|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery Comments on Great Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I, for one, have not made up my mind whether ICANT is a smart crook or an honest fool. From what I see, everything he is saying is free. (To recap, in case you've forgotten the story: In 1972, with Watergate looming on the horizon, Richard Nixon was re-elected by a landslide, which led one commentator to say that America preferred a smart crook over an honest fool. Since then, if somebody would rather be seen as an honest fool than a smart crook, I take his word for it.) ICANT seems to want to be seen as an honest fool but I don't discount the opinion of people who think he's a smart crook. He's a poe, really. There's no way of telling whether he actually believes the nonsense that he posts or whether he's just a troll. As for selling his primitive superstitions, not everything is sold for cash. Maybe he's just trying to fuel his monumental ego.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I don't see why starting from different positions would necessarily result in different conclusions. After all, Faith claims she approached the Bible from the same skeptical position as I do now, yet she reached the same conclusions as the apologists. And in fact, I did originally approach the Bible from a position of belief and I concluded that it was fiction.
No wonder you interpret the book different from the apologists. Phat writes:
Not at all. As I have said, if they prefer to be seen as honest fools, I take their word for it.
You lump them all together as having an agenda...smart crooks. Phat writes:
You're misusing that idiom. You can't separate the Bible into baby and bathwater.
But you seem to throw out the Baby(in the manger) with the bathwater. Phat writes:
I can't make any sense of that sentence. I'm the one who has pointed out that message to you in the book and you are the one who rejects it. And the beliefs that I poke holes in are the truly stupid ones, like "dying for our sins".
Funny, though how you declare that if there were a law regarding mandatory giving, I most certainly would obey it...yet you see that same edict in the book and poke holes in belief. Phat writes:
I couldn't care less what he accuses me of. He has no way of knowing how thoroughly or honestly I have looked.
Essentially, the pastor only accuses you of not looking for evidence for God thoroughly nor honestly enough. Phat writes:
Nope. So is he honest or smart?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And I stand by that assessment. Feel free to argue the point with substance instead of just outrage.
You have the audacity to call the pastor illiterate. Phat writes:
I know what you look like. You posted a picture of yourself on EvC once.
You may find me in the library someday as you are typing on that computer. I may or may not identify myself... Phat writes:
Go ahead, ask me for spare change. ... after observing your character around others in the real world.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I spent almost half of my life in those churches, so I have some experience too.
I have encountered them in Canada in many situations and have been in church with them, so I have some experience. GDR writes:
I wouldn't call most fundamentalists either crooked or foolish, in general. Many of them have been fooled by a foolish message, as you have. I wouldn't call him either a crook or a fool. I call ICANT a crook and/or a fool because he persists in making the same stupid arguments even after he has been corrected many times. That is either genuine stupidity or genuine dishonesty (or both).
GDR writes:
I would say the same thing about all Christians. Although fundamentalists, like everyone else, go off the moral rails, I doubt that they are any more prone to that than anyone else.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
in the Great Debate thread, Phat writes:
You flatter yourself. Besides, I am testing a theory which says that the more I talk to you, the angrier some of my secular friends will get.And our geese will blot out the sun. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
We can explain to each other where you go wrong but nobody can explain it to you because you can't see past your huge ego. I asked you and anyone else on this website to either straighten me out on my understanding of what they have said and the places they contradict themselves. That does not seem to me to be a hard thing to do."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
"Eternally" is not a scientific idea. We don't know what happened "before" the Big Bang because our notion of time began at the Big Bang. Since energy can not be created or destroyed it has to have existed eternally in the past.Where is my belief wrong. "I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
It was a "belief" to Einstein, as you say yourself. It was not supported by science.
ringo writes:
It was to Einstein. He believed the universe was static and had always existed, until it was discovered it was expanding. "Eternally" is not a scientific idea. ICANT writes:
Science is all about solving problems. You 've been told some of tge tentative solutions. That brings us to the problem of where did the energy come from that produced the heat of trillions of degrees k at T=-44?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
ICANT is making scientific claims. They definitely must be supported by science - and he claimed that they were.
Must everything be supported by scieence? Phat writes:
If he could, wouldn't somebody have done it by now? Yet he's still in the same scientific boat as the Tooth Fairy.
Can God in any way be supported by science? Phat writes:
As I keep telling you over and over and over and over and over and over again, I HAVE considered that. Its your turn now. Consider that my beliefs may not necessarily be a fantasy.Consider that God could exist. Now what? "I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
And when that belief was proven wrong, it ceased to be the scientific view. Science is self-correcting. But prior to Hubble discovering that the universe was expanding Einstein's belief was the scientific view."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Sure, it could be wrong. Sure, it might change some day. What makes you think it would change BACK to a view that has already been proven wrong?
If the scientific view that the universe was eternal and static was proven to be wrong by Hubble's discovery, what makes you think the current view is the correct view. ICANT writes:
It has already been pointed out to you that our laws of physics only date back to the Big Bang. That requires the universe to be eternal in existence as it could not have a beginning to exist...."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The one we're talking about. Don't you read your own posts?
What view are you referring too? quote: ICANT writes:
What has that got to do with it? The laws of physics go back to the Big Bang. Didn't Hawking say the laws of Physics would determine how the universe began to exist?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The current view is the best one according to the evidence that we have now.
The current view is not proven to be true as was the one of Einstein. But those two are not the only possibilities. ICANT writes:
Who said it was the current laws that controlled the event?
Please explain to me how a set of laws can control the creation of the universe if they did not exist prior to the event of creation. ICANT writes:
So they weren't in control of the event. What's the problem with that? If they were created as a part of the event they would not have been in control of the event."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Gotta love it when women hum. One of my favorite thoughts is of a group of pre-proto-humans sitting around a fire when one of the young women, feeling safe, warm and fed starts humming. No real tune but kind of a cat purr in happy tones.![]() "I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Is that anything like the fanciest restaurant in Moose Jaw? ... one of the largest construction companies in the Cayman Islands....![]() "I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025