Atheists And The Moon
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2013, 08:08 AM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
I agree with you TBD, we should keep this on the other thread.

My point, which we should address there, is that the wings that were formed for another purpose before they became for flight served as a hamper, not an advantage. Creatures with extra, flightless limbs (okay, perhaps with feathers for warmth) should be easy prey rather than surviving through between 100 (rapid?) and 1,000,000 (slow) generations to become creatures of flight, which creatures again need brain changes, skin and respiration and temperature changes, eyesight changes and eyelid changes, etc., etc.

I apologize for running my mouth here again and if you insist on replying on this thread, I understand...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 08:42 AM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
Quote: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.
Have I not been explicit across dozens of posts that the historicity of Jesus is taken as fact by scholars, along with a dating of the Hebrew Bible that predates Jesus by centuries, and that the authors of the Bible:

*Make clear prophecies about Jesus of Bethlehem

*Demonstrate superior wisdom in all facets of life (e.g. Proverbs which is never, ever discussed around here as far as I’ve seen)

*Show super-intelligent inspiration (of 600-plus Torah laws, more than 200 show direct health benefit, including health benefits not recognized by secular science until modern times)

*Etc., etc., etc., etc.

Quote: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?
It is interesting. Some freethinkers call evangelicals “easy believers”. But being born again means 1) starting as a skeptic 2) weighing evidence 3) conversion and being not yet born again means (to me) reinterpreting and ignoring evidence.

My argument against pride of intellect had to do with a previous post that actually suggested that a particular secular website was far superior to a Christian website because the Christian site was written in lay terms and got to the heart of the matter—fulfilled prophecy—promptly. Somehow it was said to me “a subtly nuanced argument must be the true version of the matter”. If you believe that indeed, I’m not sure I want to debate with you ever again, so perhaps you can explain what you meant.

Quote: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.
I don’t understand. Is it that you 1) don’t respect free speech 2) don’t respect me as a person? If you read a quote you liked in the NY Times today, post it. I read something about the nature of truth, or remembered such, and posted it. This comment of yours, I’m unsure how to take it.

Quote: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."
Notes. You admit the historicity of Jesus of Bethlehem, whom the preponderance of scholars agree was baptized and then crucified under Pilate. Now we can look at the evidence for His resurrection. Please feel free to start a thread to tell your fellow freethinkers that Jesus was an historical person and to stop saying on every other thread that He (or he, if you prefer) never existed.

Quote: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?
On the contrary, I consider the quote, and then normally shred it to pieces with simple Aristotelian logic and historical context. Go for it! Or is it God forbid we should debate the scriptures and not canards like “God can’t exist because there’s pain and suffering in the world…”?

Quote: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
I can justify what I believe. The burden of proof is actually on your disbelief, since you are going against prophecies, logic and as important multiple eyewitnesses, when you weren’t there. Of course, since you are a naturalist, you’ll try to shift that burden to me since unlike 90% of people you believe only in naturalist things.

Quote: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.
Understood. Let me ask you, can a spiritually-minded person or a born again Christian operate on logic? My logic informs my faith foremost and always and NEVER the other way round. Think carefully before you answer. I may need leave to this forum… and I’m comfortable with that… if moderators feel only naturalists and materialists are logicians.

Quote: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?
Define unsubstantiated. Define mumbo jumbo. Last time I checked, the New Testament was a part of some, not all, syllabi touching ancient texts, classics of literature, etc. You seem a little picky here to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(03-05-2013 07:05 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The first Apollo astronauts to circle the moon sent a message back to planet Earth: "We've got a message for you." And they read the first 10 verses of Genesis: "In the beginning, God created...." Do you remember the first food and drink that was consumed on the moon? It was the bread and wine of communion! Atheists say, "How many scientists believe in God?" Yet these men were scientists.

Listen to the hopelessness of atheist Sam Harris: "Tens of billions of viewers passed in the growing darkness of a universe condemned to become a galactic graveyard." That's what they have to look forward to. That epitaph is pronounced in advance upon everything that Bertrand Russell wrote, everything that Dawkins ever did or wrote, so why do they insist, "I want to convert you to atheism! I want you to hate God. And I want you to have this beautiful future lying ahead of you. What a hope we give you!" Expending such a great effort to extend their life, merely to stave off death a short while longer in order to leave some meaningless record of one's having been there. But there's no record. Nothing will be left of all the proud structures that man has built.

So you have to ask the atheist: "Richard Dawkins, why do you work so hard? Why do you write so many books? They're all going to be burned up. Why do you struggle to stay alive a little longer so that you can pen a few more words to the glory of the molecules?"

Richard Dawkins writes: "We are staggeringly lucky. However brief our time in the sun, if we waste a second of it, or complain, couldn't this be seen as a callous insult to those unborn trillions who will never be offered life in the first place?" He is speaking of those who apparently didn't get into the right space in the gene pool, and they were sloughed off. To the living he says, in effect, "But you made it in the lottery! And here you are. Your genes brought you here." He also says, "The knowledge that we have only one life should make it all the more precious. The atheist view is life-affirming and life-enhancing."

God calls Abraham: "I want you to kill your only son, the son you love." What a picture of Christ: "The Father sent the Son..." The Father gave His Son to be the Savior of the world. In Genesis, Isaac says, "I've got the wood, father!" So he wasn't a little tiny kid. He was carrying the wood for the fire, as Jesus carried the cross. "Here's the wood, you've got the fire. Where's the lamb?"

Abraham replied, "God will provide himself a lamb."

I love that verse: "So they went both of them together." Abraham and his son. It was a joint operation. We don't want to forget God the Father, who gave His Son, and Christ, who suffered for our sins--they went both together.

--
Excerpted from a message by apologist Dave Hunt

[Image: I_see_no_God_up_here_by_Elfigos.jpg]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 06:36 PM
Re: Atheists And The Moon
Lets not forget Abraham had another son... Who apparently he didn't love according to those quotes verses.

So a great example of God huh. All knowing powerful being creates beings but picks favorites for no reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
14-05-2013, 06:56 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(14-05-2013 06:36 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Lets not forget Abraham had another son... Who apparently he didn't love according to those quotes verses.

So a great example of God huh. All knowing powerful being creates beings but picks favorites for no reason.

Lets not forget that many people wrote that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Composition

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 07:32 PM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2013 07:44 PM by cbb2274.)
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(14-05-2013 08:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I can justify what I believe. The burden of proof is actually on your disbelief, since you are going against prophecies, logic and as important multiple eyewitnesses, when you weren’t there. Of course, since you are a naturalist, you’ll try to shift that burden to me since unlike 90% of people you believe only in naturalist things.

No one needs to shift the burden of proof onto you. The burden is on anyone making an assertion. Can you produce these eyewitnesses? Do you know how weak an eyewitness testimony is in a criminal trial? How do "prophecies" count as evidence? You "weren't there" either. I take the word of biologists, geologists, and physicists over that of theologians and "prophets" any day of the week. This isn't because I know both science and theology through and through, but because science is clearly the more useful source of information about the physical world and that's a demonstrable fact.

Quote:Define unsubstantiated. Define mumbo jumbo. Last time I checked, the New Testament was a part of some, not all, syllabi touching ancient texts, classics of literature, etc. You seem a little picky here to me.

We should rely on it because it's classic and ancient? I don't think I'm being picky if I refuse medical advice from Hippocrates.

"That's not the proof I want."
"You'll have such proof as exists. You are the only one responsible for your own wants."
- Isaac Asimov, I, Robot
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cbb2274's post
14-05-2013, 09:21 PM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2013 09:32 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(14-05-2013 08:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: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.
Have I not been explicit across dozens of posts that the historicity of Jesus is taken as fact by scholars, along with a dating of the Hebrew Bible that predates Jesus by centuries, and that the authors of the Bible:

*Make clear prophecies about Jesus of Bethlehem

*Demonstrate superior wisdom in all facets of life (e.g. Proverbs which is never, ever discussed around here as far as I’ve seen)

*Show super-intelligent inspiration (of 600-plus Torah laws, more than 200 show direct health benefit, including health benefits not recognized by secular science until modern times)

*Etc., etc., etc., etc.

Quote: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?
It is interesting. Some freethinkers call evangelicals “easy believers”. But being born again means 1) starting as a skeptic 2) weighing evidence 3) conversion and being not yet born again means (to me) reinterpreting and ignoring evidence.

My argument against pride of intellect had to do with a previous post that actually suggested that a particular secular website was far superior to a Christian website because the Christian site was written in lay terms and got to the heart of the matter—fulfilled prophecy—promptly. Somehow it was said to me “a subtly nuanced argument must be the true version of the matter”. If you believe that indeed, I’m not sure I want to debate with you ever again, so perhaps you can explain what you meant.

Quote: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.
I don’t understand. Is it that you 1) don’t respect free speech 2) don’t respect me as a person? If you read a quote you liked in the NY Times today, post it. I read something about the nature of truth, or remembered such, and posted it. This comment of yours, I’m unsure how to take it.

Quote: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."
Notes. You admit the historicity of Jesus of Bethlehem, whom the preponderance of scholars agree was baptized and then crucified under Pilate. Now we can look at the evidence for His resurrection. Please feel free to start a thread to tell your fellow freethinkers that Jesus was an historical person and to stop saying on every other thread that He (or he, if you prefer) never existed.

Quote: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?
On the contrary, I consider the quote, and then normally shred it to pieces with simple Aristotelian logic and historical context. Go for it! Or is it God forbid we should debate the scriptures and not canards like “God can’t exist because there’s pain and suffering in the world…”?

Quote: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
I can justify what I believe. The burden of proof is actually on your disbelief, since you are going against prophecies, logic and as important multiple eyewitnesses, when you weren’t there. Of course, since you are a naturalist, you’ll try to shift that burden to me since unlike 90% of people you believe only in naturalist things.

Quote: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.
Understood. Let me ask you, can a spiritually-minded person or a born again Christian operate on logic? My logic informs my faith foremost and always and NEVER the other way round. Think carefully before you answer. I may need leave to this forum… and I’m comfortable with that… if moderators feel only naturalists and materialists are logicians.

Quote: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?
Define unsubstantiated. Define mumbo jumbo. Last time I checked, the New Testament was a part of some, not all, syllabi touching ancient texts, classics of literature, etc. You seem a little picky here to me.

Hi PJ. You raise a lot of issues. What say you and I have a one on one debate? We could make it about the historicity of Jesus and the legitimacy of his teachings. It would make life easier for you as you'd only have one protagonist to deal with. I think I'm in a different time zone to you (I'm in Australia) so you'd have time to reply. I await your response.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
14-05-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(14-05-2013 09:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi PJ. You raise a lot of issues. What say you and I have a one on one debate? We could make it about the historicity of Jesus and the legitimacy of his teachings. It would make life easier for you as you'd only have one protagonist to deal with. I think I'm in a different time zone to you (I'm in Australia) so you'd have time to reply. I await your response.

Oh man, I 2nd that motion. I took way too much time trying to make sense of this thread.

"That's not the proof I want."
"You'll have such proof as exists. You are the only one responsible for your own wants."
- Isaac Asimov, I, Robot
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cbb2274's post
14-05-2013, 10:07 PM
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(03-05-2013 07:54 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  According to "Iron Sky", Nazis have been on the moon since 1945.

I've literally just got this DVD today. I have never laughed so much!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Si Eld's post
14-05-2013, 10:52 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2013 12:55 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheists And The Moon
(14-05-2013 08:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I can justify what I believe. The burden of proof is actually on your disbelief, since you are going against prophecies, logic and as important multiple eyewitnesses, when you weren’t there. Of course, since you are a naturalist, you’ll try to shift that burden to me since unlike 90% of people you believe only in naturalist things.

So much falsehood, and unsubstantiated hyperbole, (ie bullshit).
1. None of the "prophesies" refer to Jebus, as he did not get the job done that a messiah was supposed to accomplish. He still hasn't. Wishful thinking. Many of the others actually got a lot further, such as Simon of Perea, and Simon bar Kochba.
2. No law or proscription or heath code written into the OT Bible did not already exist in the culture, which the texts sanctioned, and from which it was taken. I challenge SexuallyPleasingJebus to come up with even ONE that did not. All cultures have wisdom sayings and proverbs, this is nothing unique there. Show me ONE health law that was not extant in the Near East which the Hebrews started, uniquely, after their Yahweh told them to, that did not exist already.
3. Show me the poll that shows what a "preponderance of scholars" think. I challenge you to show it, or STFU.
4. The early church fathers were self-admitted liars, thus can be trusted in NOTHING.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church
You have no proof that anyone was an "eyewitness" just because they say they were. They also said many others "rose" at the resurrection. Why are all the stories so different ? What hell happened to ALL those other zombies and their opened graves ? Why did no Jewish historian recount the torn temple curtain, or seeing even ONE of the other zombies, or the earthquakes ? Why did the Roman not institute a search and the Jewish leaders start searching for the resurrected Jebus if it was so important that he was dead ? In short, obviously, it's all a massive fraud, which you have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: