Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
46 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,414 Year: 18,450/19,786 Month: 870/1,705 Week: 122/518 Day: 48/74 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum name change
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 981 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 76 of 128 (550056)
03-12-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by hooah212002
03-11-2010 11:26 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
Hi, Hooah.

hooah212002 writes:

1: I don't believe shit in the bible.

I believe it is in the Bible:

Source


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by hooah212002, posted 03-11-2010 11:26 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2794 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 77 of 128 (550061)
03-12-2010 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Pauline
03-12-2010 1:04 AM


Re: Since you asked.
My apologies, Dr. Sing. That was rude of me and uncalled for. I'll try to do better in the future.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Pauline, posted 03-12-2010 1:04 AM Pauline has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8081
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 78 of 128 (550063)
03-12-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Pauline
03-11-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
Numbers can play nasty mental tricks. You do realize that not everyone who purports to be "Christian" is a true Bible-believing Christian, don't you?

In the survey about 75% of respondents were self-described christians. This fits nicely with this thread being that you claim self-described christians in this forum are treated more harshly just because of their self-identified religious beliefs. According to you, all one needs to do is describe themselves as a believer in order for their rating to go down. Therefore, self-identification is the right number to go with.

So, again, you are part of a 75% majority and you are whining about being persecuted to a group that makes up about 10-15% of the population and has long been looked down upon by the 75% majority. Have you found that state constitution that bans christians from holding public office yet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 4:36 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8081
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 79 of 128 (550065)
03-12-2010 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Pauline
03-11-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
I don't blame you, the evolutionary theory (among others you hold on to) seems to have great success at eliminating the supernatural from your worldview.

Can you name one theory in science that you accept as true? In that theory, where does it describe the actions of the supernatural?

Do you likewise reject the theory of gravity because it does not include supernatural forces? Do you likewise reject Germ Theory because it leaves no room for God to spread plagues?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 5:52 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 2019 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 80 of 128 (550094)
03-12-2010 5:34 PM


Rahvin writes:

It's what you believe to be the truth. I understand that you have a high degree of confidence in that belief. Convincing other people to believe the same is the trick. For that purpose, that particular statement is more off-putting than convincing.

Note Rahvin, that it all depends on how the recipient perceives the message. In my life, I have shared the Gospel with many people of different ages and varying socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds. You’ve got to realize that the message is not inherently offensive. I’ve seen people who literally cried incessantly when I shared this message with them (more elaborately of course) and the realization of its preciousness led them to believe in God. That’s called faith, Rahvin. On the other hand, I have people here that purport to be highly educated and civil and yet are so closed-minded and dogmatic. You have to ask yourself why it is rude to you…. Not everyone thinks it’s rude, to some it’s life-giving.

I do agree that my saying it was not appropriate for this context. I could have been better. However, it wasn't a threat. I said it of out helplessness.

By and large, Dr, atheists do not hate god - that would be much like you hating leprechauns. I don't say that to offend - I'm trying to give you a point of reference. It's difficult to hate something you don't think exists.

That’s called denial, Rahvin. As much you would like me to believe you, I’m not blind. Atheism does not inherently call for God-hatred, I know. But again, our perspectives and worldviews aren't always as pure as they should be, are they? Now and then...we find people who once believed but now don't , who have seem to harbor piles of bitterness inside......

It's not a matter of desensitization - it's a matter of respect for other people, and simple manners. I don't know about you, but when someone threatens me with eternal torment, I consider that rather rude.

Uhuh. Is education inversely proportional to open-mindedness? There are great intellectuals who’ve made priceless contributions to science, who readily acknowledge God. It’s all person-specific. Like I said, that people give their lives, literally, for the very message of the Gospel should ring a really loud bell. Unfortunately, some choose to be deaf.
Indeed. But they could like you more. So far I’ve been trying specifically to remain polite and nice with you, and in your responses to me you seem to have done the same.
If you'd like to end the hostility and actually debate as per the purpose of this site, you may wish to demonstrate the Christian principles of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and of turning the other cheek. It'll help keep the moderation staff sane, and lower the blood pressure of all those involved.
Of course, that goes for them, as well.

There is no debate.
What’s the point in comparing apples to oranges?
There is no common criterion on which to base arguments in the Creation-Evolution debate. One view thinks in terms of the supernatural and the other, the natural.

Creationist: Evolution is wrong. God is creator.
Evolutionist: Well then, if God physically appeared and told me as much, I would believe.
Creationist. He won't. By definition, He's a spirit. You’ve got have faith. (--Insert something like Paley’s argument---)
Evolutionist: I've got to see physical evidence of His existence.
Creationist: You'll never see it...
Evolutionist: Well, then shut up and get out of here. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? You can't even provide logical arguments for your claims?! (You obviously are wrong because---Insert a bunch of logical fallacies here----)
Creationist: God is not logical. He transcends human logic. The Bible is proof of God's existence
Evolutionist: ---Insert profane words-----
See where the two worlds don't meet?
Sheer vanity?
I’m not here to tell you all that Creation is more “scientific” than evolution. I for one, don’t think even evolution is scientific. Like I said, I don’t wish to crowd in with the insane. I want to be able to understand why you believe the things you guys do. I have not presented one single scientific argument in any forum on these boards. (and yet, I get rated on my argumentation and presentation skills…) That should be enough proof to you that I could care less about the “debate”. My only thread that deals with the “debate” was in the biological evolution forum. And I made it plenty clear there that my intention was to understand the evolutionary rationale. I mostly listened, they talked. In the flow of conversation, I voiced some personal opinion, that’s about it.…. The rest of my time here has been spent on the faith and belief forum, since there we at least have a common criterion for argument.

Can you name one theory in science that you accept as true? In that theory, where does it describe the actions of the supernatural?
Do you likewise reject the theory of gravity because it does not include supernatural forces? Do you likewise reject Germ Theory because it leaves no room for God to spread plagues?

Good grief. Who said that scientific theories need incorporate supernatural elements? Our beloved Darwin had serious questions about theism and God which significantly fueled the development of his theory. Remember the “intellectually fulfilled atheist” idea? Truth is that no “scientific” theory denigrates humans to such a pitiful state as evolution does. Evolution is a blight on ethics. If it wants to be called scientific, let it behave like it. Suffice yourself with microevolution. When you talk about stuff like Darwinian evolution being responsible for morality and emotions, that’s when we all realize that this so-called “theory” is more of a belief system. That’s ethics. Even though it does not tell us how to act or behave…that it makes abstract things seem material and material only (without evidence that too) shows its insanity.

My apologies, Dr. Sing. That was rude of me and uncalled for. I'll try to do better in the future.

That’s okay, ZM.

Enough is enough. I wish this conversation would end.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2010 7:00 PM Pauline has responded
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2010 8:04 PM Pauline has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 81 of 128 (550110)
03-12-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Pauline
03-12-2010 5:34 PM


quote:
Rahvin writes:

It's what you believe to be the truth. I understand that you have a high degree of confidence in that belief. Convincing other people to believe the same is the trick. For that purpose, that particular statement is more off-putting than convincing.


Note Rahvin, that it all depends on how the recipient perceives the message. In my life, I have shared the Gospel with many people of different ages and varying socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds. You’ve got to realize that the message is not inherently offensive. I’ve seen people who literally cried incessantly when I shared this message with them (more elaborately of course) and the realization of its preciousness led them to believe in God. That’s called faith, Rahvin. On the other hand, I have people here that purport to be highly educated and civil and yet are so closed-minded and dogmatic. You have to ask yourself why it is rude to you…. Not everyone thinks it’s rude, to some it’s life-giving.

Perhaps. It does indeed depend on how it's received - generally it all hinges upon the acceptance or rejection of 1) the existence of the supernatural, and 2) the "Fallen Nature" doctrine where all mankind is already deserving of that eternal torment. Given acceptance of those, I can see how the offer of avoiding the torture through somethign as easy as accepting what you've already (at that point) been convinced to believe in would be "life-affirming."

I do agree that my saying it was not appropriate for this context. I could have been better. However, it wasn't a threat. I said it of out helplessness.

I completely understand. While this is certainly the most fair and honest place for the Creation v. Evolution debate that I;ve come across, there's still an imbalance in numbers for each side. Unfortunately, the Creationists will need to suffer through dogpiles...and when people start to get nasty and stop addressing points, exasperation is inevitable.

But please also note that the mockery and sarcasm displayed from the opposite side is typically the result of similar exasperation. Quite frankly, we see many Creationists here, and quite a few of them wouldn't know a calm and rational discussion if it bit them. Conversations require that we all actually listen to what the other is saying. All too often we see the Creationist who has no intention of discussion, but instead talks at us...and then when he/she realized that they are not preaching to the choir like various and sundry other sites, they use the same exasperated "you're going to Hell!" type of line that you yourself used. They typically don;t stay long after that...but given that you've been courteous and polite with me, at least, I'd like you to stick around. We need more Creationists that we can actually converse with, rather than both sides beating heads against the proverbial brick wall.

quote:
By and large, Dr, atheists do not hate god - that would be much like you hating leprechauns. I don't say that to offend - I'm trying to give you a point of reference. It's difficult to hate something you don't think exists.

That’s called denial, Rahvin. As much you would like me to believe you, I’m not blind. Atheism does not inherently call for God-hatred, I know. But again, our perspectives and worldviews aren't always as pure as they should be, are they? Now and then...we find people who once believed but now don't , who have seem to harbor piles of bitterness inside......

That's an over-simplification. Typically, former Christians can bear a great deal of resentment at current Christians and the teachings of the religion specifically. That doesn;t mean they hate a God that they don;t think exists.

In fact, this describes me. I was a Christian for over 20 years, and believed quite strongly. I do resent to a degree the fact that I was indoctrinated into the faith before I was ever old enough to make the decision for myself. I do hold many of my former beliefs in contempt. I do consider many of the stories in the Bible to be reprehensible morally if they had actually happened. But I "hate God" in the same way that you might "hate" the antagonist of a movie.

quote:
It's not a matter of desensitization - it's a matter of respect for other people, and simple manners. I don't know about you, but when someone threatens me with eternal torment, I consider that rather rude.

Uhuh. Is education inversely proportional to open-mindedness? There are great intellectuals who’ve made priceless contributions to science, who readily acknowledge God. It’s all person-specific.

Indeed. Cavediver on this very board is a former physics professor, and was until very recently a fundamentalist Christian. The vast majority of scientists, in fact, are theists of one form or another

Like I said, that people give their lives, literally, for the very message of the Gospel should ring a really loud bell. Unfortunately, some choose to be deaf.

People give their lives, literally, for Islam and Judaism and Hindu and Buddhism, as well. Martyrs and those who devote their lifetime to their faith are not unique to Christianity.

quote:
Indeed. But they could like you more. So far I’ve been trying specifically to remain polite and nice with you, and in your responses to me you seem to have done the same.

If you'd like to end the hostility and actually debate as per the purpose of this site, you may wish to demonstrate the Christian principles of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and of turning the other cheek. It'll help keep the moderation staff sane, and lower the blood pressure of all those involved.

Of course, that goes for them, as well.


There is no debate.
What’s the point in comparing apples to oranges?
There is no common criterion on which to base arguments in the Creation-Evolution debate. One view thinks in terms of the supernatural and the other, the natural.

Creationist: Evolution is wrong. God is creator.
Evolutionist: Well then, if God physically appeared and told me as much, I would believe.
Creationist. He won't. By definition, He's a spirit. You’ve got have faith. (--Insert something like Paley’s argument---)
Evolutionist: I've got to see physical evidence of His existence.
Creationist: You'll never see it...
Evolutionist: Well, then shut up and get out of here. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? You can't even provide logical arguments for your claims?! (You obviously are wrong because---Insert a bunch of logical fallacies here----)
Creationist: God is not logical. He transcends human logic. The Bible is proof of God's existence
Evolutionist: ---Insert profane words-----
See where the two worlds don't meet?
Sheer vanity?

Well, of course there is debate. You and I are debating right now.

And your example is accurate only when discussing the existence of God, not evidence of the Theory of Evolution. We actually show the evidence behind the theory on that subject. If you'd like to start a debate thread to debunk the Theory of Evolution, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

Relating to the abov, however, the place you lose me is when you start saying that "God transcends logic," and "the Bible proves God's existence."

You are saying two things here:

1) "What I'm saying doesn't have to make any sense at all, and even if what I say is self-contradictory or you can show direct evidence that contradicts my claims, I'm still right."

That's just literally unreasonable.

2) "God exists because the Bible says so."

Why should this be true for the Bible, but not true for the myriad other religious texts that describe mutually exclusive deities? Is not teh Koran then proof of Allah's existence? Does the Rig Veda prove that Vishnu exists? Does the Odyssey prove the existence of Poseidon?

I’m not here to tell you all that Creation is more “scientific” than evolution. I for one, don’t think even evolution is scientific.

Then you quite bluntly don't understand either the Theory of Evolution or science in general. You may as well say that the Theory of Gravity is unscientific. Once again I'd encourage you to start a thread on the validity of evolution, even if only to discover what you think teh Theory of Evolution is, and why you think it is not scientific.

Like I said, I don’t wish to crowd in with the insane. I want to be able to understand why you believe the things you guys do. I have not presented one single scientific argument in any forum on these boards. (and yet, I get rated on my argumentation and presentation skills…) That should be enough proof to you that I could care less about the “debate”. My only thread that deals with the “debate” was in the biological evolution forum. And I made it plenty clear there that my intention was to understand the evolutionary rationale. I mostly listened, they talked. In the flow of conversation, I voiced some personal opinion, that’s about it.…. The rest of my time here has been spent on the faith and belief forum, since there we at least have a common criterion for argument.

I would love to hear what you got out of your earlier participation. Specifically, I am very interested to hear what you think the Theory of Evolution proposes, in your own words.

And again, don't sweat the ratings system. I think of it as an Appeal to Popularity fallacy - the number of people who agree with or like a statement is irrelevant to its accuracy. If 1000 people rate a message a 1, but the message is accurate to reality, then the 1000 are just wrong, and who cares what they think?

I don't participate much on the faith side here. Mostly that's because I find the concept of faith to be foreign to me now. I cannot choose what I do or do not find to be convincing, and therefore I cannot choose to be convinced of something in the absence of objective evidence. I'd love very much to have a benevolent omnipotent being that cares for me. I just can't believe that to be the case on my own desires alone - I need evidence, not faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Pauline, posted 03-12-2010 5:34 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Pauline, posted 03-12-2010 8:16 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 82 of 128 (550120)
03-12-2010 7:42 PM


Rating system = Who gives a fuck?
Wow, this little tirade has been going on for 7 pages.

I don't think a single person likes the rating scale. No one cares what anyone else's rating is. If they do then they obviously need a lot reassurance in their life.

Dr. Sing, to be honest with you it's probably a combination between the nonsense you discuss and spite. I'm sure some people are in fact being vindictive towards you and some people think you discuss asinine nonsense.

I wouldn't worry about it either way.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 83 of 128 (550123)
03-12-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Pauline
03-12-2010 5:34 PM


Uhuh. Is education inversely proportional to open-mindedness?

No. This is why educated people are more likely to look at your beliefs and laugh and laugh and laugh. Because they are not closed-minded religious zealots who have to bow down and worship your opinions. Instead, they have open minds, and they can look at every idea on its merits, and so they laugh and laugh and laugh at your pathetic futile nonsense.

There is no debate.
What’s the point in comparing apples to oranges?
There is no common criterion on which to base arguments in the Creation-Evolution debate. One view thinks in terms of the supernatural and the other, the natural.

Well put. But the reason that there is a debate is that the creationists want to pretend that their views are scientific. If they just came out with it and said: "I don't believe in evolution because, although all the facts prove me wrong, my imaginary friend told me not to", then those of us who live in the real world would have nothing left to do but feel sorry for them. But it's not like that, is it? Instead they talk retarded gibberish about science and then pat themselves on the back and tell everyone how their imaginary friend is right and how the stupid nonsense that their imaginary friend believes in should be taught in science class.

Good grief. Who said that scientific theories need incorporate supernatural elements? Our beloved Darwin had serious questions about theism and God which significantly fueled the development of his theory. Remember the “intellectually fulfilled atheist” idea? Truth is that no “scientific” theory denigrates humans to such a pitiful state as evolution does. Evolution is a blight on ethics. If it wants to be called scientific, let it behave like it. Suffice yourself with microevolution. When you talk about stuff like Darwinian evolution being responsible for morality and emotions, that’s when we all realize that this so-called “theory” is more of a belief system. That’s ethics. Even though it does not tell us how to act or behave…that it makes abstract things seem material and material only (without evidence that too) shows its insanity.

This would be a case in point. You are discussing the fantasy world in your head. And you are doing so in all seriousness.

Now, sure, if it makes you happy to believe that crap, then go ahead and believe it. Evidently it makes you feel better, and no-one will get hurt if you indulge yourself in this way. It's like masturbation in that respect. But you want to get up on your little soapbox in public and preach this crap. And at that point I think you've gone too far.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Pauline, posted 03-12-2010 5:34 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 2019 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 84 of 128 (550125)
03-12-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
03-12-2010 7:00 PM


Perhaps. It does indeed depend on how it's received - generally it all hinges upon the acceptance or rejection of 1) the existence of the supernatural, and 2) the "Fallen Nature" doctrine where all mankind is already deserving of that eternal torment. Given acceptance of those, I can see how the offer of avoiding the torture through somethign as easy as accepting what you've already (at that point) been convinced to believe in would be "life-affirming."

Spot on. You're good, Rahvin

Alas, both 1 and 2 are generally not embraced here, are they?

I completely understand. While this is certainly the most fair and honest place for the Creation v. Evolution debate that I;ve come across, there's still an imbalance in numbers for each side. Unfortunately, the Creationists will need to suffer through dogpiles...and when people start to get nasty and stop addressing points, exasperation is inevitable.

But please also note that the mockery and sarcasm displayed from the opposite side is typically the result of similar exasperation. Quite frankly, we see many Creationists here, and quite a few of them wouldn't know a calm and rational discussion if it bit them. Conversations require that we all actually listen to what the other is saying. All too often we see the Creationist who has no intention of discussion, but instead talks at us...and then when he/she realized that they are not preaching to the choir like various and sundry other sites, they use the same exasperated "you're going to Hell!" type of line that you yourself used. They typically don;t stay long after that...but given that you've been courteous and polite with me, at least, I'd like you to stick around. We need more Creationists that we can actually converse with, rather than both sides beating heads against the proverbial brick wall.

I, myself, would like to learn from and contribute to this forum. People like yourself do their part in making it a congenial place to debate. I'm not going to debate the Creation vs. Evolution topic, though. I might ask questions but that's all I'll do when it comes to it. I'd be more than happy to participate in the faith related and other science forums on this board. Like I already said, in my opinion, comparing creation and evolution is wasting precious time, to say the least. I appreciate your calm demeanor and broad-mindedness, Rahvin. I doubted if anyone would detect the helplessness in my tone when I said it.

You've been kind and gracious in our conversation. It is much appreciated. I know how I would react to a person like you vs. someone who's more emotional than rational. And I know that how I react must not vary from person to person. I'll keep working on it...

That's an over-simplification. Typically, former Christians can bear a great deal of resentment at current Christians and the teachings of the religion specifically. That doesn;t mean they hate a God that they don;t think exists.

In fact, this describes me. I was a Christian for over 20 years, and believed quite strongly. I do resent to a degree the fact that I was indoctrinated into the faith before I was ever old enough to make the decision for myself. I do hold many of my former beliefs in contempt. I do consider many of the stories in the Bible to be reprehensible morally if they had actually happened. But I "hate God" in the same way that you might "hate" the antagonist of a movie.

Well, I would think there's a strong reason behind holding such contempt. Perhaps you've had some bad encounters with Christianity. Let me ask you this, Rahvin. If you could pin point one thing that makes you resent Christianity, what would it be?

You are saying two things here:

1) "What I'm saying doesn't have to make any sense at all, and even if what I say is self-contradictory or you can show direct evidence that contradicts my claims, I'm still right."

That's just literally unreasonable.

I'm afraid you perhaps grossly misunderstood me.

By saying God transcends logic, I'm effectively saying we've got to view God as master of our minds rather than master Him with our minds. A LOT of what the Bible says does not make immediate sense to people who don't believe. They may find direct evidence to disprove Biblical claims when the Bible wasn't even talking about what they think it was (unless we're dealing with numbers here, historical data etc etc). You see? Logic cannot capture God.

I don't know if you're familiar with the rich young ruler's story but in it, the young man adressess Christ as "good teacher". Christ replies to him saying "why do you call me good, no one but God is good. So, is Christ effectively denying that He is God? I think a logical person would say yes, Christ is denying deity.
Few people realize that Christ was testing the man's faith. When you read the man's next statement, he addresses Christ as "teacher". So, the lesson isn't really "Is Christ God", rather "Can one please God without faith in Him"?

Apparent logical contradictions, Rahvin.

2) "God exists because the Bible says so."

Why should this be true for the Bible, but not true for the myriad other religious texts that describe mutually exclusive deities? Is not teh Koran then proof of Allah's existence? Does the Rig Veda prove that Vishnu exists? Does the Odyssey prove the existence of Poseidon?

Vishnu never made the claims Jesus did. Neither did any other god. The Bible's uniqueness both in content and structure speaks for itself to the ready reader.

I would love to hear what you got out of your earlier participation. Specifically, I am very interested to hear what you think the Theory of Evolution proposes, in your own words.

Quite irrelevant, actually. I asked them why they wouldn't believe in a designer by giving them a very specific example of the human body. Many admitted that it baffled them, initially. I was interested in finding out how they would justify their claims. All I can tell you is that, I was not satisfied.

I'd love very much to have a benevolent omnipotent being that cares for me. I just can't believe that to be the case...I need evidence, not faith.

Rahvin, Faith is the evidence of things unseen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2010 7:00 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2010 8:17 AM Pauline has responded
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2010 2:41 PM Pauline has responded

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 2019 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 85 of 128 (550127)
03-12-2010 8:24 PM


Okay, I'm am more than willing to end this topic right. here. right.now.

I have no extra time to keep replying to ill-meant posts. Yet, I do. Just because I don't want it to look like I voice my opinion and then just leave. I'm not providing fuel to this ongoing saga. And if you guys would take it well if I never replied to one of your posts in this thread, then I'll leave this thread for good in a nanosecond.

edit: I did not intend this post at you Rahvin. It was for those were getting tired of this just like I am.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 7:52 AM Pauline has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18868
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 86 of 128 (550162)
03-13-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Pauline
03-12-2010 8:24 PM


Hi Dr. Sing,

That's just Dr Adequate being Dr Adequate. Don't let him push you into a rash decision to cut-n-run. This is what Rahvin was just talking about when he said that too many creationists just cut-n-run when they realize they're not preaching to the choir.

You've been fairly successful demanding respect for your religious beliefs because you're very polite yourself, but what Dr Adequate is really saying is that he isn't buying it, that if you're going to speak nonsense then he's going to call it nonsense. Again, Rahvin hit the nail square on the head when he said, "But please also note that the mockery and sarcasm displayed from the opposite side is typically the result of similar exasperation." You don't realize how exasperating it is to see people write things like this from your Message 80:

Dr. Sing in Message 80 writes:

In my life, I have shared the Gospel with many people of different ages and varying socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds.

You thought you were just being honest and sincere. But though you call it "sharing the Gospel" and give it the imprimatur of TRVTH, it is really just you giving your opinion of your religion and your interpretation of an ancient text as if they were facts. It is very exasperating.

So as you get upset at what some people say on our side, realize that people on our side also have feelings and get equally upset at what people say on your side, even when it is said with the best of intentions.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Pauline, posted 03-12-2010 8:24 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2010 8:21 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 91 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 10:44 AM Percy has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 87 of 128 (550165)
03-13-2010 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Pauline
03-12-2010 8:16 PM


I, myself, would like to learn from and contribute to this forum. People like yourself do their part in making it a congenial place to debate. I'm not going to debate the Creation vs. Evolution topic, though.

Yeah, you're pretty much screwed there, aren't you?

By saying God transcends logic, I'm effectively saying we've got to view God as master of our minds rather than master Him with our minds.

In short, you just have to learn to live with the fact that your religion makes no sense. Only actually you don't. You could believe something, that does make sense.

Vishnu never made the claims Jesus did. Neither did any other god.

True. Every other god said that he was a god --- Jesus is the one person to be worshiped as a god by his followers without having claimed divinity.

What's that about?

The Bible's uniqueness both in content and structure speaks for itself to the ready reader.

Yeah. It says: "Here's a collection of fiction and poetry which is so grossly inconsistent with itself that it was definitely not written by the same author, and so grossly inconsistent with reality that you'd have to be nuts to believe it."

Quite irrelevant, actually. I asked them why they wouldn't believe in a designer by giving them a very specific example of the human body. Many admitted that it baffled them, initially.

No they didn't. Here's the thread. Would you please try to make your statements more congruent with reality? Thanks.

Faith is the evidence of things unseen.

Er ... no it isn't.

That's basically where you're going wrong. You think it is, but it's not. The mere fact that you believe an absurdity is not a reason to believe that absurdity.

Here's faith.

It's evidence that people can be idiots, but that's hardly a "thing unseen".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Pauline, posted 03-12-2010 8:16 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 8:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 93 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 11:05 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 88 of 128 (550167)
03-13-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
03-13-2010 7:52 AM


That's just Dr Adequate being Dr Adequate.

Or "right" as we call it for short.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 7:52 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 128 (550170)
03-13-2010 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
03-13-2010 8:17 AM


Re: Jesus's Divinity
Dr Adequate writes:

Jesus is the one person to be worshiped as a god by his followers without having claimed divinity.

Hi Doc. Why did he accept worship from different ones? Doesn't son of God qualify for divinity?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2010 8:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2010 9:29 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2010 2:45 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 90 of 128 (550172)
03-13-2010 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Buzsaw
03-13-2010 8:42 AM


Re: Jesus's Divinity
Hi Doc. Why did he accept worship from different ones? Doesn't son of God qualify for divinity?

I'm not following you ... it isn't recorded in the Gospels that Jesus' followers gave him divine honors. Certainly they thought he was a great guy, but none of them worshiped him in the strict sense of the word.

And yet today his followers tell me that that's what I must do to be saved. According to them, it's essential to my spiritual well-being to worship Jesus as God ... and yet he never mentioned this crucial fact, nor did the apostles so worship him.

What's up with that?

I ought to add this to slevesque's apologetics thread, it's a good question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 8:42 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019