks John and AM. He must be thinking of himself as some kind of authority figure trying to impress his views on lesser people, while showing absolutely no reason for us to accept it. This type of nonsense class and authority driven drivel can only be tolerated up to a point. No more.
    I suspect that you now know what it would have been like to have had a conversation with those people who flew those jets into the twin towers. When a person chooses to be inaccessible to rational discussion there is nothing you can really do about it. They will only hear what they choose to hear.

    It is POSSIBLE that some of the atheists on this forum have some of the same behavior and attitudes on other sorts of topics. BUT the fact is that we have plenty of people here who are not. We must simply continue to oppose the efforts of his ilk to get the government (the public schools) to aid and abet their efforts to abuse their children with this kind of brainwashing that forbids objective thought, and that is about all we can do.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I suspect that you now know what it would have been like to have had a conversation with those people who flew those jets into the twin towers. When a person chooses to be inaccessible to rational discussion there is nothing you can really do about it. They will only hear what they choose to hear.

    It is POSSIBLE that some of the atheists on this forum have some of the same behavior and attitudes on other sorts of topics. BUT the fact is that we have plenty of people here who are not. We must simply continue to oppose the efforts of his ilk to get the government (the public schools) to aid and abet their efforts to abuse their children with this kind of brainwashing that forbids objective thought, and that is about all we can do.
    Yeah, these kind of inaccessible people I have come across before, but one can't help but feel that you can do something about it by appealing to whatever atrophied faculties they might still have in the repressed recesses of their psyche. Alas, it is often too late.

    I am pretty certain that many atheists/agnostics/reasonable religious on this board and elsewhere are pretty much immoveable on certain topics, but the willingness to consider as many viewpoints as possible is the key, as you point out. Nobody is perfect by any means and I am most certainly far from it. I learn new things every day and that is one of the aspects that makes life exciting. As long as we realise that we can never attain perfection, but continuously aspire to it, things can only get better. Keeping his mode of thinking from infecting the youth is essential if we want to move forward.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You did not recall seeing the questions, so I merely reposted them so you'd remember. I never made any kind of nagging statements. But none of this is important any more.
    i got that the first time you reminded me. i have an excellent memory i would have gotten to them.

    Perhaps you did not understand me. I am no longer interested in your responses.
    okay thanks for saving me the work

    It is POSSIBLE that some of the atheists on this forum have some of the same behavior and attitudes on other sorts of topics. BUT the fact is that we have plenty of people here who are not. We must simply continue to oppose the efforts of his ilk to get the government (the public schools) to aid and abet their efforts to abuse their children with this kind of brainwashing that forbids objective thought, and that is about all we can do.
    you do realize that the majorityof scholars know that 'objectivity' is impossible don't you. wm. dever discussed this in one of his books and quoted robert orr , i believe.

    what you do not realize is that with God there is no middle road, you are either on his side or you are not.

    I am pretty certain that many atheists/agnostics/reasonable religious on this board and elsewhere are pretty much immoveable on certain topics, but the willingness to consider as many viewpoints as possible is the key, as you point out
    another thing you do not realize is that christians are NOT born this way and with their thoughts. we have been where you are at and have done our questioning and looking at all thoughts then we have found the truth and decided for it. we do not need to keep looking, we have found our answer.

    you are attacking the wrong thing here and use it as an excuse to close your ears to what people have learned from their own struggles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the atheists on this board or the anti-prayer time crowd are up in arms about being 'forced' to pray and they make compelling arguments BUT they refuse to apply those arguments to THEMSELVES and the science classroom..
    I am not an atheist. Every morning at school assembly we had a hymn, a prayer and a bible reading. I don't think it did me any harm.

    I am up in arms over two things: at your sloppy use of the English language and your refusal to acknowledge that sloppiness; at your ignorantly rude response to a reasonable request from Kalster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    There are extremists everywhere, in every walk of life, taking up every ideology. All we can hope is that the extremists(archy) never EVER outnumber the moderate, thinking, rational members of those ideologies and walks of life (most of the other people here). If this forum is any indication, I think the world is in good shape, as the extremists are virtually ignored, though almost always considered.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    There are extremists everywhere, in every walk of life, taking up every ideology. All we can hope is that the extremists(archy) never EVER outnumber the moderate, thinking, rational members of those ideologies and walks of life (most of the other people here). If this forum is any indication, I think the world is in good shape, as the extremists are virtually ignored, though almost always considered
    yet i am not an extremist. people who refuse to follow God's ways always make that false charge.

    I am up in arms over two things: at your sloppy use of the English language and your refusal to acknowledge that sloppiness; at your ignorantly rude response to a reasonable request from Kalster
    you are a little over-sensitive i think and it is not your problem. i told him that i did not have time the first time he re-posted the questions, then he re-posts them the next day. that is impatience and i was not rude. read your posts to me and see what rudeness really is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    you are a little over-sensitive i think and it is not your problem. i told him that i did not have time the first time he re-posted the questions, then he re-posts them the next day. that is impatience and i was not rude. read your posts to me and see what rudeness really is.
    Liar! I posted the questions, you said you'd get to them later. Then you said we should get back to why we have chosen to be atheists. 35 Hours after I first posted the questions I then told you that I posted questions that has direct significance towards my decision and asked if you've had time to think about them yet . Then you said that you did not recall seeing such questions and then I reposted them. I do not expect you to own up to your unfounded, snotty and patronising ultimatum judging from the level of honesty you have shown us thus far. You have only done damage to your campaign by attempting to use your usual unsavoury methods on this forum buddy.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Your inability to do so coupled with your constant arrogant, illogical self-righteousness is enough to make it not worth it.
    The lack of any semblance of logic is the part that really kills me, and the main reason I don't bother arguing with him. I'm probably one of the ruder, more obnoxious posters in the religion forum, so the fact that he's irritating and arrogant doesn't really bother me. But when he says things along the lines of "Evolution is false because it can't explain why things die," where do you even begin explaining the problems there? I'm reminded of Pauli's "It's not even wrong" quote. Much of what this guy says seems to be simply incoherent. And I don't mean that in the non-literal sense that people usually use it, where they're basically just insulting someone and saying their argument is full of flaws; I mean it literally, in the sense that he's often unable to even form a coherent argument. The only posters I recall ever seeing like him here are some of the barely-english-speaking muslims who come here and try to make strange arguments for why we should all be muslims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    what you do not realize is that with God there is no middle road, you are either on his side or you are not.
    Refusing to teach ID is not about being atheist.

    It is because it simply is not science.

    Christians can still be scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I am pretty certain that many atheists/agnostics/reasonable religious on this board and elsewhere are pretty much immoveable on certain topics, but the willingness to consider as many viewpoints as possible is the key, as you point out
    another thing you do not realize is that christians are NOT born this way and with their thoughts.
    Despite being created by god?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    we have been where you are at and have done our questioning and looking at all thoughts then we have found the truth and decided for it. we do not need to keep looking, we have found our answer.
    You 'found you answer' millenia ago. The struggle you have now is holding on to it despite overwhelmingly convincing opposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you are attacking the wrong thing here and use it as an excuse to close your ears to what people have learned from their own struggles.
    I am attacking the idea that ID can be taught as science: it cannot.

    Just like timecubism isn't taught, despite being considered scientific by its supporters (www.timecube.com)
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Refusing to teach ID is not about being atheist.
    who said anything about teaching Intelligent Design? i find that group to more of a problem that the evolutionists.

    It is because it simply is not science.

    Christians can still be scientists.
    what you do not realize is thatsecular science is designed in such a way as to look in the wrong direction and at the wrong items to get their answers. that is NOT science but a tool to destroy people and keep them from salvation.

    christians need to do science God's way not secular man''s. big difference. God's way provides answers to questions, not more questions.

    You 'found you answer' millenia ago. The struggle you have now is holding on to it despite overwhelmingly convincing opposition.
    i have no struggle i know you are wrong and do not need to worry. yu have free choice and i will not twist your arm.

    I am attacking the idea that ID can be taught as science: it cannot
    creation can be taught as science as it puts science on the right track in which it will find the correct answers. we do not need to waste our time or resources in discussing origins because that part has been answered in Gen.1.

    well kalster, i read the questions the first tim eyou reposted them. do you think i have all the answers off the top of my head? those question would take time and you did not grant me that time. i have more to do than sit here chatting.

    now i told you i will have tim eon the weekend but thatis the soonest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I am abandoning this thread as a lost cause. The individual we are trying to educate refuses to consider any other possibilities than his own. I will use his tactics and, with the knowledge that I am much more intelligent than He, I will leave this line of discussion and pursue others.


    And fyi Archy, CREATION is INTELLIGENT DESIGN. THEY are the SAME THING
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    am abandoning this thread as a lost cause.
    hallelujah!! ha ha

    And fyi Archy, CREATION is INTELLIGENT DESIGN. THEY are the SAME THING
    FYI--no they are not. learn to do research.

    The individual we are trying to educate refuses to consider any other possibilities than his own
    it is not your job to educate me, i already made a decision and i go with the Bible, it is you who need the education.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    And fyi Archy, CREATION is INTELLIGENT DESIGN. THEY are the SAME THING
    FYI--no they are not. learn to do research.
    Of Pandas and People, archaeologist... Of Pandas and People...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God's way provides answers to questions, not more questions.
    Gods way did not get you your computer and internet connection. If you are using anything that was a result of science, you are a hypocrite. You should get rid of all that science has provided you and live in a cave. Why are you not doing so?

    [quote]

    creation can be taught as science as it puts science on the right track in which it will find the correct answers. we do not need to waste our time or resources in discussing origins because that part has been answered in Gen.1.
    So, you believe in talking snakes, but you don't believe in gravity?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    FYI--no they are not. learn to do research.
    Really? Then list some prominent people who believe in intelligent design who aren't also creationists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
    Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.
    The only difference is the word 'deity' instead of 'inteligent cause'.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Gods way did not get you your computer and internet connection
    Really? God provided the brain, the intelligence, the ability to be inquisitive the raw materials. I think he had a lot to do with those items.

    Then list some prominent people who believe in intelligent design who aren't also creationists.
    I believe Behe is one. pg. 4 of his book 'the edge of evolution' he states; " ...we can't afford the luxury of elevating anybody's dogma over data."

    no creationist would say that

    Collins may be another one, he is a theistic evolutionist but i am not sure of his sance on I.D.

    one of the big differences between creartionism and I.D. is that creationists do what God does--make sure everyone knows who created everything. I.D.rs' do not and they often slide over to a compromise with evolutionists.

    I.D.rs leave the door open for aliens to be the 'designer' where creationists firmly keep the door closed and point to God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Gods way did not get you your computer and internet connection
    Really? God provided the brain, the intelligence, the ability to be inquisitive the raw materials. I think he had a lot to do with those items.
    Surely this increase in inteligence over time is a sign of evolution at work?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    one of the big differences between creartionism and I.D. is that creationists do what God does--make sure everyone knows who created everything. I.D.rs' do not and they often slide over to a compromise with evolutionists.
    You confuse the word creationist with the word christian.

    Technically, neither would, by deffinition, have a stance on evolution since it has nothing to do with abiogenesis; both could allow for it to happen after creation.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I.D.rs leave the door open for aliens to be the 'designer' where creationists firmly keep the door closed and point to God.
    Yes, as I previously stated, this is the only difference.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Surely this increase in inteligence over time is a sign of evolution at work?
    there has been no increase in intelligence over time. some would say that there has been a lot of dumbing down.

    You confuse the word creationist with the word christian
    no. no real creationist would say those words.

    as I previously stated, this is the only difference.
    i have never gotten that impression-

    from their own website:

    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

    Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

    No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

    Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Intelligent design is creationism/superstition dressed up with no where to go. There has been no original research or science that has emerged from so-called 'intelligent' design.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
    That's about as disingenuous as it gets. Before they go after the so called "Darwinist" (what ever that is), they probably need to tell the ID people who publish their books.

    Dover Trial Parents' lawyer asking about "of pandas and people":
    Question: So that’s pretty much the exact same sentence substituting creation for intelligent design, isn’t that right?

    Answer by ID publisher: "The reason that you find the similarity in the two passages is because this obviously was at a time when we were developing the manuscript. We had not chosen the term “intelligent design” at that point. We were trying to – this was just a place holder term until we came to grips with which of the plausible two or three terms that are in scientific literature we would settle on. And that was the last thing we did before the book was revise – I mean was sent to the publisher."

    They are without a doubt one and the same, neither even trying to publish in any peer review science journals, nor contributing a thing to science other than resistance to educating America's youth to become productive citizens who'll be able to thrive in the 21th century. It little more than Phaux science--that is creationism dressed up to sound technical to people uneducated about science in an attempt to dupe them into teaching religion. If creationism/ID is taught at all in High School, it should probably reside in some kind of religion/myth/ritual or sociology course--it probably shouldn't be taught at all until college.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Intelligent design is creationism/superstition dressed up with no where to go. There has been no original research or science that has emerged from so-called 'intelligent' design.
    Of course not. That does not even make any sense. ID via arguments like irreducible complexity is an attempt to claim that a scientific explanation of some things is not possible. Now it may be that a scientific explanation of some things will never be possible but since arguing that this is the case (especially without absolute irrefutable evidence) is opposed to scientific inquiry, it cannot logically be considered science. Thus it is perfectly plain that it is part of a creationist attack on science reflecting their wishful thinking that there be no scientific explanation for origin of life and the species.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Intelligent design is creationism/superstition dressed up with no where to go. There has been no original research or science that has emerged from so-called 'intelligent' design.
    former: i disagree

    latter: i do not pay attention enough to ID to care what they do or do not do. they circumvent the Bible and God's claims thus they are doing things backwards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Shocking: he does not listen to any theory that disagrees with the bible.

    No wonder he has trouble with evolution.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Shocking: he does not listen to any theory that disagrees with the bible.

    No wonder he has trouble with evolution.
    as i have said, i have made my decision and do not have to struggle any more. i will stick with the Bible and if you do not like that its too bad. you want to be respected for your decisions and make your own free choices, allow me to do the same and do the same for me.

    those who lump ID in with creationists are doing the typical atheist exercise of lumping cults in with christians, until you start discerning thedifference you will never get the truth.

    of course that means you have to be interested in obtaining the truth. basically right now you are letting science be your god as you look to it over everything else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    as i have said, i have made my decision and do not have to struggle any more.
    Figuring out how the world works is struggling? No wonder you have chosen the intellectually lazy and dishonest path. You can't stand uncertainty and creationism is your comfort blanket.

    What you fail to think about is just how big a god really could be if it existed. People tend to think about how big he/she/it is by looking at the world and the universe, but where it really impacts us is what he would know about us. His greatness is not about the external, but about his involvement in your personal life. That is where the bible, for me, has lots of frivolous and petty nonsense about what god can do that is visible. If you believe in god all that is important is the fact that he exists and the relationship you have with him. When morals and such are considered, one should not just look at the external effect of them, but what has to change within you so that they emanate naturally. That means that you have to be as empathic as you can possibly be, since understanding others means you understand yourself. This requires a level of honesty with yourself that very few people can attain, but that everyone should aspire towards. How god made the universe and life is only a matter of interest and nowhere near the gist of his existence. The bible is full of people and events that do not give this aspect of your personal relationship with your god nearly enough attention. That, to me, is enough to destroy the premise that it is 100% true and effectively dictated by god when it was written.

    Trouncing enemies for not believing what you believe cannot be a directive from god. Wiping out the entire world for immoral behaviour is not the way a god would behave. What I am effectively saying, is that I can imagine a greater God than the one found in the Bible and that directly invalidates the God of the Bible.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Shocking: he does not listen to any theory that disagrees with the bible.

    No wonder he has trouble with evolution.
    as i have said, i have made my decision and do not have to struggle any more. i will stick with the Bible and if you do not like that its too bad. you want to be respected for your decisions and make your own free choices, allow me to do the same and do the same for me.

    those who lump ID in with creationists are doing the typical atheist exercise of lumping cults in with christians, until you start discerning thedifference you will never get the truth.

    of course that means you have to be interested in obtaining the truth. basically right now you are letting science be your god as you look to it over everything else.
    The Inquisition did the same thing when they walked up to Galileo. The only difference was that Galileo was RIGHT and the Inquisition, who were Christians, were WRONG.

    Oh and

    cult   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhlt] Show IPA
    –noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
    You're telling me religion doesn't have ceremonies and religious worship? (Churches) Rites of passage? (Baptism) Ceremonies? (blood and body of Christ)2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
    Christians have great veneration for Jesus, don't they?
    3. the object of such devotion.
    The cross?
    4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
    They are all Christians. They are a group. They follow the teachings of a single person and that is Jesus - Or the priest.
    5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
    Don't they have a sacred ideology focused around a symble? (cross)
    6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
    This is the only definition it doesnt fall under.
    7. the members of such a religion or sect.
    RELIGION or SECT.
    8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
    This is irrelevant.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I believe Behe is one.
    No, Behe is a creationist. He has helped write creationist textbooks. The only reason he ever writes anything related to "intelligent design" rather than "creationism" is that he knows he doesn't have a prayer of getting creationism into public schools, so he's trying to dress it up was "intelligent design" instead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Actually scifor is right on this one. Look up the dover trial on youtube. It's a trial where the prosecution decided to link creationism with intelligent design and they found out it was the same thing with a different face.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    And fyi Archy, CREATION is INTELLIGENT DESIGN. THEY are the SAME THING
    FYI--no they are not. learn to do research.
    Of Pandas and People, archaeologist... Of Pandas and People...


    The discussion, about whether or not ID and creationism are the same, could have been ended long ago hadn't archaeologist ignored me and others.

    Lynx_Fox mentioned the Dover trial too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    as i have said, i have made my decision and do not have to struggle any more. i will stick with the Bible and if you do not like that its too bad. you want to be respected for your decisions and make your own free choices, allow me to do the same and do the same for me.
    By all means, stick to your preconceived conclusions and irrational beliefs all you like. Indeed, I'll defend your right to do so. However, don't expect to enter a science forum, trolling your nutty ideas and expect no criticism, inquiry or ridicule. No one is disallowing you to think as silly as you want, but we won't sit idly by and let you stand on a soapbox to spam the forum with your nutty beliefs.

    those who lump ID in with creationists are doing the typical atheist exercise of lumping cults in with christians, until you start discerning thedifference you will never get the truth.
    Intelligent design *is* creationism. It might not be your brand of creationism, but ultimately the IDers are arguing from ignorance that "goddidit" in the same way creationists do.

    Furthermore, why -exactly- is there supposed to be some sort of difference between christian sects and cults? They are, after all, equivical terms. The individual sects or denominations of christianity are cults. They engage in cult rituals, cult worship, and hold cult doctrines.

    of course that means you have to be interested in obtaining the truth. basically right now you are letting science be your god as you look to it over everything else.
    Ahh... the old "science is your god" fallacy -a.k.a. tu quoque. In other words, some part of you recognizes the irrationality of leaning on literal interpretations of biblical mythology, therefore you desire to apply that irrationality to your opponent by referring to "science" as a religion. If "truth" were high on your list of priorities, you wouldn't begin with a conclusion then seek only that data which support it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    By all means, stick to your preconceived conclusions and irrational beliefs all you like
    but you and other evolutionists do the exact same things. yo have preconceived ideas and irrational beliefs about evolution. pot calling kettle here.

    No one is disallowing you to think as silly as you want, but we won't sit idly by and let you stand on a soapbox to spam the forum with your nutty beliefs.
    i do not spam but you can sit there all day long and label iot so yet that doesn't make it so nor does it prove i ntentionally did something you don't like.

    Intelligent design *is* creationism. It might not be your brand of creationism, but ultimately the IDers are arguing from ignorance that "goddidit" in the same way creationists do.
    Those were Intelligent design's own words, take the issue up with them. there is your pre-conceived idea right there, you immediately show bias and use manipulative adjectives to make your point even though it is NOT MY brand and IDers are not ignorant.

    Furthermore, why -exactly- is there supposed to be some sort of difference between christian sects and cults? They are, after all, equivical terms. The individual sects or denominations of christianity are cults. They engage in cult rituals, cult worship, and hold cult doctrines.
    this shows you know nothing about Christianity, Christ or the Bible. thereis a difference and until youlearn that, you will always be wrong. christianioty is not cultic, though many people apply the term from ignorance.

    If "truth" were high on your list of priorities, you wouldn't begin with a conclusion then seek only that data which support it.
    ifi was seeking only data to support it i would not be on a secular science forum taking abuse from those who hate the truth. i am able to refute every piece of data you throw at me, with God's help, you have nothing upon which to stand andyou are going in the wrong direction because you omit data so iwould say you were more wrong than you accuse me of being.

    No, Behe is a creationist. He has helped write creationist textbooks. The only reason he ever writes anything related to "intelligent design" rather than "creationism" is that he knows he doesn't have a prayer of getting creationism into public schools, so he's trying to dress it up was "intelligent design" instead
    No and believe it or not i have to use wiki on this one it had the most details:

    Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.[18]

    Unlike William A. Dembski [20] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[21] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.
    he is NOt a creationist.

    here is a link, seeif you can find a more credible source stating the same thing:

    http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...SqyQUkBdco0bpA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    By all means, stick to your preconceived conclusions and irrational beliefs all you like
    but you and other evolutionists do the exact same things. yo have preconceived ideas and irrational beliefs about evolution. pot calling kettle here.
    You'd like to think so, but this just isn't the case. My conclusions are open to revision and I'll happily recant or revise any of them (necessarily so!) with sufficient evidence.

    No one is disallowing you to think as silly as you want, but we won't sit idly by and let you stand on a soapbox to spam the forum with your nutty beliefs.
    i do not spam but you can sit there all day long and label iot so yet that doesn't make it so nor does it prove i ntentionally did something you don't like.
    This sentence is somewhat difficult to read, but, yes, you spam our fair forum with your trolling religious crap.

    Intelligent design *is* creationism. It might not be your brand of creationism, but ultimately the IDers are arguing from ignorance that "goddidit" in the same way creationists do.
    Those were Intelligent design's own words, take the issue up with them. there is your pre-conceived idea right there, you immediately show bias and use manipulative adjectives to make your point even though it is NOT MY brand and IDers are not ignorant.
    IDers are quite ignorant and have demonstrated their ignorance almost to the degree you have in this forum. They claim silly concepts like "irreducible complexity" yet fail to show it to be so. Their claims are ill-thought and poorly-constructed. The textbook the IDers attempted to use originally included the words "creation" and "creationism" and subsequent versions were edited to remove this term (and the versions were a matter of evidence presented to the court at Dover, PA). That they are "creationists" is clear and only the deliberately deceptive or the ignorant would argue otherwise. And, yes, you *do* have your own brand of "creation." Of the thousands of creation myths both extant and extinct, yours is but one and not even a very exciting or convincing one compared to others. Personally, on of my favorites is the ancient Egyptian myth of Ptah who ejaculated the Earth into being.

    Furthermore, why -exactly- is there supposed to be some sort of difference between christian sects and cults? They are, after all, equivocal terms. The individual sects or denominations of christianity are cults. They engage in cult rituals, cult worship, and hold cult doctrines.
    this shows you know nothing about Christianity, Christ or the Bible. thereis a difference and until youlearn that, you will always be wrong. christianioty is not cultic, though many people apply the term from ignorance.
    No, this shows that you're a bigot. You have rituals, worship of supernatural agents, dogma/doctrine, etc., but only consider such behavior a "cult" if it isn't in line with your own. Bigot. You're a cult member. Pure and simple. Moreover, you've demonstrated time and again that your own knowledge of your own cult doctrines and history are limited and impeded by preconceived conclusion, so it is, perhaps, best not to "cast the first stone" (as it were).

    If "truth" were high on your list of priorities, you wouldn't begin with a conclusion then seek only that data which support it.
    ifi was seeking only data to support it i would not be on a secular science forum taking abuse from those who hate the truth. i am able to refute every piece of data you throw at me, with God's help, you have nothing upon which to stand andyou are going in the wrong direction because you omit data so iwould say you were more wrong than you accuse me of being.
    Okay: what would it take to convince you that your bible is not meant to be literal? What would convince you that the likelihood of your god being real or even the one, true god in the universe is so low as to not be worth considering?

    And making nonsensical, spurious responses to the criticisms and inquiry you've received along with what you see as "insults" doesn't count as "rebuttal." I've noticed not a single legitimate and sourced "rebuttal" to any of the points I've ever made in response to your wild and superstitious claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You'd like to think so, but this just isn't the case. My conclusions are open to revision and I'll happily recant or revise any of them (necessarily so!) with sufficient evidence.
    right and that is the secular way with science but with creation and God's word you either believe God or you don't. there is No revision because we are NOT dealing with theories or hypothesis but revelation. which puts origins outside the scope of secular science.

    if you choose to disbelieve God's word then you are saying God got it wrong about Himself and what He did forgetting that you and modern secular science were NOT eye-witnesses to the act and are trying to judge something from results without viewing the real event.

    it is like trying to place blame upon upon drivers involved in an accident while ignoring the very people who saw it take place and going strictly by the result seen. you can find blame the right way or the wwrong way and if you dismiss the eye witnesses, then you are dismissing data and trying to come to a conclusion without all the facts.

    This sentence is somewhat difficult to read, but, yes, you spam our fair forum with your trolling religious crap
    \

    a conclusion based upon bias and hatred not fact or investigation supported by evidence.

    No, this shows that you're a bigot. You have rituals, worship of supernatural agents, dogma/doctrine, etc., but only consider such behavior a "cult" if it isn't in line with your own
    in true christianity we worship in 'spirit and truth' we do not dowhat the anglicans or other mainline denominations do so you really need to be discerning instead of assuming and lumping.

    oh and your first sentence in the quote would apply to you concerning IDers and creationists.

    what would it take to convince you that your bible is not meant to be literal? What would convince you that the likelihood of your god being real or even the one, true god in the universe is so low as to not be worth considering?
    that would be impossible as i have already givenyuo irrefutable evidence for His existence-- the changed lives of people over the centuries and international borders and the restoration of israel as a nation.

    you have a choice, you can live in denial or be open minded enough to think those things through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    that would be impossible as i have already givenyuo irrefutable evidence for His existence-- the changed lives of people over the centuries and international borders and the restoration of israel as a nation.
    Ignorance. Do you really think that only true Christians have ever changed their lives for the better due to their religion? Who did Alexander the Great pray to?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You'd like to think so, but this just isn't the case. My conclusions are open to revision and I'll happily recant or revise any of them (necessarily so!) with sufficient evidence.
    right and that is the secular way with science but with creation and God's word you either believe God or you don't. there is No revision because we are NOT dealing with theories or hypothesis but revelation. which puts origins outside the scope of secular science.
    There is no "secular science." There is only science. Its either science and scientific or it isn't.

    What evidence do you have that gives you good reason to conclude that there is actually "revelation" occurring?

    if you choose to disbelieve God's word then you are saying God got it wrong about Himself and what He did forgetting that you and modern secular science were NOT eye-witnesses to the act and are trying to judge something from results without viewing the real event.
    Or... or I'm choosing to disbelieve the humans that claim they wrote the "word" of a supernatural deity to which there is no evidence or good reason to believe exists.

    it is like trying to place blame upon upon drivers involved in an accident while ignoring the very people who saw it take place and going strictly by the result seen.
    Or... or I'm ignoring the witnesses that weren't even born when the accident happened or are trying to come forward a generation later with the "eye witness testimony" that has no corroborating physical evidence. Not even a body. Not even the wrecked car.

    you can find blame the right way or the wwrong way and if you dismiss the eye witnesses, then you are dismissing data and trying to come to a conclusion without all the facts.
    Or... or I'm refusing to jump to a conclusion without evidence or good reason. In other words, I'm being rational.

    No, this shows that you're a bigot. You have rituals, worship of supernatural agents, dogma/doctrine, etc., but only consider such behavior a "cult" if it isn't in line with your own
    in true christianity we worship in 'spirit and truth' we do not dowhat the anglicans or other mainline denominations do so you really need to be discerning instead of assuming and lumping.
    So, you admit to being a bigot? Good. At least we're getting somewhere.

    oh and your first sentence in the quote would apply to you concerning IDers and creationists.
    And, as usual, you make conclusion without a supporting set of premises. Illogical and irrational.

    what would it take to convince you that your bible is not meant to be literal? What would convince you that the likelihood of your god being real or even the one, true god in the universe is so low as to not be worth considering?
    that would be impossible as i have already givenyuo irrefutable evidence for His existence-- the changed lives of people over the centuries and international borders and the restoration of israel as a nation.
    HA!! ROTFLMFAO! Like I said: you have a conclusion to which you only seek that data which are supportive. Not a shred of evidence have you given! Not a shred! LOL!

    Simply saying you provided evidence doesn't make it so.... hehe.

    you have a choice, you can live in denial or be open minded enough to think those things through.
    Which is why I choose to be open-minded and think things through.

    @The Science Forum: I'm truly amazed at the audacity of religious and pseudoscience trolls that visit our forum and begin spamming/trolling with claims of being "open-minded" yet clearly refusing to look at any data or evidence that isn't automatically supportive of their preconceived conclusions. This particular troll admits it: he says nothing will convince him otherwise because his bible tells him so!

    LOL!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You'd like to think so, but this just isn't the case. My conclusions are open to revision and I'll happily recant or revise any of them (necessarily so!) with sufficient evidence.
    right and that is the secular way with science but with creation and God's word you either believe God or you don't.
    I am yet to talk to god regarding his opinion; he continues to ignore me.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    there is No revision because we are NOT dealing with theories or hypothesis but revelation. which puts origins outside the scope of secular science.
    Aha. 'When explanation fails; fail to explain.'

    Nice one, that'll work....

    Might put that as my signature...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you choose to disbelieve God's word then you are saying God got it wrong about Himself and what He did forgetting that you and modern secular science were NOT eye-witnesses to the act and are trying to judge something from results without viewing the real event.
    You are judging it from an unreliable and inaccurate source. Is either one really better?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it is like trying to place blame upon upon drivers involved in an accident while ignoring the very people who saw it take place and going strictly by the result seen.
    Aha, I have you here, because I have done some work in this area.

    You can work out what happened better from the evidence (skid marks, read-outs from some kinds of cars, measurements of the friction of the road, etc.) than from eye-witnesses, in a large amount of cases.

    Especially if the eye witness is dead, as in the case of the bible, and if they do not speak your language, as in the case of the bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you can find blame the right way or the wwrong way and if you dismiss the eye witnesses, then you are dismissing data and trying to come to a conclusion without all the facts.
    No, we are dismissing an opinion. Opinions are not valuable data.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    This sentence is somewhat difficult to read, but, yes, you spam our fair forum with your trolling religious crap
    \

    a conclusion based upon bias and hatred not fact or investigation supported by evidence.
    All evidence points towards you speaking crap. As do eye witnesses, which you consider important (as you stated above).

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    what would it take to convince you that your bible is not meant to be literal? What would convince you that the likelihood of your god being real or even the one, true god in the universe is so low as to not be worth considering?
    that would be impossible as i have already givenyuo irrefutable evidence for His existence-- the changed lives of people over the centuries and international borders and the restoration of israel as a nation.
    This is applicable if I can use the prevailance of atheism as proof that he doesn't.

    Oh, look, we have reached a stalemate on this, so this cannot be used as evidence one way or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you have a choice, you can live in denial or be open minded enough to think those things through.


    A lecture on open-mindedness form you? wow.

    I have said this at least 10 times but... When you find evidence, you can show it to me and I will evaluate it in a scientific way to determine whether or not god exists, OK?

    'Changed lives' for instance, is explained much better by evolution than religion, as this accounts for atheism and theism. And for more than one religion.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    right and that is the secular way with science but with creation and God's word you either believe God or you don't. there is No revision because we are NOT dealing with theories or hypothesis but revelation. which puts origins outside the scope of secular science.

    if you choose to disbelieve God's word then you are saying God got it wrong about Himself and what He did forgetting that you and modern secular science were NOT eye-witnesses to the act and are trying to judge something from results without viewing the real event.
    Geez. Here is another clump of various nitwit blather all twisted together.

    There is a range of belief. You can believe in some things and not others about god

    You are right arch, what you are spouting is not science. You call it revelation. That makes it religion and that keeps it out of schools.

    I love this silly evidence idea. The it's so because the book says so. "you are saying God got it wrong about Himself" That should get a dope slap

    The old who saw it gambit. I saw this at a lot of the creationist/ID talks I've sat in on. The guy is up there talking about the Grand Canyon. Then he says how can scientists know their claims are true? Were they there to see it?

    So I ask this guy how he knows the flood tale in the bible created the Grand Canyon. So he says it was Noah. So I ask him where in the bible it says Noah saw the Grand Canyon being formed. So this guy assures me that Noah saw the flood and the flood did it. But did Noah see the flood cut the Canyon? The speaker finally realizes that Noah did not see that happen. Then he comes back with well no one saw it so we can't ever tell.

    The 'who saw it' demand is a method used by those who do not want to learn. It is a ploy used by those that do not understand and do not want to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    There is no "secular science." There is only science. Its either science and scientific or it isn't.
    unfortunately for you there are 2 kinds of science.

    What evidence do you have that gives you good reason to conclude that there is actually "revelation" occurring
    if you are talking about what will happen in the end times--here is a short list 1. credit cards and discount shopping cards--being trained for a number
    2.GPS-- it will locate you wherever you are. it is in phones, cars, clothing etc.
    3.microchip being implanted in people with their personal information
    4. one world gov. people are talking about a global village, that is the first step
    and so on.

    I'm ignoring the witnesses that weren't even born when the accident happened or are trying to come forward a generation later with the "eye witness testimony" that has no corroborating physical evidence. Not even a body. Not even the wrecked car.
    God is still alive, he still knows what happened. also you are forgeting this is God's universe, God's creation, God's salvation thus it is God's RULES. you use the demand for 'physical evidence' as a shield or buffer to protect you from what you are afraid of.

    you admit to being a bigot? Good. At least we're getting somewhere
    nope. nice assumption though. the rest of your post is covered under the God's rules bit.

    You are judging it from an unreliable and inaccurate source. Is either one really better
    no, you would be accusing me of what you are doing.

    Aha, I have you here, because I have done some work in this area.
    no you don't. i did not say say 'figure out what happened' i said 'place blame' two different things. we know what happened but you would have a hard time fixing blame without eye witnesses.

    much of the evidence could be from prior accidents which would distort your fact finding conclusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Junior Sfere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Woodlands Texas
    Posts
    254
    Arch I am deeply disturbed by your logic... It seems you read a lot, that is for sure. I wonder what your point is, to all of this? Are you trying to convince extremely intelligent people to believe what you say? Are you the type that bounces from forum to forum with your set ideologies? I can only imagine you have been kicked out of other forums. Your thoughts seem jumbled, your sources not very concrete, I would even go as far as to say ostentatious. While I am not here to bruise your ego and it's obvious ulterior motives, at some point for anyone to take you seriously you will have to state your purpose. For the record, and this may be food for thought... I did a paper regarding Jesus, ( his hypothetical existence)and his psychology. To put it briefly if we had psychology years ago Jesus would have been diagnosed with severe mental illness. The likeness of those who follow is stagering. Just look at people who claim to have had a "spirit filled experiences" coming from God. The fact that the chemicals released when someone feels an awe inspiring moment, are the same chemicals released during childbirth, extreme stress, excitement etc. The next time you see someone on the side of the road yelling Jesus is coming wonder what mental illness they may have. What would we think of a man speaking to a burning bush these days ? Will we in another 1900 years be following a different set of hypothetical prophetic ramblings?
    YOUR ONLY CULTURE IS BACTERIA!

    I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying ~ RUMI

    Ego stands in the way of love. When it is removed we can flow like a river. ~AMMA~


    LIVE AS IF YOU ARE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU ARE TO LIVE FOREVER...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    What is the significance of 1400 years?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Junior Sfere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Woodlands Texas
    Posts
    254
    Sorry John I was getting way ahead of myself. I had ment 1900 yrs ago when the new testament was written.
    YOUR ONLY CULTURE IS BACTERIA!

    I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying ~ RUMI

    Ego stands in the way of love. When it is removed we can flow like a river. ~AMMA~


    LIVE AS IF YOU ARE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU ARE TO LIVE FOREVER...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    You know archie may have something here, just think about it. Can you imagine a group growing in popularity and power that takes over a political party and then the government and then education to make sure that children are trained to blindly believe what they have been told and to vote for someone just because he belongs to their group? Can you imagine such people controling the media to tell everyone what they must believe in order to be good people? Can you imagine such people using credit cards and GPS tracking to make sure everyone is behaving according to the "moral" code which they have decided that everyone must obey? Do you think maybe there is a group just like this somewhere in the world today? Does this sound familiar at all?

    When you think about about these people and their blind irrationality, does the future look all that optimistic to you? Is it possible that the future archie predicts is actually becoming a reality right in front of our eyes?

    Some prophecies are self-fullfilling.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Sfere
    Sorry John I was getting way ahead of myself. I had ment 1900 yrs ago when the new testament was written.
    I thought there had to be an oversight in there somewhere. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Junior Sfere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Woodlands Texas
    Posts
    254
    Is John Galt your alter ego? I am in the middle of 'Atlas Shrugged' for the second time.
    YOUR ONLY CULTURE IS BACTERIA!

    I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying ~ RUMI

    Ego stands in the way of love. When it is removed we can flow like a river. ~AMMA~


    LIVE AS IF YOU ARE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU ARE TO LIVE FOREVER...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Sfere
    Is John Galt your alter ego? I am in the middle of 'Atlas Shrugged' for the second time.
    I think he is Gault rather than Galt. Perhaps I'm very non-U. :wink:

    Atlas Shrugged is one of my favourite novels, though I disagree strongly with Rand's philosphy. (She may have meant it to promote enlightened self interest, but it reads more like complacent self satisfaction.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I am deeply disturbed by your logic
    as i am of yours.

    the rest of your post is basic been there done that crap that i will not respond to except for:

    I did a paper regarding Jesus, ( his hypothetical existence)and his psychology.
    you do realize that every credible scholar, both secular and christian, accepts the fact that Jesus was a historical person, don't you? Read The Historical Jesus by Habermas as a start.

    by the way-- who are you to judge Christ's mental status? no one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you do realize that every credible scholar, both secular and christian, accepts the fact that Jesus was a historical person, don't you?
    Every one a gem!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    I do believe there are other sources outside the Christian gospels that Jesus was a historical person. Josephus, the general who led the Jewish revolt against Roman rule during the reign of Vespasian and Tiberius, cited Jesus and there are several other references by Roman authors to a Jesus or Yeshua.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    I do believe there are other sources outside the Christian gospels that Jesus was a historical person. Josephus, the general who led the Jewish revolt against Roman rule during the reign of Vespasian and Tiberius, cited Jesus and there are several other references by Roman authors to a Jesus or Yeshua.
    Nope. It was considered an outright forgery from Christian scribes embellishing their good book.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    uh, your proof sir? I mean, Josephus did mention Christ and he himself was not a fan, being an orthodox Jew.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I was not suggesting Jesus was not a historical person. Rather, I was amused that archaeologist was comfortable claiming the historical personage of Jesus, when the character of the historical Jesus is quite different from the Jesus of Christian dogma. It struck me as amusing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    uh, your proof sir? I mean, Josephus did mention Christ and he himself was not a fan, being an orthodox Jew.
    An authentic version in the original Greek surfaced recently demonstrating the embellishments between it and the "Christian" version, casting further doubt as to whether or not Josephus offered the description in the first place.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I was not suggesting Jesus was not a historical person. Rather, I was amused that archaeologist was comfortable claiming the historical personage of Jesus, when the character of the historical Jesus is quite different from the Jesus of Christian dogma. It struck me as amusing.
    no i knew that, i just didn't add it into the post. it is Jesus' divinity that is being arged aout. of course the non-believers wishto strip him of all divine attributes for if they didn't they would be forced to recognize him as Lord and chnage their ways.

    Nope. It was considered an outright forgery from Christian scribes embellishing their good book.
    your proof sir? I mean, Josephus did mention Christ and he himself was not a fan, being an orthodox Jew.
    there is no proof for the former quote. it is a fantasic charge laid out by unbelievers so they can ignore Christ and His words. you will notice that the charges of 'forgery' come well after Josephus died.

    An authentic version in the original Greek surfaced recently demonstrating the embellishments between it and the "Christian" version, casting further doubt as to whether or not Josephus offered the description in the first place
    what proof is there that that is an 'authentic' version and that it has NOT been tampered with? if you are going to make those kind of comments then you need to link it up to credible references.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    If I'm honest, proof that there was a person who did things considered to be impossible is not proof for a god; some of the things that are routine now would have seemed impossible 200 years ago.

    Prove that god exists now, which should be easy if he does, instead of proving that people believed in him 2000 years ago, OK?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i already gave you two (2) irrefutable pieces of evidence, if you don't accept those then i doubt you will accept any more.

    once again people are trying to circumvent God's rules. it is NOT physical proof that leads one to God it is BY FAITH. you want toknow God, you want Him to speak to you, You want heavenand salvation then You start with FAITH not physical evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i already gave you two (2) irrefutable pieces of evidence, if you don't accept those then i doubt you will accept any more.
    Well, would you care to recap?

    The only thing I remember you passing off as evidence is the fact that people are converted from atheist to theist, which can be much more easily explained a number of other ways, not to mention the fact that this would prove all religions true, and prove atheism to be correct as well.

    Show me some evidence that proves god's existance, rather than some that can be interpreted to show that god exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    once again people are trying to circumvent God's rules.
    Your rules, not god's.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it is NOT physical proof that leads one to God it is BY FAITH.
    See what I mean about your rules, not god's? You are telling me this, not god.

    YOU ARE NOT GOD!

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you want toknow God, you want Him to speak to you, You want heavenand salvation then You start with FAITH not physical evidence.
    Faith has to come from somewhere.

    One does not spontaneously start to believe in a random religion; one sees some sort of evidence to support this belief, or is brought up to accept it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    what proof is there that that is an 'authentic' version and that it has NOT been tampered with? if you are going to make those kind of comments then you need to link it up to credible references.
    Other than your faith and second-hand accounts, what proof have you that your version of any religious docturine is "authentic" and "has NOT been tampered with?" If you have credible references, why do you believe they are "authentic"? Are they in the hand of God?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    drowsy--been there done that.

    drmdoc-- read the myriads of apologetics books written by true christian authors, they will give you the answers to your questions in more detail.

    drowsy--

    See what I mean about your rules, not god's? You are telling me this, not god.

    YOU ARE NOT GOD!
    read the Bible God already said it. if you want God to speak to you, read the Bible honestly starting with John and then moving through th eother gospels, he is speaking right now, you are the one who has to learn to listen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    drmdoc-- read the myriads of apologetics books written by true christian authors, they will give you the answers to your questions in more detail.
    So, if I understand correctly, you are referring me to "credible references" written in the hand of man rather than that of God? Correct me If I'm mistaken, but isn't man imperfect? Do you have a credible reference that is not in the hand of man?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Junior Sfere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Woodlands Texas
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i already gave you two (2) irrefutable pieces of evidence, if you don't accept those then i doubt you will accept any more.

    once again people are trying to circumvent God's rules. it is NOT physical proof that leads one to God it is BY FAITH. you want toknow God, you want Him to speak to you, You want heavenand salvation then You start with FAITH not physical evidence.

    I have FAITH that you are delusional, because I have proof of that delusion.It gives me FAITH that it will continue... You need to have FAITH in yourself! Nothing makes me laugh more when I hear someone saying "oh lord jesus please help me get through this night" Then I think to myself you have yourself to help you get through the night. You determine the outcome by means of choosing your psychology in how you will handle the future, good or bad. Perception is a wonderful tool. Why give credit to something that can not, and will not ever change your outcome? They have a better chance of asking me to help them, at least then they will get actual help. Religion doesn't need you Arch, but you will always need religion, because you fear what you do not know. I do NOT know what will happen tomorrow or ten years from now, but I am at PEACE with who am, and what I believe to be truth. The truth for me is very simple. In the end the only thing you have to spar with is books written by others, from their perspectives, a very long time ago. The fact that you and other pharisaical bible thumpers mold an ancient religion to fit what you need it to be is fine, but it not as peaceful as you preach and pretend it is...
    YOUR ONLY CULTURE IS BACTERIA!

    I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying ~ RUMI

    Ego stands in the way of love. When it is removed we can flow like a river. ~AMMA~


    LIVE AS IF YOU ARE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU ARE TO LIVE FOREVER...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    there is no proof for the former quote. it is a fantasic charge laid out by unbelievers so they can ignore Christ and His words. you will notice that the charges of 'forgery' come well after Josephus died.
    So, you support the fabrications of Christian liars?

    what proof is there that that is an 'authentic' version and that it has NOT been tampered with? if you are going to make those kind of comments then you need to link it up to credible references.
    The only so-called credible reference you accept is the bible.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    So, you support the fabrications of Christian liars?
    talk about a loaded question. i simply said there was NO PROOF, please provide credible evidence supported by good science.

    I have FAITH that you are delusional
    that is your choice, you woul dbe wrong but it is a choice you get to make though your decision making facilities are highly influenced by your bias, hatred and evil forces
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I have FAITH that you are delusional, because I have proof of that delusion.It gives me FAITH that it will continue... You need to have FAITH in yourself! Nothing makes me laugh more when I hear someone saying "oh lord jesus please help me get through this night" Then I think to myself you have yourself to help you get through the night. You determine the outcome by means of choosing your psychology in how you will handle the future, good or bad. Perception is a wonderful tool. Why give credit to something that can not, and will not ever change your outcome? They have a better chance of asking me to help them, at least then they will get actual help. Religion doesn't need you Arch, but you will always need religion, because you fear what you do not know. I do NOT know what will happen tomorrow or ten years from now, but I am at PEACE with who am, and what I believe to be truth. The truth for me is very simple. In the end the only thing you have to spar with is books written by others, from their perspectives, a very long time ago. The fact that you and other pharisaical bible thumpers mold an ancient religion to fit what you need it to be is fine, but it not as peaceful as you preach and pretend it is...
    p.s. please break your posts up so they can be read properly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    p.s. please break your posts up so they can be read properly. they say insane people write in one big long paragraph ha ha
    Actually it is just those with reading handicaps that have trouble reading long sections of text. If you were a little more humble and just asked people to be a little sympathetic with your problem then people might try to help out, especially if they really want you to read what they write.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    talk about a loaded question. i simply said there was NO PROOF, please provide credible evidence supported by good science.
    LOL!

    “They are the only honest hypocrites, their life is a voluntary dream, a studied madness.” Hazlitt
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    drowsy--

    See what I mean about your rules, not god's? You are telling me this, not god.

    YOU ARE NOT GOD!
    read the Bible God already said it. if you want God to speak to you, read the Bible honestly starting with John and then moving through th eother gospels, he is speaking right now, you are the one who has to learn to listen
    Hehe. No.

    I want to speak to god, not a book written by someone who knew someone who saw someone who claimed to be related to god.

    It's like, I could talk to you, or I could ask Mitchel what your opinions are. Although he may not lie, his opinion about your beliefs would invariably show, no? That's why I wouldn't trust the bible.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    talk about a loaded question. i simply said there was NO PROOF, please provide credible evidence supported by good science.
    LOL!

    “They are the only honest hypocrites, their life is a voluntary dream, a studied madness.” Hazlitt
    A witty saying proves nothing-Voltaire
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed

    A witty saying proves nothing-Voltaire
    Ah, so you missed it entirely, then. Well done.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Actually it was archies response that was funny.... but never mind.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    No, I got it, it was just unfunny and irritating to read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Ah well.

    MM, I have trouble reading long pieces of text. Does this mean I have a reading handicap?

    Actually, (and I'll answer myself) I'm just too easily distracted.

    Books, I have no problem reading.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I want to speak to god, not a book written by someone who knew someone who saw someone who claimed to be related to god
    you humble yourself to God not He to you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    I humble myself to god, not to a book about god.

    Actually, that's a lie. I would talk to god as an equal, never 'humble myself'.

    Ah well, it's a hypothetical situation anyway.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    MM, I have trouble reading long pieces of text. Does this mean I have a reading handicap?

    Actually, (and I'll answer myself) I'm just too easily distracted.
    For my eldest son, it turned out to be a problem with his eyesight. So with glasses the problem went away.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Actually, that's a lie. I would talk to god as an equal, never 'humble myself'
    then you will never get your conversation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Actually, that's a lie. I would talk to god as an equal, never 'humble myself'
    then you will never get your conversation.
    Yes archaeologist has the job of checking God's mail (prayers) to remove anything that is unworthy of God's attention.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    I want to speak to god, not a book written by someone who knew someone who saw someone who claimed to be related to god.

    That's why I wouldn't trust the bible.
    First of all, you wouldn't know anything about Jesus if it weren't for the bible. Kinda puts the cart before the horse, don't ya think? And secondly, as a follower of a god (I know you're not) one is not in the position to reject their holy books.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    I want to speak to god, not a book written by someone who knew someone who saw someone who claimed to be related to god.

    That's why I wouldn't trust the bible.
    First of all, you wouldn't know anything about Jesus if it weren't for the bible.
    Hey; I still don't. Never even met the man.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Kinda puts the cart before the horse, don't ya think? And secondly, as a follower of a god (I know you're not) one is not in the position to reject their holy books.
    Touche.

    A man of faith can believe what he likes, all the same, regardless of what is in a book which others claim is the manifesto of their beliefs.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    Hey; I still don't. Never even met the man.
    That wasn't my point, was it? To all Christians, the bible is the only source. We can argue the bibles credibility, but that doesn't change the fact that Christians must learn about Jesus from the bible.


    A man of faith can believe what he likes, all the same, regardless of what is in a book which others claim is the manifesto of their beliefs.
    But, it's the book itself that is the source of belief in the first place, hence it cannot be dismissed in that way, despite the hypocrites who would use that rationale.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    A man of faith can believe what he likes, all the same, regardless of what is in a book which others claim is the manifesto of their beliefs.
    A man with no imagination or creativity thinks he has no choice in what he believes, so he just believes what others tell him whether theist or atheist. Not wanting to face the depth of his own limitations he tells himself that these abilities to go beyond the obvious are some kind of deception. The accomplishments of science are really beyond his comprehension. I mean he will believe what they tell him making the scientist his new high priest, but understanding the process of scientific discovery is beyond him.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    MM, I have trouble reading long pieces of text. Does this mean I have a reading handicap?

    Actually, (and I'll answer myself) I'm just too easily distracted.
    For my eldest son, it turned out to be a problem with his eyesight. So with glasses the problem went away.
    I had my eyes tested a few times. 20:20 vision, although slightly colourblind.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    okay, i have waited several pages and still not one atheist has been able or willing to come forward and state their differences between what they believe and what onfray claims. so i supposed it is safe to conclude that all atheists believe the same things but in a different emotional level.

    yet no one, and onfray included, cannot produce one shred of credible evidence for their stance. They either just live in denial or the point to secular science* which tells us even less.

    many others point to things in their lives that God did not do for them which shows that they base their unbelief upon the unfulfilling of selfish reasons and go down hill from there.

    bart ehrman, an agnostic not an atheist, points to two different things for his deconversion. In Misquoting Jesus, he claims it was the lack of possessing the original mss. fromthe biblical authors that lead him to disbelieve and in God's Problem, he changes his tune and now says it was 'suffering' that made him lose his faith.

    this flip flop is not worthy of a politician and is just blatant manipulation. He keeps trottingout his life story inhis books as if he has not gotten enough mileage or sympathy out of his life changing decisions.

    so whatis it for atheists. are you like onfray or are you like ehrman?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    okay, i have waited several pages and still not one atheist has been able or willing to come forward and state their differences between what they believe and what onfray claims.
    That is an inaccurate statement. Looking only at the first page of this thread we have the following.

    Kalster declared, at best, a disinterest in Onfray’s work and implied a hostility to his arguments.
    I don't know how many replies you'll get regarding the book itself, since I don't think many of us have actually read it. I certainly haven't and I don't particularly want to.

    Darius’s position is unclear, indeed I am not sure whether he is atheist, agnostic, or theist. However his remarks seem unsympathetic to Onfray.
    Many atheist book writers are on the militant and extreme end of atheism. Many agree that richard dawkins is among them.

    Lynx_Fox is dismissive of the title and, by implication, seems to doubt he would find many of Onfray’s arguments palatable.
    The choice of the word Manifesto in the title, in and of itself, has an emotional bent that would leave prospective readers cold.

    Based on the quotations you offer Lynx Fox later declares “I think it misses the point in any case.”

    A quick scan of the some of the other replies reveals that most posters have been addressing specific points brought up in the thread and couldn't give a damn about what Onfray thinks about anything.

    If you genuinely want to understand the differences then offer a short list of the key beliefs of Onfray and ask again. Otherwise it will appear that you are more interested in fooling yourself into thinking you have made points at the expense of the athiests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    no worries. i was not referring to the whole thread , as i clearly stated 'a few pages' which it was since my last post on getting people tostate their bel;iefs or lack of them

    but if you want to consider the whole thread that is up to you and i am not going to quibble about it.


    i was not icluding the whole thread so sorry for the misunderstanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •