|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2002 : 10:53:24 [Permalink]
|
Here goes my reply:
#1 Why is it my burned to proove Gor or Chriust exsists? Personally I could give a rats ass if you convert or not. My point in posting what I posted was not to dispute the exsistance of Chirst but point out the faults of the church, and its needs to convert back to actual teachings. I can no greater convert you to my way of thinking than you can convert me. Pure and simple. What I meant in saying that I cannot prove God exsists is simple. I cannot point him out in a lineup, I cannot call his house and say whats up and then let you talk to him. As they say the proof is in the pudding. You have to have some form of excepttance of his exsistance to conciveve him. Once again I point back to the paradigns. For those of you who understand paradigns you know that you can only understand your reality through your paradign, so when a concept that interfears with you paradign pops up, you can't handle it. Therefore you cannot concieve it.
#2 As for my understanding of half baked theories and their respective meanings, I have read and studied them on several bases. I was not led to God easily. You few may view me as a lemmening over the cliff but I was not easily led over. Darwinism itself is highly flawed in its therical base. Darwin himself often stated that he had no empircal data but was going a whim. The fact of the manner is creatures do evolve to suit their envoiroments, that much is understood. But to believe the creation itself just sprung up is pretty riduculous. The mathmatical equations and probabilities are impossible to gather. The probabilitiy of conditions needed to produce life on this planet would be compariable to the chances everyone on this board hit the lottery on the same day and time.
#3 It is heir apparent that @tomic has lost his damn mind. Seriously what kind of tool are you. You want argue the sexual orientation of Christ? WHat are you like 13? Come one man lets have some form of intelligent conversation. Even if Jesus was gay, would it matter? I could care less personally, so if your shot in the dark was to somehow make me mad, it did't work. It did make me realize that all further posts from you could be considered worthless. There is really no point in even reviewing your posts in intellegent manner. If you wanna go toe to toe in a rip contest I am sure several people can back up the fact that you are no even in the same category of pure whit that I am in. So lets try and keep it somewhat purposeful.
#4 Hopefully I have cleared up some of yor issues with what I have said. I wpould much rather get a take on people's view of the church and why it doesnt work for them. I can no greater covert you to Christ than you can convert me to Darwin. The fact of the mattert is it is futile to do so. I can argue exsistance and perceptions but for those of you who want to take cheap shots we can set up a new forum and try and go toe to toe.
#5 Also the spelling of Mormon to Moron was correct. I did it for a reason. Mormons and Catholics are about some the most hypocritical chruch orgs. Its cool to drink Pepsi as long as you own the company. But if you drink Coke its a sin? Go figure. And how can a church refuse your entry into heaven? What a load. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 11:19:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
#4 Hopefully I have cleared up some of yor issues with what I have said. I wpould much rather get a take on people's view of the church and why it doesnt work for them. I can no greater covert you to Christ than you can convert me to Darwin. The fact of the mattert is it is futile to do so. I can argue exsistance and perceptions but for those of you who want to take cheap shots we can set up a new forum and try and go toe to toe.
I really do wish you'd clean up your spelling, grammer, and punctuation. It's not hard. This forum has a spell checker and beyond that, you need to learn a little patience. If you write like an idiot, it gives your readers a bad impression and your words won't be taken seriously.
Ok, My take on organized religion in general and churches in paticular: The greatest scam the world has ever seen!
Dig it?
f |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 11:24:58 [Permalink]
|
| Point taken, I will try to one up you or myslef on the grammar issue. As far as the spell check goes, I cannot get it to work. In the future I will try a different approach and see if it works. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 11:43:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
Darwin himself often stated that he had no empircal data but was going a whim.
Really? Please quote where, specifically, this is "often stated".
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
The fact of the manner is creatures do evolve to suit their envoiroments, that much is understood.
Do you acknowledge descent with modification?
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
But to believe the creation itself just sprung up is pretty riduculous.
Nowhere near as ridiculous as your God(s), but, be that as it may, what does this have to do with Darwin?
In truth, you haven't a clue ...
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 12:50:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
#3 It is heir apparent that @tomic has lost his damn mind. Seriously what kind of tool are you. You want argue the sexual orientation of Christ? WHat are you like 13? Come one man lets have some form of intelligent conversation. Even if Jesus was gay, would it matter? I could care less personally, so if your shot in the dark was to somehow make me mad, it did't work. It did make me realize that all further posts from you could be considered worthless. There is really no point in even reviewing your posts in intellegent manner. If you wanna go toe to toe in a rip contest I am sure several people can back up the fact that you are no even in the same category of pure whit that I am in. So lets try and keep it somewhat purposeful.
I see you missed my point as expected. You seem to think you can make any claim you want and it's up to the skeptics to come up with proof yet when I make a claim you still expect me to come up with evidence to support it. All I get from this is that no matter what the burden of proof is up to anyone but yourself.
Your response to what I said says a lot. You seem to know a lot about a figure some of us doubt even existed. So much that you are positive of the gender, get offended then say it doesn't matter. You need to sit down and do some hard thinking. I'm not sure you even know exactly what youbelieve and that you just go around reacting to what other people say and your beliefs are modified to fit the conversation you are having. In short, you have some odd ideal of Jesus that you are determined to cling to no matter what and expect other people to prove it wrong which is impossible. How perfect for you.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Terryt88
Skeptic Friend
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 13:13:47 [Permalink]
|
#1 Why is it my burned to proove Gor or Chriust exsists?
You want argue the sexual orientation of Christ?
The "Burden of Proof" Fallacy
Good explanation here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Basically bro, he was saying you are making a claim that you really can't/didn't back up. I don't believe he was specifically talking about the sexual orientation of Jesus per se, but trying to show you your fallacy through more colorful terms. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 13:18:35 [Permalink]
|
Exactly, if you can make any claim you want AND expect other people to disprove it then anyone can claim anything and everything is valid until someone can disprove it. Everything!
Get it?
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 14:40:00 [Permalink]
|
“I'm not sure you even know exactly what you believe and that you just go around reacting to what other people say and your beliefs are modified to fit the conversation you are having. In short, you have some odd ideal of Jesus that you are determined to cling to no matter what and expect other people to prove it wrong which is impossible. How perfect for you.” @tomic
So in your view I tend to conform to the conversation? If that were true then the validity of my faith would be in serious distress. However, that is not true. Here is the problem with your argument. You do not understand mine. My question to you is how do I go about proving the existence of Jesus to you? Do you want historical data outside of Biblical text? Ok, fair enough. I believe my answer to that was the Dead Sea scrolls, as well as, recent finds in the ruins of Solomon's Temple.
I would like to know how my beliefs or faith are misleading. I believe in Christ, I believe in God, I believe in the relationship I share with those figures regardless of skeptical views of their existence. So here is my question. How is that confusing, and how does that conform? I believe you see my views of the church, and say to yourself he must not believe. My views of the church have nothing to due with my faith, pure and simple. So in contrast what should I do some hard thinking about? Should I reevaluate my faith based on the whim of a system administrator? Do his or her questions of validity really tear at my heart? No. Here is why, you cannot possibly fathom such a relationship of faith unless you, yourself have one.
The Burden of Proof Is it truly my burden to bear? After some further thought, why not? I view myself as clever enough to do so. However, I don't care to be seen as a bible thumper. If I sat here and quoted from the bible would it have any affect on an avid agnostic or atheist? I really think not. If I quoted historical documentation that Christ existed that might sway your opinion, but I doubt it. Why you may ask, because the arguments on both sides of the fence are debatable to great extant. So that is why I do not see the point in arguing.
“In truth, you haven't a clue ...” ReasonableDoubt
Believe it or not I actually had about 3 pages of a response written when my comp froze and screwed me. So, I will attempt to re-gather my thoughts here.
Let us seriously analyze Darwin's Origin of Life. Darwin's theory, if correct, debunks the whole notion of an infinite creator. One of Darwin's key flaws is his lack of fossil data. Darwin conceded that the lack of such a fossil record “is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection” to his theory. He predicted and counted on the fact that future discoveries would back up his conclusions. However, has David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History said:
We are now about one hundred and twenty years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have over a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much…. We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
What the fossil record does show is that rocks dating back as much as 575 million years show an interesting fact. There is a sudden appearance of life of nearly all-animal phyla, and they appear fully formed, without a trace of evolutionary ancestry. This points more towards the case for and infinite creator rather than theory.
I would also like to touch on a quick note about Darwin. Many parts of his theory are based on 18th century knowledge. The small pond scenario he speaks about in the Origin of Life is severely flawed. Darwin witnessed what he thought was the creation of spontaneous life, when out of nowhere life seems to erupt of his specimen pond. However, Darwin was not aware of things now known as microorganisms. Louis Pasteur discovered these organisms well after Darwin published Origin of Life. This simple discovery puts a |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 14:43:17 [Permalink]
|
| @tomic in essence isn't that what you yourself are doing. You claim Jesus did not walk and talk. I ask you where is your proof? Hopefully the post above gives you a little more to work with, but seriously don't be so tense. Switch to decaf.....j/k |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 15:10:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
Darwin himself often stated that he had no empircal data but was going a whim.
You've made a claim, now substantiate it. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 15:26:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
@tomic in essence isn't that what you yourself are doing. You claim Jesus did not walk and talk. I ask you where is your proof?
No, you still don't get it. You think you do and then some but I assure you that you don't get it...at all. I am making no claim at all. I am saying that there is no evidence for Jesus and you offer something that is not evidence as evidence which just goes to show that you don't get it. You don't get evolution either and calling it Darwinism just points out your obvious bias. We are all rather well read on the subject including anti-evolution propaganda and recognize your argument from those little pampltets they hand out after church.
Evolution does nothing and has nothing to do with a concept of god but what is clear is your fear that it does. Your ignorance on the subject of evolution is also crystal clear. From your profile I see that you are a 13 year old student so I guess you have yet to make it through the physical science courses which should help your remove your prejudice against science. Actually learning about science helps a lot. Repeating things you don't understand does not.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 15:28:49 [Permalink]
|
| Reasonable doubt did I not just post a big ass article explaining Darwin? Or are you that seriously impared? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 15:32:49 [Permalink]
|
I have never met an Atheist who was an Atheist because of Darwin. That is just a straw man.
We are Atheists because there isn't any god to believe in.
Natural selection shows it, but then the Earth being a globe that orbits the Sun had already shown the there was no Christian god. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 15:32:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
Reasonable doubt did I not just post a big ass article explaining Darwin? Or are you that seriously impared?
You wrote: "Darwin himself often stated that he had no empircal data but was going a whim." Please substantiate the claim. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 15:34:16 [Permalink]
|
As bad as our legal system is, I am sure glad a65phalcon isn't running it.
"You are being sentenced to death for murder," says the judge.
The accused replies in shock, "What I didn't do anything! What about a trial? What is your evidence that proves that I did it"
"Hah, we don't need evidence! We believe you did it. You have to prove that you didn't do it," the judge retorts.
|
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
