The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2014, 03:35 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2014 04:48 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-03-2014 01:53 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Anyone coming to this forum who had a modicum of good sense and manners would think atheists are a bunch of foul mouthed bullies.

[Image: mlfw2147_small.jpg]

Hopefully they'd also notice how much you deserve the scorn we're all more than happy to heap upon your burning pyre of unfounded bullshit. Being polite is nice, but it doesn't affect the state of the facts or the truth. We may be jerks at times, but that doesn't make us wrong, nor do our critiques of Ellis' conspiratorial bullshit hold any less water.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-03-2014, 04:20 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-03-2014 01:53 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Anyone coming to this forum who had a modicum of good sense and manners would think atheists are a bunch of foul mouthed bullies.

I apologize for replying late. Work schedules are busy at the moment.

I'd just like to add a post that many a X-stian forum has it full share of bullies and bigots to boot.

This board is an example => http://discussions.godandscience.org/

When the moderators ban a member for providing links to science pages, you've got to figure the nutters are running the insane asylum.

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 12:43 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(03-03-2014 04:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 01:53 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Anyone coming to this forum who had a modicum of good sense and manners would think atheists are a bunch of foul mouthed bullies.

I apologize for replying late. Work schedules are busy at the moment.

I'd just like to add a post that many a X-stian forum has it full share of bullies and bigots to boot.

This board is an example => http://discussions.godandscience.org/

When the moderators ban a member for providing links to science pages, you've got to figure the nutters are running the insane asylum.

Very much cheers to all.


I was on another atheist forum where the majority of members were interested in setting up a new form of Christianity based on a book by a descendant of the San Jacinto General Burleson called "Crosses on the Road". The only active moderator believed in "Trioonism". But, hey, if you suggest that there is a factual basis for the New Testament which doesn't involve virgin birth and resurrection you get abuse. Oh well?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 12:46 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(03-03-2014 03:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 01:53 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Anyone coming to this forum who had a modicum of good sense and manners would think atheists are a bunch of foul mouthed bullies.

[Image: mlfw2147_small.jpg]

Hopefully they'd also notice how much you deserve the scorn we're all more than happy to heap upon your burning pyre of unfounded bullshit. Being polite is nice, but it doesn't affect the state of the facts or the truth. We may be jerks at times, but that doesn't make us wrong, nor do our critiques of Ellis' conspiratorial bullshit hold any less water.

Who is the "we" you speak for? Do you conspire together against other posters for some purpose?

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 12:48 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-04-2014 12:46 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(03-03-2014 03:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: mlfw2147_small.jpg]

Hopefully they'd also notice how much you deserve the scorn we're all more than happy to heap upon your burning pyre of unfounded bullshit. Being polite is nice, but it doesn't affect the state of the facts or the truth. We may be jerks at times, but that doesn't make us wrong, nor do our critiques of Ellis' conspiratorial bullshit hold any less water.

Who is the "we" you speak for? Do you conspire together against other posters for some purpose?

Drinking Beverage

[Image: large.jpg]

And take your conspiratorial bullshit with you...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
01-04-2014, 01:08 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
For your reading amusement:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vie...=6&t=39273
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 03:40 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(03-03-2014 04:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  [This board is an example => http://discussions.godandscience.org/

When the moderators ban a member for providing links to science pages, you've got to figure the nutters are running the insane asylum.

Very much cheers to all.

When I read that this song started playing in my head:




"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - Christopher Hitchens

"Remember kids, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Have a great day!" - Ricky Gervais
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 05:07 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Just had a read of some of the god and science (:laughatSmile forums and the NoFX song above is now an embedded earworm. There's a discussion about the Shroud of Turin. Please tell I am right in thinking this is a medieval forgery so no more discussion is really needed?

When I read these forums, which isn't often, I try and see their world view as best I can in the hope of some kind of understanding. But then I read a post on human migration and the 'great flood'. I got to this sentence "If this is an account of human migration since the genesis of humanity (refereeing to a wiki page), where does Noah and the Great Flood fit in?" and thought NOWHERE and then couldn't take anymore. I suppose trying to find the positives at least this person is questioning which has to be good.

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - Christopher Hitchens

"Remember kids, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Have a great day!" - Ricky Gervais
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 05:38 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2014 05:44 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-03-2014 01:53 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Anyone coming to this forum who had a modicum of good sense and manners would think atheists are a bunch of foul mouthed bullies.

That idea is self contradictory.

To have 'a modicum of good sense' and then to assume based on the interactions of a few people on an internet forum that an entire demographic (atheists) are foul-mouthed bullies is contradictory behaviour.
If a person came to that conclusion, I dare-say they've lost their right to claim that they are of good sense for painting an entire demographic in such a way.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
01-04-2014, 05:39 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-04-2014 05:07 AM)Eva Wrote:  Just had a read of some of the god and science (:laughatSmile forums and the NoFX song above is now an embedded earworm. There's a discussion about the Shroud of Turin. Please tell I am right in thinking this is a medieval forgery so no more discussion is really needed?

Let Go of the Shroud Part I - The Shroud of Turin: It’s obviously fake
Let Go of the Shroud Part II - The Shroud of Turin: Examining the evidence
Let Go of the Shroud Part III - The Shroud of Turin: It’s Just Bad Science



Ph.D. David Kyle Johnson @ A Logical Take blog Wrote:The Shroud of Turin is a long piece of cloth that bears a ghostly image of a man, with what appear to be blood stains around his wrists, side, and forehead. The cloth contains both the front and back image of the man, and many believe it to be the shroud that Jesus Christ was buried in, and that the image was somehow left in the shroud as he resurrected from the dead. Although the Catholic Church has never officially endorsed the shroud as authentic, many popes have hinted at it. Pius XII called it a “holy thing perhaps like nothing else” and John Paul II said it’s a “distinguished relic linked to the mystery of our redemption.” Last year, Pope Francis steered clear of calling it a relic, and concentrated on its power to inspire, saying that it is an “icon of a man scourged and crucified” that “speaks to our heart.” Every year, around Easter, replicas of the Shroud are brought out and displayed in Catholic churches across the world.

Not unrelated is the fact that the church (and religion in general) has a public relations problem when it comes to its relationship with science. Viewers were reminded of this last Sunday when, in its first episode, the Fox documentary Cosmos (hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson) told the story of when the church burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for simply believing the earth revolves around the sun. The Church later imprisoned Galileo and banned his works for the same thing. Galileo died in 1642, but the church didn't lift the ban until 1822 and didn't apologize until 1992.

To improve its relationship to science, the Church needs to react harshly to pseudoscience—it needs to identify it when it sees it, criticize it, and distance itself from it as far as it can. And, more importantly, it needs to admit when it’s wrong in no uncertain terms. A significant step in this direction would be disavow the Shroud, to admit that it is a forgery, and stop parading it around. Why? Because the Shroud is a obviously a fake, the evidence for it is clearly faulty, and those who defend it are steeped in illogical pseudoscience.

So let’s examine the Shroud from a logical point of view. As usual, it takes longer to debunk bad arguments than it does to make them, so I’m going to make the case in three separate blog entries.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: