A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.

Originally posted by gene90:You know, YECs are known for getting scarce when they can't fight reason.I'm still here, you've just become irrelevant.I agree. Absolutely.If you agree than open your eyes.If we ignore the ones I've caught you in.You wish. You are projecting, but hey whatever turns your crank.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-09-2002]

[QUOTE][B]If you agree than open your eyes.[/QUOTE][/B]I've been suggesting the same to you, but you absolutely refuse to accept even the possibility that I am right and have tried circular reasoning and all manner of fallacies to escape it. You're quite the one to tell me to "open my eyes". [QUOTE][B] You are projecting[/QUOTE][/B]Then why don't you try answering to my last post in this thread, in which I reduced your argument to absurdity, as opposed to plugging your ears, planting your head in the sand, and shouting, "Nah-nah-na-nahnah".

Originally posted by gene90:I've been suggesting the same to you, but you absolutely refuse to accept even the possibility that I am right and have tried circular reasoning and all manner of fallacies to escape it. You're quite the one to tell me to "open my eyes".As I have said before it is not as if I didn't look. I don't have to go to the Moon to know that it isn't made of green cheese There is enough real evidence that it isn't. You're the one who is using fallacies as arguements and you're so deluded that you refuse to see this.Then why don't you try answering to my last post in this thread, in which I reduced your argument to absurdity, as opposed to plugging your ears, planting your head in the sand, and shouting, "Nah-nah-na-nahnah".You really shouldn't be talking to yourself like this. The others, on here, are right about what you have become.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-10-2002]

[QUOTE][B]I don't have to go to the Moon to know that it isn't made of green cheese There is enough real evidence that it isn't.[/QUOTE][/B]Apples and oranges.That can be done in a scientific matter because you are dealing with physical phenomena. This is metaphysics. You have no scientific evidence in favor of or against God. I'm waiting for you to either admit that your position is faith-based or take up the agnostic position and admit that you don't know if any God(s) are real and you don't know if any God(s) are not. [QUOTE][B]You're the one who is using fallacies as arguements[/QUOTE][/B]You're projecting again. Also, why are you so frustrated that you have to attack me instead of using logic? [QUOTE][B]and you're so deluded that you refuse to see this.[/QUOTE][/B]Speaking of fallacies, that's a circular argument, an ad-hominem, and a mere assertion.It is a mere assertion because you have not examined me in person and you lack the credentials to determine my mental state.Your reasoning that I am deluded *because* believe in God is a mere assertion because you cannot know that there is no God.It is an ad-hominem because you are trying to flee from the discussion by attacking my ability to reason.It is a circular argument because you assume that I am deluded because I believe in God and therefore I am wrong (your conclusion)
but your starting axiom is that there is no God.That's four fallacies in one complex, a record for you so far.Aside: the old stereotype is that atheists resort to logic and theists resort to fideism. I see the opposite here.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-10-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:That can be done in a scientific matter because you are dealing with physical phenomena. This is metaphysics.Which branch of science teaches "metaphysics"? The same one which teaches astrology, alchemy, and creationism? Want me to tell you your future by reading the bumps on your head? Where's that mallet? Pseudo-science is not credible science.You have no scientific evidence in favor of or against God. I'm waiting for you to either admit that your position is faith-based or take up the agnostic position and admit that you don't know if any God(s) are real and you don't know if any God(s) are not.I've always stated that I don't know, and neither can you. You're just speculating, or worse wishful thinking. If it is true than it is the cruelest and most evil joke of them all.[Irrelevant crap deleted][This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Which branch of science teaches "metaphysics"? The same one which teaches astrology, alchemy, and creationism? Want me to tell you your future by reading the bumps on your head? Where's that mallet? Pseudo-science is not credible science.[/QUOTE][/B]The average atheist, I've noticed, is significantly higher on the learning curve than the average YEC. Hence I never anticipated that I would have to point out to an atheist or agnostic what "science" deals with and what science does not deal with.Science is a fairly new branch of philosophy that deals exclusively with the natural world. Therefore it limits itself to natural phenomena and is irrelevant to any manner of supernatural phenomena, by definition.Therefore YECs that try to mix science and religious miracles are misguided. But they are no more misguided than the non-theists who try to use evidentialism and science to ponder the existence or non-existance of God. It just doesn't work either way."Metaphysics", as you should have noticed by the name, is a part of philosophy that is higher on the taxonomic scale than science. It is inclusive of logic but not limited to evidentialism. However it is not science because it attempts to do things that science cannot. Metaphysics, when the term is correctly applied, is no more "pseudoscience" than ethics is a pseudoscience (ethics is another branch of philosophy) or politics.Metaphysics, however, is the parent branch of science.http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/...m/sections/section1/branches.htmWhen you decided to get involved in this little debate you left science behind for metaphysics. It is a different playing field, defined by epistemology but not by evidence, at least not in the scientific sense. If you don't like that you need to stick to debating YECs, where you can work exclusively with science.

Originally posted by gene90:Science is a fairly new branch of philosophy that deals exclusively with the natural world. Therefore it limits itself to natural phenomena and is irrelevant to any manner of supernatural phenomena, by definition.Have you discovered another world besides the natural one?Therefore YECs that try to mix science and religious miracles are misguided. But they are no more misguided than the non-theists who try to use evidentialism and science to ponder the existence or non-existance of God. It just doesn't work either way.Can't prove a negative."Metaphysics", as you should have noticed by the name, is a part of philosophy that is higher on the taxonomic scale than science. It is inclusive of logic but not limited to evidentialism. However it is not science because it attempts to do things that science cannot. Metaphysics, when the term is correctly applied, is no more "pseudoscience" than ethics is a pseudoscience (ethics is another branch of philosophy) or politics.And philosophy isn't a hard science either. It is only one step along the process. Logic alone is not proof of anything.Metaphysics, however, is the parent branch of science.

​

http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/...m/sections/section1/branches.htmLike astrology is the parent branch of astronomy, and alchemy the parent of Chemistry, but as we have learned more and more about the real world these "branches" of science have lost credibility and moved to the wayside.When you decided to get involved in this little debate you left science behind for metaphysics. It is a different playing field, defined by epistemology but not by evidence, at least not in the scientific sense. If you don't like that you need to stick to debating YECs, where you can work exclusively with science.In other words it is nothing more than logic and word games which actually prove nothing in any real sense in the end when that is all you do in the process.What, you tring for the title of master debator?

[QUOTE][B]Have you discovered another world besides the natural one?[/QUOTE][/B]Have you any evidence that there is none? Put another way, do you have any evidence that there is no God? [QUOTE][B]And philosophy isn't a hard science either. It is only one step along the process. Logic alone is not proof of anything. [/QUOTE][/B]Philosophy isn't a "hard science"? You're missing the point. We aren't talking about science, we have not been talking about science. [QUOTE][B]Like astrology is the parent branch of astronomy, and alchemy the parent of Chemistry, but as we have learned more and more about the real world these "branches" of science have lost credibility and moved to the wayside.[/QUOTE][/B]See above. [QUOTE][B]In other words it is nothing more than logic and word games which actually prove nothing in any real sense in the end when that is all you do in the process.[/QUOTE][/B]The only thing I can demonstrate here is that there may or may not be a God and any particular church may or not be true, and that you are wrong to throw out any possibilities. [QUOTE][B]What, you tring for the title of master debator?[/QUOTE][/B]Are you accusing me of sophism?

Originally posted by gene90:Have you any evidence that there is none? Put another way, do you have any evidence that there is no God?Do you have any credible, verifible, or unbiased evidence that there is a so-called supernatural world or even a god? The burden of proof is yours since you are the one making the extraordinary claims...Philosophy isn't a "hard science"? You're missing the point. We aren't talking about science, we have not been talking about science.Again, this is your problem. Using your "logic" my assertion that the universe was created by a Big Blue Banana is just as valid as your assertion that it was your god. In other words all we're doing is speculating.See above.Irrelevant.The only thing I can demonstrate here is that there may or may not be a God and any particular church may or not be true, and that you are wrong to throw out any possibilities.Without going further in the process you are only speculating. Again, using your "logic" I could put forth that the planet Pluto is made of vanilla ice cream. Why won't you accept the possibility that it is? No one has been there, or even seen it close up? It is a possibility.Are you accusing me of sophism? I see that you didn't get my play on words. Say master and debator real quickly.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
I'm only giving what I'm getting.

---

Like I said, insults to the opposition do not help the cause.It doesn't matter what you are given. If you rise above you will always be taken more seriously than those who insult.I have noticed that you;1) become insulting when you don't have a good response2) become insulting even when you do have a good response sometimes3) always have an excuse for why it it OK to for you to insult an opponent.I repeat; you do yourself and "the cause" no favors when you are mean or insulting to the opposition.Remain clinical, analytical, impersonal, and you will garner respect.Take cheap shots, make personal insulting comments (think lobotomy) and you will show yourself to be no better than the Xtians who yell that you are going to hell if you don't believe as they do, or that all those who don't believe are degenerate.

[QUOTE]

quote:

---

Go to a nut house and look what you'll find. You won't find 5 crazy people telling the same crazy stories.

---

Sure you will.There are lots of men in there who say they are Jesus.Any xtians out there ever wonder if any of those guys might really be Jesus?

quote:

---

Actually they might as long as they are around each other enough.
I'm curious though, have you tried this or read any studies?

---

A long time ago I hearn an NPR story about a mental hospital in which there were several men who thought they were Jesus. The medical staff wondered what would happen if they put them in a room together. I don't remember the outcome, but I don't think they became violent, and I don't think any of them were fazed by the illogical idea that there could only be one Jesus.

Originally posted by schrafinator:You kind of late on this one.Take cheap shots, make personal insulting comments (think lobotomy) and you will show yourself to be no better than the Xtians who yell that you are going to hell if you don't believe as they do, or that all those who don't believe are degenerate.Again, maybe you should read a little closer next time. I had said that it seemed to be a requirement that theists have one on the logic and reason centres of the brain. Others have said far worse things than that. Why don't you jump on them. Get with the program.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-13-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Do you have any credible, verifible, or unbiased evidence that there is a so-called supernatural world or even a god?[/QUOTE][/B]Haven't we discussed this already? You didn't like the concept of a spirit witness so you labeled that incredible, unverifiable, and biased. Then I reminded you that science does not cover the supernatural because the supernatural does not involve the kinds of evidence you have in mind. Therefore the standard rules of science do not apply here because this isn't science. Most recently I have been asking you to justify a position of atheism towards Christianity which I am waiting on.This is how it breaks down as I see it:Premise: there is a God. (no physical evidence to support it)
vs
Premise: there is no God.(no physical evidence to support it)The only real difference is that one side claims to have a subjective form of witness. [QUOTE][B]Using your "logic" my assertion that the universe was created by a Big Blue Banana is just as valid as your assertion that it was your god.[/QUOTE][/B]Or no God for that matter. Atheism does not appear to be a bit superior to Bananaism either. (Of course I don't have any subjective witnesses for either Bananaism or atheism.) [QUOTE][B]Irrelevant.[/QUOTE][/B]Bald assertion. [QUOTE][B]Without going further in the process you are only speculating. Again, using your "logic" I could put forth that the planet Pluto is made of vanilla ice cream.[/QUOTE][/B]But there is a historical precedence for my perspective.Using your logic Descartes could have railed against the existance of radio waves and many intellectuals of the seventeenth century would have railed against the germ theory of disease. Sagan did not say only one thing, he also mentioned that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."As for Pluto being made out of ice cream we can rule that out because of cometary spectrometry. Since this is science we work with theories and can collect evidence, we already have enough theoretical and circumstantial evidence to make a vanilla-flavored Pluto unlikely, barring new discoveries in organic chemistry.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-14-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Sure you will.There are lots of men in there who say they are Jesus.[/QUOTE][/B]Thanks for defending me again but please note that it was never my position that patients in an asylum would not tell the same stories.I actually pointed this out in the message you replied to.

Originally posted by gene90:Haven't we discussed this already? You didn't like the concept of a spirit witness so you labeled that incredible, unverifiable, and biased.Because it is.Then I reminded you that science does not cover the supernatural because the supernatural does not involve the kinds of evidence you have in mind.All that exist is part of nature.Therefore the standard rules of science do not apply here because this isn't science.It is superstition.Most recently I have been asking you to justify a position of atheism towards Christianity which I am waiting on.I'm not an atheist. I think that they are just as wrong as you are, but they're not the ones trying to force their beliefs on all as theists are.Premise: there is a God. (no physical evidence to support it)
vs
Premise: there is no God.(no physical evidence to support it)Exactly.The only real difference is that one side claims to have a subjective form of witness.The theists.Or no God for that matter. Atheism does not appear to be a bit superior to Bananaism either. (Of course I don't have any subjective witnesses for either Bananaism or atheism.)As I had said, it is nothing more than speculation.Bald assertion. Irrelevant.But there is a historical precedence for my perspective. Irrelevant.Using your logic Descartes could have railed against the existance of radio waves and many intellectuals of the seventeenth century would have railed against the germ theory of disease. Sagan did not say only one thing, he also mentioned that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."The difference is that their kind learns from their errors. Theists have their beliefs carved in stone.As for Pluto being made out of ice cream we can rule that out because of cometary spectrometry. Since this is science we work with theories and can collect evidence, we already have enough theoretical and circumstantial evidence to make a vanilla-flavored Pluto unlikely, barring new discoveries in organic chemistry.We only know what the surface is made of, no one has gotten a clear enough reading of it to know what the rest is made of. Plus, they've discovered clouds of pure ethanol light years across so using your logic Pluto being made of ice cream as a possibility as well.