Atheists And The Moon
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2013, 06:47 AM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(09-05-2013 04:12 PM)kim Wrote:  Meh, the general consensus "Jesus story" is a red herring, anyway.
He was a Seth descendent from Barbelo. Judas knew it. Judas was the only guy with any fucking sense; the other 70... they went with "the story" - it made better book.

People, running around, following their little mouse trails for thousands of years... what a waste. Star Trek is better for today but I can already see fuckers fighting about that, too. I fucking hate that new preStar Trek crap. Cep that guy who played Bones; he was hot. Drinking Beverage

You mean Eomer?

You could just watch The Two Towers/The Return of the King if you want to see him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
Quote:No. That is not what I am talking about. I am saying that the level of species is both poorly defined as a real entity in nature and that species are mutable and are contingent upon time.

I would agree with that, certainly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 08:18 AM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
Quote:Re "Daniel predicts crucifixion date:

http://www.rusearching.com/nostradamus/n...fdeath.htm"


Compare that article to this...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/c...aniel.html

Which author has more credibility? Are we not comparing an imbecile to a scholar?

This aptly demonstrates the difference between the overly simplistic believer's understanding and a real historian's informed, nuanced approach to biblical history.
Making your case based on intellectual pride is not going to win points with me nor should it with you, right?

When Paul said, "I count the past as loss compared to knowing Christ," he was speaking of his learning, including reading and writing several languages, historical and cultural knowledge as a free Roman citizen, being advanced beyond his peers as a superior student, and etc.

I hear what you're saying, however. I deal with stupid Christians fairly often, and I pulled the first website I came to with some hard dates for prophecy fulfillment in this case. But personally, having 30 credits in Religion from a secular university, I'm used to sifting through erudite, sophisticated and nuanced arguments, both in data and philosophical realms, for all religions and not just Christianity.

I don't say, "Gee, this person is a liberal scholar, what do they know?" but rather, I sift and read their arguments critically. I'm likewise used to sifting Christian arguments not only for local bias but since people make very, very bad prophecy arguments without looking at the original languages, historical context, etc.

So no, if we can verify a few dates outside the Bible, we can confirm Bible prophecy, and just because someone says Darius may not have existed on a website as we know him in the Bible (though from memory, Alexander the Great defeated Darius III multiple times in battle) doesn't mean it's all true.

Perhaps both of us going forward can be more concerned with whether an argument is true than whether it is subtly nuanced or erudite. And if may post a quote from John 8?

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(10-05-2013 08:18 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Re "Daniel predicts crucifixion date:

http://www.rusearching.com/nostradamus/n...fdeath.htm"


Compare that article to this...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/c...aniel.html

Which author has more credibility? Are we not comparing an imbecile to a scholar?

This aptly demonstrates the difference between the overly simplistic believer's understanding and a real historian's informed, nuanced approach to biblical history.
Making your case based on intellectual pride is not going to win points with me nor should it with you, right?

When Paul said, "I count the past as loss compared to knowing Christ," he was speaking of his learning, including reading and writing several languages, historical and cultural knowledge as a free Roman citizen, being advanced beyond his peers as a superior student, and etc.

I hear what you're saying, however. I deal with stupid Christians fairly often, and I pulled the first website I came to with some hard dates for prophecy fulfillment in this case. But personally, having 30 credits in Religion from a secular university, I'm used to sifting through erudite, sophisticated and nuanced arguments, both in data and philosophical realms, for all religions and not just Christianity.

I don't say, "Gee, this person is a liberal scholar, what do they know?" but rather, I sift and read their arguments critically. I'm likewise used to sifting Christian arguments not only for local bias but since people make very, very bad prophecy arguments without looking at the original languages, historical context, etc.

So no, if we can verify a few dates outside the Bible, we can confirm Bible prophecy, and just because someone says Darius may not have existed on a website as we know him in the Bible (though from memory, Alexander the Great defeated Darius III multiple times in battle) doesn't mean it's all true.

Perhaps both of us going forward can be more concerned with whether an argument is true than whether it is subtly nuanced or erudite. And if may post a quote from John 8?

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

PJ.....you claim you actually would like to discuss stuff. That surprises me. You say you are interested in the truth. That really surprises me too.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Truth has a beauty and power of its own. It sets you free and you know it when you discover it.

Someone who has worked out the truth is at ease with himself. They listen to others. They don't avoid answering questions.

You haven't discovered truths. Your arguments are always based on quotes from the bible. The Bible is not based on the truth. The Bible is a mess. You don't know who wrote it, or why they wrote it. You just assume it has a God given authority.

Every single preacher uses the same tired, boring technique. They promote their own prejudices, and then use some random piece of the Bible to back them up. It is absolutely pointless doing that on an atheist forum. Atheists do not accept the authority of the Bible. No matter how often you quote it, we never will. You should be interested in why that is so because many of us think we know the truth about the bible.

If you want to discuss the Bible, you have to start by discussing the authorship. This is the case with any piece of literature that is discussed. Who wrote it, when and why? Then it really helps to explain why you think it might be relevant to your argument. For example, the last quote you have given here seem to have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

When you post something here, think carefully about what you write. Ask yourself whether you're really addressing the topic at hand. Ask yourself whether you really understood what someone else has written. Ask yourself whether you are "preaching," and whether that's likely to get you anywhere.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
13-05-2013, 08:28 AM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
Quote:PJ.....you claim you actually would like to discuss stuff. That surprises me. You say you are interested in the truth. That really surprises me too.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Truth has a beauty and power of its own. It sets you free and you know it when you discover it.

Someone who has worked out the truth is at ease with himself. They listen to others. They don't avoid answering questions.

You haven't discovered truths. Your arguments are always based on quotes from the bible. The Bible is not based on the truth. The Bible is a mess. You don't know who wrote it, or why they wrote it. You just assume it has a God given authority.

Every single preacher uses the same tired, boring technique. They promote their own prejudices, and then use some random piece of the Bible to back them up. It is absolutely pointless doing that on an atheist forum. Atheists do not accept the authority of the Bible. No matter how often you quote it, we never will. You should be interested in why that is so because many of us think we know the truth about the bible.

If you want to discuss the Bible, you have to start by discussing the authorship. This is the case with any piece of literature that is discussed. Who wrote it, when and why? Then it really helps to explain why you think it might be relevant to your argument. For example, the last quote you have given here seem to have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

When you post something here, think carefully about what you write. Ask yourself whether you're really addressing the topic at hand. Ask yourself whether you really understood what someone else has written. Ask yourself whether you are "preaching," and whether that's likely to get you anywhere.

I see. I quote the scriptures here on this forum primarily when someone has made a baseless accusation against them, not in general but in the specific.

In this last case, I made an argument against easy believism toward intellectual pride. I want to remind you that Jesus spoke of truth and freedom and one cycling to the other, and gave the context. The context is an anchored relationship with Christ and as Jesus said, continued maintenance and study in His Word, which enhances freedom.

I'm uncertain why I'd have to discuss the authorship of the Bible each time I post from the Bible. Is it not evident that I believe people wrote of their own knowledge and heart and were superintended by God as emmanuenses, and that most freethinkers don't think Moses wrote (most of up until the chapters covering his death and burial) the Torah, or that Isaiah wrote Isaiah and so forth?

Is it not also evident that since in the Torah alone you have JDEP groups redacting and revising and collaborating and condensing that yes, there are a lot of authorship and source issues that cloud most every discussion and decision here?

I'll repeat, I found the "how can you be so simple in your arguments when everyone who opposes you is sophisticated and nuanced" both a straw man and beneath us both as humble servants of truth. Jesus Christ weighs in, however, and says that He IS truth and to adhere to Him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2013, 08:52 AM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(10-05-2013 08:09 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:No. That is not what I am talking about. I am saying that the level of species is both poorly defined as a real entity in nature and that species are mutable and are contingent upon time.

I would agree with that, certainly.

Then I remain baffled as to your inability to see evolutionary change in the rock record.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2013, 10:05 AM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(13-05-2013 08:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then I remain baffled as to your inability to see evolutionary change in the rock record.

Can't see anything if you don't look. How many of these clowns who criticise geological science ever went to an outcrop hmm ? Fuckin' armchair critics. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
13-05-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(13-05-2013 08:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(10-05-2013 08:09 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I would agree with that, certainly.

Then I remain baffled as to your inability to see evolutionary change in the rock record.

Why? Sincerely, not upset here, why? I can see some animals with short limbs that are assumed tacitly to be vestigial or ancilliary wings. I can see some animals with wings and some animals that are similar without wings. If Animal X has a wingspan of two feet, and similiar Animal Y has a wingspan of 0 feet (no wings), I cannot see in the record a wingspan of 3 or 4 feet from a flightless animal that was inefficient or wingspans of 1 foot, 1 1/2 feet, animals with wings in the wrong part of their bodies to create lift, animals with the bones and record of having grown one wing only or three or seven. We have millions of fossils with two fully formed wings and that's all.

Put another way, and I do sincerely apologize for not being more clear before, and hope we can come to an understanding, I can show you my children, who look similar to me and my spouse, and you would be correct in saying we're their antecedents and also that they evolved from us. However, I can also show you a cousin who looks like me and while you can say we had common descent from grandparents, his similarities to me and vice versa don't mean he evolved from me.

The scientific method demands I be reasonable and merely test your hypothesis or mine. I am accepting that you are showing me two similar species and stating that a winged species evolved from a wingless species or else a common antecedent.

The difference is it sounds like (and if I understand this incorrectly, please correct me) you're saying that a wingless creature gave birth via evolutionary stimuli and mechanisms to a winged one; the creature then survived to adulthood to find its way to the fossil record or life now, and simultaneously developed wings, feathers, a navigational system in its brain, the ability to withstand changing cold temperatures aloft, evade predators in the air (other birds) and detect prey while on the wing, etc.

Not only is that irreducible complexity to me but you keep saying "the record shows the descent/commonalities" but there are no imperfect, half-formed anythings in the record. I'm sorry, I don't get it. Please explain.

Put another way, when an intelligent being designs something with physical mass in the natural world, they normally step through multiple designs, patterns and refinements. For example, Edison conceiving of an electric light and then trying numerous substances as filaments without success. Evolution still sounds to me like a miracle or magic on the macro change scale.

Thanks for your help.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PleaseJesus's post
13-05-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(13-05-2013 12:37 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(13-05-2013 08:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then I remain baffled as to your inability to see evolutionary change in the rock record.

Why? Sincerely, not upset here, why? I can see some animals with short limbs that are assumed tacitly to be vestigial or ancilliary wings. I can see some animals with wings and some animals that are similar without wings. If Animal X has a wingspan of two feet, and similiar Animal Y has a wingspan of 0 feet (no wings), I cannot see in the record a wingspan of 3 or 4 feet from a flightless animal that was inefficient or wingspans of 1 foot, 1 1/2 feet, animals with wings in the wrong part of their bodies to create lift, animals with the bones and record of having grown one wing only or three or seven. We have millions of fossils with two fully formed wings and that's all.

Put another way, and I do sincerely apologize for not being more clear before, and hope we can come to an understanding, I can show you my children, who look similar to me and my spouse, and you would be correct in saying we're their antecedents and also that they evolved from us. However, I can also show you a cousin who looks like me and while you can say we had common descent from grandparents, his similarities to me and vice versa don't mean he evolved from me.

The scientific method demands I be reasonable and merely test your hypothesis or mine. I am accepting that you are showing me two similar species and stating that a winged species evolved from a wingless species or else a common antecedent.

The difference is it sounds like (and if I understand this incorrectly, please correct me) you're saying that a wingless creature gave birth via evolutionary stimuli and mechanisms to a winged one; the creature then survived to adulthood to find its way to the fossil record or life now, and simultaneously developed wings, feathers, a navigational system in its brain, the ability to withstand changing cold temperatures aloft, evade predators in the air (other birds) and detect prey while on the wing, etc.

Not only is that irreducible complexity to me but you keep saying "the record shows the descent/commonalities" but there are no imperfect, half-formed anythings in the record. I'm sorry, I don't get it. Please explain.

Put another way, when an intelligent being designs something with physical mass in the natural world, they normally step through multiple designs, patterns and refinements. For example, Edison conceiving of an electric light and then trying numerous substances as filaments without success. Evolution still sounds to me like a miracle or magic on the macro change scale.

Thanks for your help.

"Why? Sincerely, not upset here, why? I can see some animals with short limbs that are assumed tacitly to be vestigial or ancilliary wings. I can see some animals with wings and some animals that are similar without wings. If Animal X has a wingspan of two feet, and similiar Animal Y has a wingspan of 0 feet (no wings), I cannot see in the record a wingspan of 3 or 4 feet from a flightless animal that was inefficient or wingspans of 1 foot, 1 1/2 feet, animals with wings in the wrong part of their bodies to create lift, animals with the bones and record of having grown one wing only or three or seven. We have millions of fossils with two fully formed wings and that's all."

You are aware that A) length of wing has no bearing on whether or not it would be considered for flight or not. Hummingbirds have very small wings, penguins have quite long limbs that are shaped like wings. Both are used for a function, one for flight and one not.
B) Organisms like ostriches have wings, but do not fly. Having a "wing" does not dictate that one must fly.

"Put another way, and I do sincerely apologize for not being more clear before, and hope we can come to an understanding, I can show you my children, who look similar to me and my spouse, and you would be correct in saying we're their antecedents and also that they evolved from us. However, I can also show you a cousin who looks like me and while you can say we had common descent from grandparents, his similarities to me and vice versa don't mean he evolved from me.

The scientific method demands I be reasonable and merely test your hypothesis or mine. I am accepting that you are showing me two similar species and stating that a winged species evolved from a wingless species or else a common antecedent."


Your kids did not evolve from you. You are back to the assertion that evolution is a process by which one organism births a new species. I am NOT saying that is what evolution is. You descended from an organism that share some of the same physical traits as you, and some you have that they did not or some traits they possessed in their infancy but lost in adulthood.

The family tree and the phylogenetic tree show common descent. From one species to the next, is an evolutionary change. From one family to the next, is the introduction of another family.

You are still on about "half-formed" things in nature. Nothing is "half-formed." The wing that is not useful for flight, isn't a partially formed wing, it is a fully-formed limb the organism uses for a purpose.

"Put another way, when an intelligent being designs something with physical mass in the natural world, they normally step through multiple designs, patterns and refinements. For example, Edison conceiving of an electric light and then trying numerous substances as filaments without success. Evolution still sounds to me like a miracle or magic on the macro change scale."

Limbs, organs, and even habits are not evolved for a purpose. They are adapted to a purpose. Your hands have evolved for gripping things, but you have also adapted them for typing and some adapt them for speaking through sign. They did not evolve for that purpose, but the organism adapted them to that purpose. If that provides an advantage for surviving, they survive long enough to reproduce and pass on their traits so that their offspring can continue the trend.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
13-05-2013, 08:40 PM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2013 08:46 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(13-05-2013 08:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:PJ.....you claim you actually would like to discuss stuff. That surprises me. You say you are interested in the truth. That really surprises me too.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Truth has a beauty and power of its own. It sets you free and you know it when you discover it.

Someone who has worked out the truth is at ease with himself. They listen to others. They don't avoid answering questions.

You haven't discovered truths. Your arguments are always based on quotes from the bible. The Bible is not based on the truth. The Bible is a mess. You don't know who wrote it, or why they wrote it. You just assume it has a God given authority.

Every single preacher uses the same tired, boring technique. They promote their own prejudices, and then use some random piece of the Bible to back them up. It is absolutely pointless doing that on an atheist forum. Atheists do not accept the authority of the Bible. No matter how often you quote it, we never will. You should be interested in why that is so because many of us think we know the truth about the bible.

If you want to discuss the Bible, you have to start by discussing the authorship. This is the case with any piece of literature that is discussed. Who wrote it, when and why? Then it really helps to explain why you think it might be relevant to your argument. For example, the last quote you have given here seem to have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

When you post something here, think carefully about what you write. Ask yourself whether you're really addressing the topic at hand. Ask yourself whether you really understood what someone else has written. Ask yourself whether you are "preaching," and whether that's likely to get you anywhere.

I see. I quote the scriptures here on this forum primarily when someone has made a baseless accusation against them, not in general but in the specific.

In this last case, I made an argument against easy believism toward intellectual pride. I want to remind you that The context is an anchored relationship with Christ and as Jesus said, continued maintenance and study in His Word, which enhances freedom.

I'm uncertain why I'd have to discuss the authorship of the Bible each time I post from the Bible. Is it not evident that I believe people wrote of their own knowledge and heart and were superintended by God as emmanuenses, and that most freethinkers don't think Moses wrote (most of up until the chapters covering his death and burial) the Torah, or that Isaiah wrote Isaiah and so forth?

Is it not also evident that since in the Torah alone you have JDEP groups redacting and revising and collaborating and condensing that yes, there are a lot of authorship and source issues that cloud most every discussion and decision here?

I'll repeat, I found the "how can you be so simple in your arguments when everyone who opposes you is sophisticated and nuanced" both a straw man and beneath us both as humble servants of truth. Jesus Christ weighs in, however, and says that He IS truth and to adhere to Him.

Hi PJ. I've tried to understand what you've written. I think one issue here is the legitimacy of scripture. If you believe in it, you need to tell us why. If you're interested in my opinion ( and , once again, I'm assuming that's so) it's up to me to do the same.

I'd never heard the term "easy believism," so I looked it up..
"The term “easy-believism” is a usually derogatory label, used to characterize the faulty understanding of the nature of saving faith adhered to by much of contemporary Evangelicalism..." Interesting! Um....your argument against "intellectual pride" is what exactly?

Re..."Jesus spoke of truth and freedom and one cycling to the other, and gave the context." Am I supposed to understand your point here? And...who gives a flying fuck what Jeebus said? I certainly don't.

Re..."The context is an anchored relationship with Christ and as Jesus said, continued maintenance and study in His Word, which enhances freedom." I don't have ANY relationship with a fictional character in an immoral ancient book. He's DEAD. He can't "enhance my freedom."

Re..."I'm uncertain why I'd have to discuss the authorship of the Bible each time I post from the Bible." You don't have to...I'm not your boss....but I'm assuming you want to get a message across to your readers. If you just quote the babble you'll be mocked or ignored. I assume you don't get inspired if an Islamist quotes the Koran in your face? Or a scientologist spouts whatever they spout?

RE..."Is it not evident that I believe people wrote of their own knowledge and heart and were superintended by God as emmanuenses,..." We don't care what you believe if you can't justify your beliefs

Re..."I'll repeat, I found the "how can you be so simple in your arguments when everyone who opposes you is sophisticated and nuanced" both a straw man and beneath us both as humble servants of truth." All you need to do is present a rational argument. I'm not straw manning you, I'm asking you to be logical.

Re..."Jesus Christ weighs in, however, and says that He IS truth and to adhere to Him." There you go again. Posting UNSUBSTANTIATED mumbo jumbo. Get it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: