Jump to content

Religimyth...


Recommended Posts

88 User(s) are reading this topic (87 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)1 Members: Balloon guyGuess there must be some catch phrase that brought up this thread in a search engine.I bet it was Delorean and as such take full credit

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So you feel that telling people though shalt not kill, then placing provisions for the ruling power structure to punish people for killing is a contradiction?And that a person can't have a conviction to not kill, but in a time of war be able to kill the enemy at the command of his military leaders?Sounds like you want to find any excuse to make your case.
1) It's one thing to kill a man in time of war, and another thing to believe in a relgion who tells you not to kill and then sends you out to kill and recapture land from people with a different religion in the name of "Christianity"on 4bb, you mention that Christianity only asks for you to forgive, ask for forgiveness and admit that jesus died for our sins. While that may be true today, I think if you lived in the early ADs that the church and "God" would be a little more demading of you.2)theories that god placed dinosaur fossils in the ground that will fool our carbon dating techniques and/or that god created a world with a lot of "old" things comes off as "any excuse" to a lot of people
Link to post
Share on other sites
1) It's one thing to kill a man in time of war, and another thing to believe in a relgion who tells you not to kill and then sends you out to kill and recapture land from people with a different religion in the name of "chrsitanity"on 4bb, you mention that Christianity only asks for you to forgive, ask for forgiveness and admit that jesus died for our sins. While that may be true today, I think if you lived in the early ADs that the church and "God" would be a little more demading of you.2)next thing you know, VB will be forced to come up with theories that god placed dinosaur fossils in the ground that will fool our carbon dating techniques or that god created a world with a lot of "old" things.Lol give it up VB we can tell you are just blindly defending your beliefs with ridiculous and laughable defenses.
The catholic church did a lot of things not consistent with what the bible says, to make the two interchangeable would be like me making all darwinian evolutionist equal to Hitler since he believed in a more evolved master race that should rule the world because of it's advanced level of evolution.The rest of your posts is missing a point I can follow
Link to post
Share on other sites

A little skewed from our current topics, Please bare with me. I'm not trying to mock any beliefs. BG,Would you be for or against a petition that asked the catholic church to give all its profits to cancer research?This would mean, no more building churches or establishments under the catholic church, they would ask for donations from their followers, but majority of those funds would be for the cancer research.And only minimal wages and costs of maintenance and such would go back into the church.Would you be for that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A little skewed from our current topics, Please bare with me. I'm not trying to mock any beliefs. BG,Would you be for or against a petition that asked the catholic church to give all its profits to cancer research?This would mean, no more building churches or establishments under the catholic church, they would ask for donations from their followers, but majority of those funds would be for the cancer research.And only minimal wages and costs of maintenance and such would go back into the church.Would you be for that?
If you want to start a petition then I would be neither for or against it.If you mean would I be for the government to swoop in and take all their money because of a poll then I would say not for it.Please let's get to your conclusion as to why this is an example of their being hypocrites
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do not see this same willingness to admit not knowing everything on the other side of the argument, they are invested in pretending to know everything
I strongly disagree, and I think it's important for you to understand that you are mistaken there. There is an infinitum of knowledge that we do not know, and that I personally never could or will understand. Any and every reasonable scientist would tell you that they truly understand almost nothing about the true nature of the universe, at least on the micro and macro level. "My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem - the most important of all human problems." - Albert EinsteinAnd before you try to say that Einstein believed in God, here are the 2 sentences immediately preceding the above quote:“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere."
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to start a petition then I would be neither for or against it.If you mean would I be for the government to swoop in and take all their money because of a poll then I would say not for it.Please let's get to your conclusion as to why this is an example of their being hypocrites
wow really. You can't even just say yes or no?You have to re-word my question with comments likethe government swooping in. Why jump to that ship? You know there are public companies conducting cancer research who aren't owned by any government. You do realize this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
wow really. You can't even just say yes or no?You have to re-word my question with comments likethe government swooping in. Why jump to that ship? You know there are public companies conducting cancer research who aren't owned by any government. You do realize this?
The suspense is killing me.So the answer to your question is NO
Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree, and I think it's important for you to understand that you are mistaken there. There is an infinitum of knowledge that we do not know, and that I personally never could or will understand. Any and every reasonable scientist would tell you that they truly understand almost nothing about the true nature of the universe, at least on the micro and macro level. "My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem - the most important of all human problems." - Albert EinsteinAnd before you try to say that Einstein believed in God, here are the 2 sentences immediately preceding the above quote:“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere."
I have no doubt that quite a few people believe what you are implying.But they don't post here.This is the religion section and the vast majority of the people here are posting about why Christianity is wrong/bad/outdated/and Christians their heads in the sand.In order to declare Christianity is wrong, you must make the case that what Christianity teaches is wrong.It teaches there is a God AND that we answer to Him.So in order to tell a Christian that they are wrong you must either make the case that there is no God, or that we do not answer to Him.In order to make the case that there is no God, you must declare that you have enough information to make this statement..ie have the wisdom of God yourself. You yourself just said most honest scientist would admit that our level of knowledge is small, yet these people are making blanket statements about the Creator of the entire universe.In order to say the second part that we do not have to answer to Him, you must be able to declare the Mind of God. You must be able to say that God did not make His intentions known to us through first the nation of Israel and later through the Written Word.Neither of these positions is based on any level of humility, in fact it is totally based on prideful ignorance which is either accidental, or schizophrenic.If you say you do not believe that these things are proven enough for you to believe, but that you are respectful of another person who choses to believe this, then humility is a word I would use. But to say that you do not believe that these things are proven enough for you, AND that anyone who does believe has their head in the sand etc, then the word humble will not be on your tombstone.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt that quite a few people believe what you are implying.But they don't post here.This is the religion section and the vast majority of the people here are posting about why Christianity is wrong/bad/outdated/and Christians their heads in the sand.In order to declare Christianity is wrong, you must make the case that what Christianity teaches is wrong.It teaches there is a God AND that we answer to Him.So in order to tell a Christian that they are wrong you must either make the case that there is no God, or that we do not answer to Him.In order to make the case that there is no God, you must declare that you have enough information to make this statement..ie have the wisdom of God yourself. You yourself just said most honest scientist would admit that our level of knowledge is small, yet these people are making blanket statements about the Creator of the entire universe.In order to say the second part that we do not have to answer to Him, you must be able to declare the Mind of God. You must be able to say that God did not make His intentions known to us through first the nation of Israel and later through the Written Word.Neither of these positions is based on any level of humility, in fact it is totally based on prideful ignorance which is either accidental, or schizophrenic.If you say you do not believe that these things are proven enough for you to believe, but that you are respectful of another person who choses to believe this, then humility is a word I would use. But to say that you do not believe that these things are proven enough for you, AND that anyone who does believe has their head in the sand etc, then the word humble will not be on your tombstone.
'Just touching on the bolded, I don't know the stance of anyone else in this thread but I don't think that Christianity is "wrong." While I believe there probably isn't one, I think there could be a god, with a smaller chance of it being the one the bible is based on. What really "fires" me up I guess is when someone takes the bible word for word. It's impossible for anyone to prove without a SHADOW of a doubt that the bible is wrong on certain things. Unfortunately there was to TMZ 2000 year ago :club:. It's easy to say you can't prove its wrong when the last line of defense is "Gods all powerful and he can do whatever he wants so thats why yada yada"While I don't know you personally I cant really make any claims about you or your personality. But it seems like your posts about religion come off closed minded. It's easy for you to call me closeminded obv as it seems like I am attacking a religion or anyone who chooses to believe in it which I am not. I just think defending something any which way you can because it is in there is crazy to me.Like I'm not sure how someone can objectively think the worlds only 6000 years old. I can only really see someone saying that because they have so much of themselves invested in their God/religion and then being forced to defend it because its in their bible.Do you believe that there is a chance that some of the stories/information that got into it could have been false/made up? We are talking about many different people/versions/languages and the chance of everything being either the truth or the way it was intended to be written seems almost impossible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
'Just touching on the bolded, I don't know the stance of anyone else in this thread but I don't think that Christianity is "wrong." While I believe there probably isn't one, I think there could be a god, with a smaller chance of it being the one the bible is based on. What really "fires" me up I guess is when someone takes the bible word for word. It's impossible for anyone to prove without a SHADOW of a doubt that the bible is wrong on certain things. Unfortunately there was to TMZ 2000 year ago :club:. It's easy to say you can't prove its wrong when the last line of defense is "Gods all powerful and he can do whatever he wants so thats why yada yada"While I don't know you personally I cant really make any claims about you or your personality. But it seems like your posts about religion come off closed minded. It's easy for you to call me closeminded obv as it seems like I am attacking a religion or anyone who chooses to believe in it which I am not. I just think defending something any which way you can because it is in there is crazy to me.Like I'm not sure how someone can objectively think the worlds only 6000 years old. I can only really see someone saying that because they have so much of themselves invested in their God/religion and then being forced to defend it because its in their bible.Do you believe that there is a chance that some of the stories/information that got into it could have been false/made up? We are talking about many different people/versions/languages and the chance of everything being either the truth or the way it was intended to be written seems almost impossible.
I believe it is possible the world is older than 6,000 years old. I could be wrong about it's age, and there are reasonable reasons why you and others think it is 4 billion years old next May at 12:00 eastern.I also think that should the world actually be 6,000 years old, there is a reasonable way to look at things and allow them to fit. As I explained in a silly story a couple posts back.Since we know matter cannot be created or destroyed, everything is at it's core the exact same age... so when we use the Argon/Lead method of dating, we aren't really saying that a chunk of lead is really only 3 billion years old...because it is in fact as old as the universe isn't it?We are saying it's current state is 3 billion years old. Even though we have no idea what happened to it during the last 3 billion years with regards to cosmic rays, gravity, black holes etc. Things that could effect it in a manner that would change how old it appears are a reality, but we make the claim that we 'know' it's age?What you are trying to hold to is that in mankind's minuscule time in existence, with an even smaller time of looking for the answers, and from a perspective of a planet that we haven't even seen all that many other planets in the universe, we are making a statement that we know enough to discount a Bible that predicted the next 4 major world powers hundreds of years before it happened. Or predicted the reemergence of the nation of Israel 2,000 years before it happened?When someone mocks my allowance for the possibility that a miracle happened at one time, they are saying that they know enough about matter, energy and space time to tell me what can and cannot happen outside of their pay grade as it were.So whose mind is best described as closed? The one who allows for miracles because the Bible which some it has survived for a total of 4,500 years recounts it's happening? Or a person who is 20 something telling me that there is no way that a fragment of a book of the Bible someone found could be a copy of an earlier text because he doesn't want to believe that it is possible that the book of John was written by a guy named John who lived with Christ? Or the guy who refuses to allow anyone to use the word atheist to mean that a person doesn't believe in God? Or the guy who's mind is so fried from hallucinogenics that he can't finish the Jeopardy Thread just as I was hitting my stride?I actually would not be shocked if I got the age of the earth wrong. It is an argument with no rewards for the winner. But I know it bugs closed minded people so I get the fun of being the tweaker instead of the tweakee. Plus I think the earth is 6,000 years old last October around 4 AM.For my mind to be closed, I would have to say that I know enough about the universe to say that there is almost no chance that there is a God, or that I know the God of the Bible probably isn't real because I know enough about things to make this assertion. Or that miracle cannot happen because I've never seen one.That doesn't sound like me, that sounds like some others though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt that quite a few people believe what you are implying.But they don't post here.This is the religion section and the vast majority of the people here are posting about why Christianity is wrong/bad/outdated/and Christians their heads in the sand.In order to declare Christianity is wrong, you must make the case that what Christianity teaches is wrong.It teaches there is a God AND that we answer to Him.So in order to tell a Christian that they are wrong you must either make the case that there is no God, or that we do not answer to Him.In order to make the case that there is no God, you must declare that you have enough information to make this statement..ie have the wisdom of God yourself. You yourself just said most honest scientist would admit that our level of knowledge is small, yet these people are making blanket statements about the Creator of the entire universe.In order to say the second part that we do not have to answer to Him, you must be able to declare the Mind of God. You must be able to say that God did not make His intentions known to us through first the nation of Israel and later through the Written Word.Neither of these positions is based on any level of humility, in fact it is totally based on prideful ignorance which is either accidental, or schizophrenic.If you say you do not believe that these things are proven enough for you to believe, but that you are respectful of another person who choses to believe this, then humility is a word I would use. But to say that you do not believe that these things are proven enough for you, AND that anyone who does believe has their head in the sand etc, then the word humble will not be on your tombstone.
"god" in the sense you are using the word in this post has nothing to do with christianity, and nobody here or in the scientific community, or generally even in the atheist community has made "blanket" statements about a universal creator. obviously this whole post is a giant straw man. disproving christianity has nothing to do with making a case that there is no god (or by extension that we are subject to him). it has only to do with proving the bible historically inaccurate.your M.O. for months here of course has been to be intellectually dishonest and intentionally mix the two so you can conveniently shift the burden of proof from your own fundamentalist claims, which are in fact empirical and subject to science.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you believe that there is a chance that some of the stories/information that got into it could have been false/made up? We are talking about many different people/versions/languages and the chance of everything being either the truth or the way it was intended to be written seems almost impossible.
When they found the dead sea scrolls they found a copy of the book of Isaiah that was 1,000 years older then any other copy they had before.It had the spelling of one king's name different by one letter.A thousand year gap with basically no changes.It is not only possible, it is almost a certainty that the Bible we have is as originally written.At least people who actually study this stuff tell us so.there are some 'scholars' who disagree, but let's be honest. In order to say that the book of John has changed, you would think you would need...I don't know...maybe the original book to compare it too? Otherwise you are just being closed minded...
Link to post
Share on other sites
"god" in the sense you are using the word in this post has nothing to do with christianity, and nobody here or in the scientific community, or generally even in the atheist community has made "blanket" statements about a universal creator. obviously this whole post is a giant straw man. disproving christianity has nothing to do with making a case that there is no god (or by extension that we are subject to him). it has only to do with proving the bible historically inaccurate.your M.O. for months here of course has been to be intellectually dishonest and intentionally mix the two so you can conveniently shift the burden of proof from your own fundamentalist claims, which are in fact empirical and subject to science.
And your MO has been to make propagandist statements with no facts behind them to poison the debate. Which is why I discount you as the troll that you are. But that hasn't stopped you from pretending that you've actually said anything relevant in the 4 years you have been trolling the religion section of a poker forum.Your understanding of the Bible is so flawed as to be laughable.Your understanding of Christianity is worseAnd your ability to debate is non-existent..which I guess makes you a debate-atheist?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it is possible the world is older than 6,000 years old. I could be wrong about it's age, and there are reasonable reasons why you and others think it is 4 billion years old next May at 12:00 eastern.I also think that should the world actually be 6,000 years old, there is a reasonable way to look at things and allow them to fit. As I explained in a silly story a couple posts back.Since we know matter cannot be created or destroyed, everything is at it's core the exact same age... so when we use the Argon/Lead method of dating, we aren't really saying that a chunk of lead is really only 3 billion years old...because it is in fact as old as the universe isn't it?
that's not how it works. the information scientists are measuring is actually trapped in material *after* it forms a stable solid, but not before.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And your MO has been to make propagandist statements with no facts behind them to poison the debate. Which is why I discount you as the troll that you are. But that hasn't stopped you from pretending that you've actually said anything relevant in the 4 years you have been trolling the religion section of a poker forum.Your understanding of the Bible is so flawed as to be laughable.Your understanding of Christianity is worseAnd your ability to debate is non-existent..which I guess makes you a debate-atheist?
no content. another non-response response.
Link to post
Share on other sites
that's not how it works. the information scientists are measuring is actually trapped in material *after* it forms a stable solid, but not before.
While ignoring that last step of the scientific method of recreation. Or at least controlling the environment of the test subject.
Link to post
Share on other sites
While ignoring that last step of the scientific method of recreation. Or at least controlling the environment of the test subject.
radiometric dating is not subjective science like the ratio of the causes of global warming. it is understood with great precision and is universally accepted. it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that atomic decay rates are constant over time. also there are many different types of measurements that all corroborate with each other, as well as with numerous other methods of estimation such as timing of continental drift, timing of sedimentary deposits, timing of erosion of all types etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am rubber you are glue.Everything you just typed bounces off me and sticks to your last 3 posts too.
no content.i said your post was based on a straw man - nobody here is making blanket statements about a universal creator. if you're disputing that you might want to point to one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
radiometric dating is not subjective science like the ratio of the causes of global warming. it is understood with great precision and is universally accepted. it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that atomic decay rates are constant over time. also there are many different types of measurements that all corroborate with each other, as well as with numerous other methods of estimation such as timing of continental drift, timing of sedimentary deposits, timing of erosion of all types etc.
You mean like it says in the Bible?2 Pet 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
no content.i said your post was based on a straw man - nobody here is making blanket statements about a universal creator. if you're disputing that you might want to point to one.
I guess I could read those posts and highlight them for you so you could keep up with the discussion instead of typing these meaningless diatribes of yours about how I am not following your pre-conceived notions of reality...But then you would be forced to actually defend your positions and I don't think you can.So instead I will let you read all by yourself.so either keep up or leave..but your current whining is getting to the point where putting you on ignore might be the best thing we can all do for you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you feel that telling people though shalt not kill, then placing provisions for the ruling power structure to punish people for killing is a contradiction?And that a person can't have a conviction to not kill, but in a time of war be able to kill the enemy at the command of his military leaders?
Those are interesting questions but they take us away from the point.Matthew 5:38-40 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."He's definitely telling us something that we haven't heard before. This is a new morality and is presented as such. It's not just, hey I always wanted you to turn the other cheek but for your non-existent governments to go with eye-for-an-eye in their also non-existent judicial systems. Jesus's morality explicitly contradicts that of the OT. The argument that NT was meant to apply to people and OT to governments is weaker than UCLA's performance in the Coliseum tonight.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are interesting questions but they take us away from the point.Matthew 5:38-40 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."He's definitely telling us something that we haven't heard before. This is a new morality and is presented as such. It's not just, hey I always wanted you to turn the other cheek but for your non-existent governments to go with eye-for-an-eye in their also non-existent judicial systems. Jesus's morality explicitly contradicts that of the OT. The argument that NT was meant to apply to people and OT to governments is weaker than UCLA's performance in the Coliseum tonight.
The OT has clear rules spelled out in dizzingly long books about how the conduct of the people should be, complete with punishments to handled by the ruling class of priest and or the leaders of the people. Christ is speaking directly to individuals about how they are to run their lives.The OT tells how the entire nation will rise or fall based on the conduct of the nation and it's leaders, the NT tells of how the priesthood is dissolved and the individual is now responsible for his own action.I can see why you think you are making a point that is true, but trust me, The NT is a clear change of direction from the OT, and that change is in the ability of the individual to have a personal relationship with God that was not available in the OT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...