Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-01-2011, 11:59 AM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(11-01-2011 07:12 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  The sites you use are biased towards theism. The sites we use, and are asking you to use, are biased towards fact. See the difference?
Your sites are biased toward what you think are facts. If in fact there is a God then only the theistic sites actually are factual.

(11-01-2011 08:12 PM)BnW Wrote:  The difference between what we are citing and you is we are generally relying on peer reviewed scientific data that makes its ways to websites. And individual may have biases certainly, but when you are forced to present your data to an independent group, many of whom may be skeptical of what you claim, you are more likely to get an unbiased assessment of the claim.
But what if there is some bias that is shared by all of the members of the peer group?

(11-01-2011 11:40 PM)No J. Wrote:  The websites are not just unreliable, they are full of deliberate lies.
Do you have any evidence of that?

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2011, 12:45 PM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(12-01-2011 11:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(11-01-2011 11:40 PM)No J. Wrote:  The websites are not just unreliable, they are full of deliberate lies.
Do you have any evidence of that?
I still count 2 horns on your unicorn. How's that for evidence?

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2011, 01:17 PM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(12-01-2011 11:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(11-01-2011 08:12 PM)BnW Wrote:  The difference between what we are citing and you is we are generally relying on peer reviewed scientific data that makes its ways to websites. And individual may have biases certainly, but when you are forced to present your data to an independent group, many of whom may be skeptical of what you claim, you are more likely to get an unbiased assessment of the claim.
But what if there is some bias that is shared by all of the members of the peer group?

What's being reviewed is data, not opinions, though. You should probably take the time to do some research on the scientific method and how it actually works. What you'll find is that many new theories are generally not accepted at first and are accepted over time as evidence builds up. Evolution, as one example, was not something people just came upon in one sitting. The understanding of evolution has evolved over decades. Same with our knowledge of the universe. And, there have been many things put forth that at one point seemed supported by the evidence but were later discredited. So, scientists started over.

The history of science is filled with false starts, mistakes, and having to start over. Science constantly updates itself as new evidence is found. Individuals who've staked their careers and reputations on a particular theory are obviously going to be reluctant to embrace new concepts as being a scientist does not absolve you of human nature. However, the process is ever changing and always reviewed. The argument that all the peers are just biased simply has not basis in reality.

Religion, on the other hand, has only one conclusion and as new evidence about the universe becomes known, the way you get to that conclusion keeps changing. If you look at the history of religion you will find ever changing explanations as to why things fit within the bible. It has to be that way because the answer can't change. So, you keep changing the story. How can that possibly be right? How does that make sense? How can that be real?

The bible was written by Bronze Age goat herders and farmers. Of course most of what they know about the world was wrong. The accounts of the world in the bible are proven incorrect on a routine basis, and websites like "answers in genesis" just keeping changing their explanations. You are free to believe in it if you wish, obviously, but that doesn't make it real.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2011, 12:44 AM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(12-01-2011 11:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(11-01-2011 11:40 PM)No J. Wrote:  The websites are not just unreliable, they are full of deliberate lies.
Do you have any evidence of that?

Yes, and so do you. You just absolutely refuse to recognize any of it because you want your religious adgenda to be factual. You will do anything to protect your beliefs and deny anything that, in your mind, challenges those beliefs. We have all demonstrated how your arguments are flawed, your so called evidence and proof are actually religious propaganda and lies and that your so called research is not research at all, just cherry-picking to try to prove that you are right and we are wrong. You refuse to actually weigh any real evidence and only pretend to that you have taken all sides into account. It is painfully obvoius that you haven't, and have absolutely no intention of doing so.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2011, 08:48 PM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(12-01-2011 11:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Your sites are biased toward what you think are facts. If in fact there is a God then only the theistic sites actually are factual.

I think you are working under the mindset that how propose and establish theories is that they choose an idea they like, and try to find facts towards it. That is backward of how things work.

We look at all known facts, and try to draw a conclusion from that. If you follow that path, you will be "Biased towards facts", as you put it. That is what I, and most everyone else here, aim to do. Look at the facts, and draw conclusions from the facts. Here's the hard truth, the facts(and logic) point towards atheism.

I know that you won't believe me, and any sources that I cite you'll cry biased. I know this, no need to state it. I just want o make one other point. There are two different ways to go about making a point; choose what point you want to make, then find whatever evidence you can more it, or looking at all evidence and making the point that it seems to point it.

So what factors decide who chooses which method? By default, a person would want to know, and spread, the truth(which would favor follow the evidence). They would have to have a motive to spread the slanted view on reality(having the evidence follow your point).

Christian's want to procreate their beliefs. They are told to do so in the bible, they don't want to see fellow human being roast in hell for all of eternity, they want people to become christian. That is the motive to have a slanted view on reality. Not to mention, at this point, the idea of there being no god frightens many people into trying to over-compensate.

What motive does an atheist has to spread atheism? I would also like to point out that most atheists in America were raised religious. They don't have the motive of trying to protect their belief, and what happens if they manage to convert a person to atheism? Nothing really.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2011, 11:58 PM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(13-01-2011 08:48 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  What motive does an atheist has to spread atheism?

For me it is to prevent theists from forcing their beliefs upon others and destroying the education system.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes No J.'s post
14-01-2011, 07:47 AM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(13-01-2011 11:58 PM)No J. Wrote:  
(13-01-2011 08:48 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  What motive does an atheist has to spread atheism?

For me it is to prevent theists from forcing their beliefs upon others and destroying the education system.

But it's a lot easier to convince a person to live and let live than to entirely change their belief system. I think that most people are like that; I've never meet a truly Evangelical atheist, trying to convince everyone else around to be atheists too. Not like religious people anyway.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2011, 06:47 PM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
That is right. But if they would live and let live, we would not be on this forum because we wouldn't feel threatened.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(09-01-2011 01:59 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  If the Bible is the perfect, infallible word of God (which I can assure you, it is not) then wouldn't the translations also be perfect? Think about it, why would God allow the Bible to be subject of the same problems of other books, like lost manuscripts and mistranslations? How can you even be sure the original manuscripts were correct if the translations and copies can't be trusted to be correct? The Bible was a victim to ordinary circumstance, but makes extraordinary claims. It is obviously not a special book, I can only hope that one day you will see this, and it will be soon enough that you won't feel the massive regret that a lot of ex-christians end up feeling about their wasted time.

You err in making so many carnal assumptions which are not rooted in empirical fact. Natural man has always denied the supernatural power of the Living God, because they are spiritually dead, blind to sight, deaf in hearing. Faith is not present in the dead man who thinks he is alive, but in truth, he is spiritually dead and truly does not live as was Gods' divine creation before sin polluted the world of man. Faith in that which can not be seen by blind secular eyes will bring to reality those spiritual things which are unseen to carnal men.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2015, 02:36 PM
RE: Unicorns. satyrs, cockatrices, dragons
(08-01-2011 03:52 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(08-01-2011 03:37 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  you do realize most dinosaurs needed higher oxygen atmospheres right? they're lungs weren't as efficient as mammals so their air must be more oxygen rich.

I'm going to guess to guess he solves this problem by subscribing to the canopy "Theory".

Evolution theorists still beating that ole dead dinosaur. Simply amazing how secular man never can get it right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: