37.A said…

“Not sure why Scourge brought up evolution. That was right out of the blue.”

“ASStrophysicist, don’t you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?”

Additionally, if you actually read what 40YA wrote before you rushed to fluff him, then you would have asked HIM, not Scourge, why HE “brought up evolution…”

12.40 year Atheist said …

“This position is essentially fatal to forensic inferential extrapolations such as those in evolutionary theory.”

…unless you wouldn’t do that because:

37.A said …

“See, they only read what supports what they want to believe.”

With the exception of the Taodejing and Yijing, which aren’t exactly “holy” books, there’s not a whole lot of stuff in those, so far as “spiritual” claims go that I agree with. Among the Church Fathers, I like Origen the best, cracked as he was in his various ways, and I think one of the biggest shames of the Western World is that Origen was deemed a heretic and his thoughts on God, which were very Platonic, were rejected from orthodoxy because he thought Jesus, as Logos, was essentially separate from the Godhead.

As an aside, have you ever paused to think about how much blood has been spilled (and people have been burnt) in the centuries-long schisms and fights caused by people being unable to decide if Jesus was a fully divine son of God who is separate from the Godhead or an intrinsic part of it? Talk about a triviality! This is the system you’re trying to defend, like imbeciles, mostly ignorant of the pettiness and pointlessness of almost everything that your “holy and divinely inspired perfect Word” rests upon.

I took this question seriously. That’s why I don’t believe in God anymore. It’s very simple.

“See, they only read what supports what they want to believe. Prime sums it up well.”

Yup… you got me again, detective. That explains the pile of books I’ve read (or own) written by noted theologians, including Jack Spong, Alvin Platinga, William Lane Craig, etc., and even rather obscure ones like Scott Cowdell. I also have E.P. Sanders and Bart Ehrman (though you guys don’t like Bart too much anymore). I’ve read, but refuse to own, at least one of the shiipiles written by Lee Strobel as well. I even read that complete failure of the ability to print books that is called A Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren (can I have my three hours back, please?).

What’s the difference?
1. Stan is more of a moron than them with more fallacies and inconsistencies, not to mention outright lies, than them. This does not apply to Rick Warren, kind of doesn’t to Strobel, and William Lane Craig has pushed my patience past breaking.
2. Though the fact seems lost on Stan, this is a comment thread, which is a sort of forum. On such things, C/P rants that are never defended and that usually only vaguely connect to the topic at hand aren’t really worth anyone’s time.
3. I’ve dealt with a couple of his piles of stink before and noticed that in the process, you fluffers roll around in the stink like junkyard dogs while attempting to troll us (rather like this).

It’s not that I only read things that support “my position.” It’s that I only read things that are worth reading. Stan is not.

“40ya

I think Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” is a much better work to reference when discussing axiomatic limitations. He was older,had ordered his thoughts and presents a more cohesive view.

Not a criticism just another work to consider.”

Why aren’t you posting replies to his rants on HIS site? What is your motivation for back-slapping him here?

I think Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” is a much better work to reference when discussing axiomatic limitations. He was older,had ordered his thoughts and presents a more cohesive view.

Not a criticism just another work to consider.

They’re both sock puppets so the shoe must fit.

“Not sure why Scourge brought up evolution. That was right out of the blue.”

If YOU read what 40YA wrote then YOU would be “sure why Scourge brought up evolution”

12.40 year Atheist said …

“Popper takes the following position on induction:
“Now in my view there is no such thing as induction. Thus inference to theories, from singular statements which are ‘verified by experience’ (whatever that may mean), is logically inadmissible.”
This position is essentially fatal to forensic inferential extrapolations such as those in evolutionary theory.”

ASStrophysicist, don’t you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

“37.A said …

Ben

See, they only read what supports what they want to believe.”

If the shoe fits, then wear it.

“See, they only read what supports what they want to believe.”

There’s one thing for which we don’t any other support to believe other than read your comments, and it’s that you are nothing but a fraud who NEVER, EVER provides evidence for your imaginary god, and does nothing much more here than back slap 40YA for re-posting years-old rants about off-topic subjects that helps you all avoid the elephant in the room.

Commence countdown to excuses, evasion, or running away.