|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/12/2006 : 07:56:33 [Permalink]
|
Mab said:
quote:
If you cannot see the truth in this, then there is no common ground what-so-ever for us on which to build a meaningful dialogue.
I don't think he cares about meaningfull dialoge. He just wants to preach at us.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 15:18:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Mab said:
quote:
If you cannot see the truth in this, then there is no common ground what-so-ever for us on which to build a meaningful dialogue.
I don't think he cares about meaningfull dialoge. He just wants to preach at us.
Amen.
It's not as though his preaching is at all insightful, novel or interesting. He might as well post a link to the whole god damned bible and be done with it.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 22:40:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Just heard a Dawkins lecture on CSPAN. Very interesting since the talk was given in theist land.
Dawkins idea:
God is too complex, too advanced to be first. We have evidence of the BB, then things evolve from the simplest to the most complex, us. It makes no sense at all for the most complex advanced intelligent life form, (gods), to be first.
And here I was waiting for Dawkins to give the usual line of, "Yeah but, you've just substituted another layer of inexplicability over the unexplained question, "Where did the Universe come from?"
I also liked his answer to the usual, "But what if you're wrong?" He said the questioner was only a Christian by circumstance of birth. "What if Christianity is wrong and the sea gods were the correct ones?" [something like that]
God doesn't exist in time so it is irrelevent to talk about "first" unless your trying to be understood by the human mind. Eternity has nothing to do with time. All time is is a measure dealing with the movement of something. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 11/12/2006 22:49:58 |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 23:24:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
GK Paul, I'd like you to take a good look at pleco's post below, because it is making a very important observation about your behaviour here on Skeptic Friends Network.quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Wow, I love the pattern here.
1) A makes an assertion of truth
2) B-Z determine said assertion is false, and state so.
3) A ignores B-Z's statement.
4) Go to Step 1
Please exchange A for yourself in this quote, and B-Z for "someone, anyone".
Search your soul, and acknowledge to us that this is indeed the pattern you display. If you cannot see the truth in this, then there is no common ground what-so-ever for us on which to build a meaningful dialogue.
Edited to fix spelling.
The "assertion of truth" is more important than the assertor. If the assertor doesn't respond to any reply, so what, the reply should be able to "stand on its own merits" and not need any comment by the assertor. To be so concerned about how the assertor will respond shows great respect for the assertor and if you don't have respect for the assertor than why be so concerned?
People ought to let their replies stand on their own merits and quit worrying about the assertor. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 11/12/2006 23:40:34 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 02:15:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
...God doesn't exist in time so it is irrelevent to talk about "first" unless your trying to be understood by the human mind. Eternity has nothing to do with time. All time is is a measure dealing with the movement of something.
Sorry, GK but your claim was brought up in the questions to Dawkins. It doesn't make the argument for a god any more likely to claim god is outside of time. The Universe develops complexity over time. You don't get the most complex being first, it would have to evolve.
If you want to use your argument, I'll go back to the standard question, then where did god come from? If god supposedly was always here then it is just as likely the Universe was always here without a god creating it. Adding a god does nothing but add another layer which there is no reason to add.
If "Something cannot come from nothing" (-- Ken Tanaka - geologist), as you have in your sig line is true, then you can't claim god something came from nothing either. It's simply BS.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/13/2006 02:22:21 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 02:20:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
...Amen.
It's not as though [GK's] preaching is at all insightful, novel or interesting. He might as well post a link to the whole god damned bible and be done with it.
I was going to say it's right out of Answers in Genesis. Then I was going to say to GK we've all read those assertions and find them full of errors in facts, logical conclusions, and even common sense.
I will take a guess that reasons.org is no different than AIG but will look at your link anyway.
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 02:22:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I will take a guess that reasons.org is no different than AIG but will look at your link anyway.
Well, they do not like each other thats for sure.
Hugh Ross of "Reasons to believe" is an OEC. AIG are YECs.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 11/13/2006 02:47:34 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 02:45:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
"Originally posted by beskeptigal:
I will take a guess that reasons.org is no different than AIG but will look at your link anyway."
Well, they do not like each other thats for sure.
They have links to AIG from their site. Why do you think they are rivals?
OK I looked at the site and indeed found it similar to AIG. I'm not impressed. They use the same pseudoscience arguments, ignoring the evidence they don't like and stretching the Biblical text to fit the science where they can. You can interpret Nostradamus after the fact and you can interpret the Bible after the fact the same way. Unless you can interpret the Bible first and have it predict the science, then all you are doing is re-defining the words as you go. Not very omnipotent of a god now, is it?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/13/2006 02:46:17 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 04:54:13 [Permalink]
|
Hugh Ross, rather like Glenn Morton, is roundly despised by the major YEC organizations, perhaps because he has the ability to think and his science conflicted with his faith. He's been trying to reach a compromise ever since. quote:
Ross is a progressive creationist: he believes a god created life on earth and that it did not develop by natural forces alone, but rejects the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, or that the creation "days" of Genesis 1 represent literal 24-hour periods. Ross instead asserts that these days (translated from the Hebrew word yom[3]) to be historic, distinct, and sequential, but not literally 24 hours in length nor equal in length. He agrees with the scientific community at large that the vast majority of YEC arguments are pseudoscience, and he rejects any version of the intelligent design that doesn't provide a testable hypothesis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions.[4][5]
Ross is criticized by YECs for his acceptance of uniformitarian geology and astronomy over what they see as a plain reading of Genesis and for promoting "fixity of species", which denies speciation. YECs use speciation to explain how present biodiversity could have arisen from the small number of "kinds" after Noah's Flood.[6] Ross holds that Noah's Flood was local, whereas YECs generally hold that Noah's Flood was global.
Some of Ross' ideas – particularly his criticism of evolution – is faulted by the scientific community as being little different from YEC, but Ross states his work provides a better fit for the data than either the YEC or the conventional models.
Heh, you should see Sarfati go after him. It's better'n a three-ring circus!
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 06:56:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
GK Paul, I'd like you to take a good look at pleco's post below, because it is making a very important observation about your behaviour here on Skeptic Friends Network.quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Wow, I love the pattern here.
1) A makes an assertion of truth
2) B-Z determine said assertion is false, and state so.
3) A ignores B-Z's statement.
4) Go to Step 1
Please exchange A for yourself in this quote, and B-Z for "someone, anyone".
Search your soul, and acknowledge to us that this is indeed the pattern you display. If you cannot see the truth in this, then there is no common ground what-so-ever for us on which to build a meaningful dialogue.
Edited to fix spelling.
The "assertion of truth" is more important than the assertor.
If the "assertion of truth" is shown to be false, how do suppose it reflects on the messenger (assertor)?
I can answer that rhetorical question: Badly.
Paul, your constant flow of false assertions have resulted in you having no credibility what-so-ever.
Whenever you make a statement, or "assertion of truth" people now automatically assume you are full of shit because you don't seem to care that you are stating falsehoods. Members of SFN recognize that these false assertions comes from you being misinformed.
The point of us trying to reason with you is to educate you about the real world and trying to equip you with tools to challence your own perception of reality (as we do daily).
quote:
If the assertor doesn't respond to any reply, so what, the reply should be able to "stand on its own merits" and not need any comment by the assertor.
So in effect, you have elected to be God's own magaphone tooting falsehoods here on SFN.
So much for the idea of having a rational discussion with you. I really hoped that you were interested in my (and other's) intelligent input.
Dude was right, you're here to preach at us, nothing more.
quote:
To be so concerned about how the assertor will respond shows great respect for the assertor and if you don't have respect for the assertor than why be so concerned?
I was hoping to engage you in an intelligent discussion, where both can learn from eachother. But you have clearly stated in your post that you are not interested in that.
quote:
People ought to let their replies stand on their own merits and quit worrying about the assertor.
Another piece of evidence that you are not interested in exchanging thoughts and ideas. Just preaching at us. Ok, have it your way.
(edited to fix a word, for clarity) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/13/2006 11:01:28 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 10:42:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
The "assertion of truth" is more important than the assertor. If the assertor doesn't respond to any reply, so what, the reply should be able to "stand on its own merits" and not need any comment by the assertor. To be so concerned about how the assertor will respond shows great respect for the assertor and if you don't have respect for the assertor than why be so concerned?
People ought to let their replies stand on their own merits and quit worrying about the assertor.
So, once you have been given the absolute Truth and decide to repeat these truth assertion to others, you are no longer obligated to listen to reason, if reason is contrary to these truth assertions. You are no longer accountable to logic when logic is contrary to these truth assertions. You no longer need to be considerate to others when they have been added to your ignore list.
You are a horrible witness for Jesus. The only ones who might consider your words are probably just as deluded. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 15:45:13 [Permalink]
|
By the way...
Nice try disguising massive hubris by speaking in third person.
But Jesus who knows your thoughts, and can read between the lines even on Internet forums, cannot be anything but ashamed at this display.
As long as "the assertion of truth" is actual Biblical quotations, I can buy your fantasy that the message is more important than messenger. And in some cases of the philosophical nature, the Bible is really good. But it is when you stray away from that, GK Paul, that you suffer Foot-in-Mouth disease buy making false and/or unevidenced assertions that put you in such trouble.
Unless you change your way, you'll continue to be a laughing stock not to be taken seriously. I'm not saying this to hurt you, but because I feel it is important that you know the truth of how we see things.
To quote Kate Bush (from "Constellation of the Heart"): "Without the pain there'd be no learning: Without the hurting we'd never change." |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 13:59:21 [Permalink]
|
| ... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2006 : 04:18:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
By the way...
Nice try disguising massive hubris by speaking in third person.
But Jesus who knows your thoughts, and can read between the lines even on Internet forums, cannot be anything but ashamed at this display.
As long as "the assertion of truth" is actual Biblical quotations, I can buy your fantasy that the message is more important than messenger. And in some cases of the philosophical nature, the Bible is really good. But it is when you stray away from that, GK Paul, that you suffer Foot-in-Mouth disease buy making false and/or unevidenced assertions that put you in such trouble.
Unless you change your way, you'll continue to be a laughing stock not to be taken seriously. I'm not saying this to hurt you, but because I feel it is important that you know the truth of how we see things.
To quote Kate Bush (from "Constellation of the Heart"): "Without the pain there'd be no learning: Without the hurting we'd never change."
Jesus told the apostles He had much more to tell them, but it would be more than they could bear. (John ch 16 vs 12)... He said He would send the Holy Spirit (after His death) and the Holy Spirit would teach them all truth. John ch 16 vs 13 and John ch 14 vs 26. So Jesus is saying He has "much more" to teach thru the Holy Spirit {than is in scripture}
For example when I said some of the inconsistencies in the Bible prove that man was seperated from God and that Christ needed to come. I believe that statement came from the Holy Spirit and not from me.
This is getting very deep and many Christians are not even aware of these things. But I needed to bring them up to respond to your post. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 11/18/2006 04:22:43 |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2006 : 04:39:52 [Permalink]
|
To Dr. Mabuse, well first let me say my previous post is of greater importance than this one...
I'll do with you what I always do when someone makes generalizations about me. I'll ask you to be specific.
Please list the constant flow of false assertions I've made. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
