crowTrobot
-
Content Count
4,408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by crowTrobot
-
-
yup, fundamentalist christian moral relativists are pretty hard to find to find for some reason.YOU MINDMY BLEW JUST -
other than the OP's question being cryptic what's the problem?this thread's off to a good start... let me just hop in here with a preemptive.. -
no, i claim to be able to read. do you think and feel differently than you post? if your anti-intellectual bible-thumping redneck persona here is just a monumental 4-year-long level i would be pretty impressednow he even claims to know what I think and feel.
-
you'll have to be more specific
-
all that has happened here is i didn't feel like participating in this thread and you jumped on the opportunity to attack my motives like you always do.in actuality i was raised a christian and know your arguments better than you do. your presentation of them in this forum is and always has been quite amateurish, and in almost any other religious debate forum you wouldn't even be engaged - you'd just be laughed at and mocked. unfortunately you're the only foil we've got here so you are given much more of a pass than the basement intellectual level of your posts warrants.He sees everything one way and one way only.
more like you attacking and attempting to smear me without provocation every chance you get results in name calling. douche bag.Any attempts to shine any new light into his viewpoints only results in insults and fear based lashing out with name calling. -
not really. brvheart has made this argument in non-mathematical terms.vb, time to ban LLY. No way any Christian could be this smart so he is therefore not playing by the rules. -
i wish you were ignoring me - this forum would be a friendlier place. instead you're on some sort of long-term propaganda/smear campaign, blatantly lying about what i say in my posts and insulting me at every chance even in threads i'm not participating in. enough already.We are ignoring you because you are too smug to play with us.Now go away and leave those of us sure in our beliefs to play a game that is beyond your ability to understand.And nice to see that for the second time you are defending the one guy that everyone else is pointing out how poorly thought out his arguments are. Your posts are a Freudian dream. -
mocking WLC and the KCAHi.Christianity isn't about a "need" for something. It isn't about "hope." That's like saying, 2 + 2 = 4 because I need it to be.It doesn't work that way. It just IS. God doesn't exist to fill a void (though, he does do that, of course). He exists because, without him, nothing would exist. Without an omnipotent entity to break the infinite cycle of regression, nothing can possibly be.There has to be an original mover, a universal cause. If not, we could ask, "what caused x, well, it was caused by y. But what caused y? It was caused by z..." There are two scenarios. Either we can ask these questions for infinity (ie there is no universal cause), or there is a universal end, and we eventually reach that end and say, "z was created by God".Clearly, the first scenario makes no sense. Infinite regression is impossible. So, there is a god, and it is he who is the cause of all that we see.Of course, that only explains that there is A god, not why there is the Christian god. For that, you have to look both at the evidence, and you have to search your soul to find what really makes sense, what you really believe in. Christianity has the benefit of plenty of evidence as well as making much more sense and being much more beautiful than any other religion. In other words, if there is a god, certainly he'd want to present himself to humanity, his creation, in some way. So, we can assume that god indeed has visited us in one form or another. What remains is to decide which claimed visit of those throughout history is most likely to have been the real god. I think Christianity (the story of Christ) wins by a wide margin.Good Luck.
-
double-click
-
false. so far (with the exception of one post by RT) you're just debating whether religion is *useful* or not, for which the arguments of either side are trivially easy to understand. try reverse-arguing your position on the historicity of the bible.I think it is exactly what you think Christians think, but it is not what Christians think, which is the point of this thread: to show how poor each of us understands the other side's position.
i'm quite capable of considering your point of view, which is why i consider you an intellectually dishonest a-hole.Except I nailed it, and crow revealed how blindly one-sided his thought patterns are. -
i consider this pointless so am not participating. have fun.Oh and $5 says that crow and RT can't make even a remote semblance of an effort to perform in this experiment without obvious efforts to make my side look foolish. -
fiction based loosely on a historical battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ThermopylaeSo the movie 300 was fiction?? -
it's hard when the arguments of one "side" here are BASED on keeping those definitions as vague as they can possibly get away with.I gave up coming in here because it's the same round-n-round, all the time, about "prove this" and "prove that" and not everybody (to be polite) recognizing that not all scholarship is equal. Dwight D. Moody Bible Institute does not equal Oxford. It's largely pointless to have a debate in which the two sides have absolutely no historical context for the historical document they are discussing and cannot even agree on the definition of basic terms like "reality," "truth," and "proof," much less "evidence" and "scholarship." -
somebody could try teaching me why buddhist karma isn't effectively a metaphysical concept again. i still don't get itWell, then it's on us to make a thread that makes you think.
-
i prefer to call her darla. she was hotter in her buffy/angel days, didn't look quite so anorexic.Glad Dexter punched that guy, but I was kind of hoping his relationship with Rita would fall apart. Every time she comes on screen I get annoyed. Oh, and I prefer to call her "Stacy". Looks more like a Stacy to me. Anyways I hope Stacy runs away with the neighbor. -
oversimplified extreme scenario pulled out of thin air.Really. it doesn't follow that a group of people would allow a book to be introduced into their thousand year old religion and told that it has been with them for most of their religion when in fact it was written last night? Yea. of course those people would just accept their religious leaders telling them this
considering that you think 2/3 of the world hold false religious belief i wouldn't bother going there.after all religious people will believe anything -
trying to rewrite history won't help you when anyone who cares can see what happened.No you were trying to equate the link I provided from a secular source that discounted your position and tried to delegitimize the source by saying that Christians are incapable of providing truth, and instead use double standards. -
as i just said there are multiple reasons scholars date daniel to the 2nd century BC that have nothing to do with prophecy. you of coursehave to rely on mischaracterizing science as shallow and biased because you have no way to intellectually support your position...the real proof that the book of the Bible that made the prophecy is discounted because it's not possible to predict the future.
blah blah science is biased blahWhen an ancient text is read, we never assume the text is lying about it's authorship unless it is a Christian text
from what i've read scholars think the evolution of the traditionalist view of daniel is much more a matter of genuine misinterpretation than intentional deceit. but good job there coming up with the most extreme straw man scenario you can think of.but you guys find these improbable explanations completely acceptable. A guy in the last century before Christ studied ancient civilizations and tried to pass off a book as an example of something written by a man of that time period in order to make the Jewish religion look like it predicted the future. With almost no justification for this supposition, you easily accept that some Jewish scribe in the middle of Jerusalem had access to history books of civilizations centuries in the past, was able to then forge a clever book to pretend that he was Daniel and that he lived in the time of Babylon, and then he 'predicts the future' just so he can....give some ammunition to people a couple thousand years later? Because let's face it, the Jews don't proselytize, so what do they care whether or not the Romans think their religion is true or false, And they are already pretty much a committed people to their beliefs, so why would someone need to trick them into accepting that this 'new' book of Daniel was just found and has been in the Jewish faith for centuries...Cause Jewish people are so easy to sucker into scams. -
last i checked YOU are. you're using their argument about presuppositions to support your belief in the historical accuracy of miracles in the bible. i was pointing out YOUR double standard.Well that's all fine and good, but these guys aren't Christians... -
it doesn't follow that if the bible is inaccurate it's authors and apologist scholars and historians of the early church who put it together were all liars. some may have been, but it's likely many if not most were simply people who genuinely believed mythology based on false assumptions.So it was just unfortunate for people like me that dozens of men over hundreds of years all willingly fudged the truth in order to fool the masses in order to protect a movement that they knew to be based on falsehoods...
secular data lol? you're implying all of modern science is one giant anti-religious conspiracy, which is quite insane. after all most of the world and 40% of scientists believe in god. subversion of genuine data is not remotely possible. on the contrary if anyone actually had data refuting evolution they would win the nobel prize.Their conclusions with only limited secular data can very easily lead you to evolution. -
name one specific statement in daniel corroborating something confirmed by anthropologists about ancient babylon/persia unlikely to have been common knowledge after the fact.Well there is the part that it claims to be written during the time of the captivity in Babylon, and it describes life in ancient Babylon pretty accurately. something that might be a little hard for a guy 500 years later without google.
i meant attempting to use subjective interpretation to apply vague stuff like revelations to post-biblical times. some dude's guess of what it means is not evidence for fulfilled prophecy.obviously the nativity story could potentially be objectively fulfilled prophecy if it were factual, but only apologists claim it is factual. nobody else thinks it is. even non-apologist scholors who believe jesus existed think his birth story is obvious mythology.Subjective....born in Bethlehem....thought that would be empirical?
another lame attempt to shift burden of proofSo, if the Gospels are not fiction you would believe them? Seems that you get to have your cake and eat it. but given the mountain of evidence against you, I guess this is the only position you can take
his books do not claim that. they claim a personal god is highly improbable.Of course not, why would the sheep keep buying his books that claim there is no God? -
if by rational you mean retarded, particularly this part -Seems to me to be a rational explanation
christians dismiss the acceptance of gods and discount miracles in all other ancient texts but the bible, so this is nothing more than blatantly admitting your own double standard.The fairest and most reasonable way to assess Matthew's credibility is to examine it with the same standard that one would bring to any ancient text. Yet determining the credibility of Matthew is often premised on what presuppositions one brings to the exercise itself.If a person is inclined to accept the existence of God and the possibility of miracles, then the Gospel of Matthew receives a more benign examination - and usually comes off quite well. If, however, a person leans agnostic and discounts miracles, then the Gospel of Matthew is often dismissed immediately as religious legend. -
you mean if only crow was as good at sarcasm as VBI'm glad my instruction has begun to seep into that psychotropic laden brain of yours.Now if only crow's wasn't so closed... -
false. there are other reasons why scholars believe daniel is a 2nd century BC composition that have nothing to do with prophecy. given that there is no way for you to prove daniel was written before the events you claim it predicts and valid reasons to suspect it was written after, it's not evidence for anything.How about the book of Daniel where Daniel predicted the fall of the Babylonian empire, and the rise and fall of the next 3 major world dominating super powers through Rome?The only way to conclude that this isn't clearly prophecy is to argue that this was written after the time of Rome and then you Jews tried to lie about it's date. Of course the proof for this late date, is that it predicted the 4 world powers and you just can't do that, therefore it must have been written after the fall of Rome.
claimed biblical prophecy of extra-biblical events are all subjective. not evidence.Or we can go with the tribe of Israel, which is predicted for many future events, even though it was destroyed as a nation for almost 1900 years. Can you come up with one other nation from the BC times that was driven from their homelands for centuries and still came back together with the same culture, religion and general belief system?
NT authors would have been well aware of OT prophecy. before you can claim christ fulfilled prophecy you first have to prove the gospels aren't fiction, which you can't. not evidence.Then there are the many prophecies about Christ that were fulfilled. Link
he also thinks god might exist. he doesn't think either are probable.You do know Dawkins said he thinks aliens might have seeded the life on earth?
The Transmogrifcation Of Atheism
in Religion
Posted