Author Topic: Most True Christians Are Sadists  (Read 12311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #435 on: November 23, 2011, 12:15:38 PM »
BS, address my point.

I will...as soon as you address my posts #328, #341, and #347. You can't just leap past the assertions I have made and then accuse ME of dodging. Doesn't work that way.

BibleStudent, this is you being addressed by one of this sites modaerators. This does not fly, BibleStudent. If you want to ignore someone, that's one thing. But you do not get to call other people out for doing it, as well.

As you said, this forum does not work that way. You are not exempt from the rules that you agreed to follow when you signed up here. If you're going to complain about others not responding to you, then you will respond to everyone else as well. That does not just mean making a comment, BS. It means making a thought-out, intelligent, response that actually addresses the issues raised. Not one that dodges or stonewalls. All of those posts were answered and responded to by people. It was you who did avoided them.

This stops now. Do you understand this, BS?

I would like all posting in this thread to halt for a moment until BS communicates to me that he understands this fully.


I knew it was just a matter of time before you’d flash your moderator badge.

Before you ban me, I would just like to point out that you are as guilty as anyone I’ve encountered here for violating this forum rule:

Trolling other forum members, grudge matches, soap-opera dramas, and other actions that staff members deem to be designed to disrupt threads or provoke hostile emotional responses from other forum members will not be tolerated.

not only is it 'trolling....it is ABUSIVE HARRASsMENT..….yet I haven’t called you out on it and was just hoping you’d act like a grown man and realize at some point the error of your ways.

I will not bow to your blatant abuse of moderator power so do as you please.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #436 on: November 23, 2011, 12:20:11 PM »

I knew it was just a matter of time before you’d flash your moderator badge.

Before you ban me, I would just like to point out that you are as guilty as anyone I’ve encountered here for violating this forum rule:

Trolling other forum members, grudge matches, soap-opera dramas, and other actions that staff members deem to be designed to disrupt threads or provoke hostile emotional responses from other forum members will not be tolerated.

not only is it 'trolling....it is ABUSIVE HARRASsMENT..….yet I haven’t called you out on it and was just hoping you’d act like a grown man and realize at some point the error of your ways.

I will not bow to your blatant abuse of moderator power so do as you please.


..........................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You've gotta be fucking kidding me......
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #437 on: November 23, 2011, 12:23:22 PM »
BibleStudent,

You are free to use this forum as long as you follow the rules.  You are also free to report anyone, including a moderator, if you feel they are breaking forum rules.  Please use those tools, and do not take it upon yourself, or others to self-moderate.  That is no excuse for your particular approach to velkyn in this thread. 

You are free to move on and leave this forum, but you are not being banned, and I have not seen any abuse of moderator privileges or power.  You may PM me if you want to discuss.

Jetson

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #438 on: November 23, 2011, 12:32:05 PM »
Ok, just for old times sake.


I knew it was just a matter of time before you’d flash your moderator badge.

That's because it's sort of my job.

Before you ban me, I would just like to point out that you are as guilty as anyone I’ve encountered here for violating this forum rule:

As Jetson pointed out, you can report on me as well, if you really feel that way. It does not however in anyway respond to the mod warning that you were called on to respond to.

Trolling other forum members, grudge matches, soap-opera dramas, and other actions that staff members deem to be designed to disrupt threads or provoke hostile emotional responses from other forum members will not be tolerated.

Show how I did any of these. Did I insult you? Absolutely. But my posts were in response to yours and also made pertinent points discussing your flaws. Please show how what I have said over the last few pages counts as trolling or disruptive. If you're just going to go with the fact that I've insulted you, it doesn't hold up much since you've been free with the insults yourself.

not only is it 'trolling....it is ABUSIVE HARRASsMENT..….yet I haven’t called you out on it and was just hoping you’d act like a grown man and realize at some point the error of your ways.

Yes, you have. You brought it up several times. Also I wouldn't be laying charges of not acting like a grown man at anyone. You're the one who runs around making claims without evidence, dodges, stonewalls, and lies. Then when he gets backed into a corner relied on hypocritical claims. Who now runs off like a baby when gets held to account for them. Is this the sort of behaviour that you consider to be "manly"? If so then I'm glad that I don't fit into your definition.

All I did was make fun of someone that I have no respect for.

I will not bow to your blatant abuse of moderator power so do as you please.

Pointing out a hypocritical statement by and requesting that you follow the rules and answer people when they talk to you is an abuse of power?


.............................................................................oooooooooookay.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #439 on: November 23, 2011, 12:32:49 PM »
Now, kindly respond to the mods posts, BS.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #440 on: November 23, 2011, 12:38:00 PM »
BibleStudent,

You are free to use this forum as long as you follow the rules.  You are also free to report anyone, including a moderator, if you feel they are breaking forum rules.  Please use those tools, and do not take it upon yourself, or others to self-moderate.  That is no excuse for your particular approach to velkyn in this thread. 

You are free to move on and leave this forum, but you are not being banned, and I have not seen any abuse of moderator privileges or power.  You may PM me if you want to discuss.

Jetson


Thank you.

If you go back and read 'velkyns' post #331, this was her response to the earlier comments that I made:

Quote
hilarious.  it seems that all of the explanations of how empathy and civilization works has not been read by BS.  #2 is just so pathetic. Holy jumpin' the strawmen.

Does that sound like an argument to you? 'Velkyn' is by no means the only member who responds in this fashion and, to be perfectly honest, I do not really care. I prefer to have an 'informal' discussion rather than play the "you dodged" "you stonewalled" game. I only point it out when I do to demonstrate that the very thing I am accused of is being done by others and to illustrate the hypocrisy.

I am not going to report someone every time they dodge or stonewall one of my posts. It really doesn't bother me anywhere enough to make an issue out of it.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #441 on: November 23, 2011, 12:49:22 PM »
As Jetson pointed out, you can report on me as well, if you really feel that way.

I am not going to report anyone for anything. No one is doing anything that impacts my life or alters it in anyway. If I am going to get worked up about something, it isn't going to involve discussions on this forum. You will probably continue to post but, as I've previously indicated, I will not be acknowledging or responding. If that means you are going to flash your mod badge again then you may as well do it now and get it over with. As I said, I am not going to bow to your abuse of same....even if it means I get banned. Thank you.


Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #442 on: November 23, 2011, 12:54:46 PM »
As Jetson pointed out, you can report on me as well, if you really feel that way.

I am not going to report anyone for anything. No one is doing anything that impacts my life or alters it in anyway. If I am going to get worked up about something, it isn't going to involve discussions on this forum. You will probably continue to post but, as I've previously indicated, I will not be acknowledging or responding. If that means you are going to flash your mod badge again then you may as well do it now and get it over with. As I said, I am not going to bow to your abuse of same....even if it means I get banned. Thank you.

I still notice no evidence provided of these claims,BS. Or a rebuttal to my previous points. Ok kids, have at him again.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #443 on: November 23, 2011, 12:59:42 PM »
I will...as soon as you address my posts #328, #341, and #347. You can't just leap past the assertions I have made and then accuse ME of dodging. Doesn't work that way.

ROFL.  So sad, how desperate you are to avoid the inevitable, BS.  And it rocks my world to see you try to act all superior when you’ve ignored post after post of mine and others here.  One more bit of hypocricy for you to demonstrate but that’s not surprising at all.

Funny how I did answer your post #328 right here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20647.msg457999.html#msg457999   Did you not see it, BS?  Or are you simply lying?  You see, BS, I know you’ve already been answered of those questions you have asked again, as if the answers will change to something you like.  It’s unfortunately a common tactic of Christians, playing make believe.

But let me go through this again, to watch you lie even some more.  You make such a great example of just what religion can make a man do. I mean, really, you are the best your god has to offer?  :D
Quote
1.   If ‘tribal’ survival was enhanced by morality, the why do we find that it is often the case members of a specific group will often disagree with other members of the same group?
Lovely strawman here, where you want to make believe tht any disagreement is dependent on morality.  And it seems that you think that disagreements can never come to any resolution using that great human ability, talking to each other and coming to a compromise. 
Quote
2.   The inclination to care for others would place a burden on that individual and jeopardize that individual’s chance of survival. There may be an argument pertaining to ‘relatives’ but outside of that, there is no logical conclusion to be drawn.
And again, you willfully ignore the evidence against this that has been given you.  You are a bad liar, BS and it’s so amusing in a written medium that you think people can’t see it.  Humans started as family groups, and family groups can become quite extended into, can you guess? tribes!  And tribes grow into larger and larger units that share something in common. 
Quote
3.   An ‘ought’  implies forethought that cannot be explained when you factor in the trait of ‘selfishness.’ I ‘ought’ not be selfish because it is beneficial for the group which is beneficial for me. But, if it is beneficial for me, then I am being selfish.
This is why selfish people are often declared criminals in a society.  It’s quite amusing to watch you try to claim that humans suddenly have no ability to have any forethought of future ramifications.  Happily, humans do have the capability to reason and to have self-control.  Obvious, not all of them have this. 

Now onto #341,  nice argument someone else made but it’s hilarious how you can’t support your own claims and how this person doesn’t support them either.  I strongly suspect you have no idea what this person said, depending on a wall of words to try to baffle people with bullshit.  Again, you haven’t shown any existence of an objective morality from a magical being.   
one of the more peculiar bits from your link is this part
Quote
We can say that the morality-as-evolutionary position is flawed precisely because it is subjective: it uses objective facts (evolution and evolutionary psychology) but uses them to falsely deduce moral facts. If there is to be knowledge about morality, then it must be objective, that is to say, based on Reason: beyond that, we must remain silent.
  Makes a claim and then doesn’t support it.  How the morality as evolution position use the facts “falsely”?  I don’t see one instance of how this was determined other than the author’s subjective and baseless claim.   
[qutoe]To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality – actions have consequences, which arise because of natural, psychological and social laws. If you stop eating, you will die. If you stop drinking water, you will die even faster. If you break the social mores of decency or peaceful behaviour in your relationships with others, your life will be affected and even endangered. If you do not pursue social values in general, you will live isolated from the benefits of civilization. If you do not pursue mental values, you will not have the mental capacity to reason our way through life. Without such values, you would easily fall prey to any received idea, any scam, you would have no capacity to manage your life. Causality is universal: actions have consequences, causes have effects, if we fail to follow the requirements of life we will fail to live.[/quote] and I find this even more amusing.  It is purely by this causality that we can see that morality is generally subjective, that it morality is a personal reaction to actions having consequences.  It depends on what value the “you” in this instance places on various things.  And here
Quote
I think it is pretty clear that all of its parts are objective.
is one of those common things that people who have no actual evidence do, to declare unilaterally how “pretty clear” it is that what the author said is right.  Isn’t that convenient!&)  Nah, he doesn’t have to support it, it’s “pretty clear”.  :D   We can go into how he also decides that “contexuality” makes things objective, when all it does is show how things are subjective e.g. depenent on subjective events, and then we can watch him ignore that particular point he tried to make (and fail) by him trying to declare that this has nothing to do with morality at all&)   
And then we have #347 which I’ll recreate in its entirety
Quote
The non-theist account for morality lacks any consensus and all assertions are subjective. There are many different people making many different ‘guesses.’ For example, to cite a few, Dawkins says it stems from a selfish gene, Ruse says it is an evolutionary illusion, Walter Sinnott says morality just simply “is,” and the author of the article I linked to above says [atheists) should just be silent about it because they cannot account for it.
The only consensus seems to be that “evolution diddit”….which amounts to nothing more than an opinion.
And this is hilarious when I look back and see you whining that how dare anyone but the person you address respond to your posts.  I find it so cute to see you insisting that since there are different opinions, that this must mean Goddidit!   I’m sure you do love the concept of telling atheists to sit down and shut up if someone else doesn’t like what they say, nothing says that atheists can’t be ignorant asses when they don’t want their claims challenged. 

And it’s not just an opinion.  It’s based on observation, something that everyone can do when they are build a hypothesis.  I know that’s a foreign concept to you, since you have no way to use observation and facts to support your claims.   
Which gets back to my last post.  You have yet to show that your god is any source of objective morality and we can look in the bible and in the history of Christianity itself to see how the morals of Christians change repeatedly as they declare that God “really” meant “x” all through the ages.  Now, that you’ve said you’ll address my point, I’ll be waiting.  But I do expect you to come up with more excuses. 





 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #444 on: November 23, 2011, 01:55:30 PM »
You are entitled to conclude as you see fit. If God has no place in your worldview, then so be it. Just remember, you are only speculating.

   But, you see, there is nothing that can actually convince us that a God exists. Sure, there's the bible, tradition, etc... but the Bible can only be supported through circular logic and tradition is never a good way to produce truth.

   Evolution has vast swaths of evidence backing it up, not just microevolution, but macroevolution[1] as well. We do not need to see it in action to say it exists, we just need to see its effects. Can you see gravity? No - you see its effects. The same can be said of evolution.

   Think of evolution as a flipbook (with a few thousand pages - one per generation) from some early species to one of it's descendant species. Each page is only minimally different from the one immediately before and immediately after. Those differences add up across each page until you have something entirely new. Splits in the evolutionary line would be akin to having two flipbooks that are identical until about halfway through where they begin to diverge in ever-increasing ways. Now take 50 of those flipbooks, pull out all the pages and scatter them randomly across an entire continent. Hunt them down one by one. Some (many) of those pages will be irrevocably lost, but once you find a good chunk of them, you'll be able to see a pattern, and piece together the order they would go in in the flipbook. These are to the flipbook what fossils are to evolution. And we have those pages. We have hundreds of pages, hundreds of fossils detailing species similar but distinct as one page that shortly precedes another.

Look at this picture (source):



   You can see the actual similarities between the limb's bones. It wouldn't be hard to put them in order if you were given them without context, just as you could place them in a flipbook. Now, these would be hundreds or thousands of pages apart, granted, but you can still see the link in this shortened glimpse into this single evolutionary line.

   The fossil record, itself, is backup up by dating methods from chemistry. Geology plays a role as well[2].

   The fossil record alone is very strong evidence for evolution, but it is not the only thing we use. Genetics show how far apart living species really are. Mice, for example, are great for medical experimentation without using humans because, as mammals, they share some interesting genetic qualities with humans. Although only about 75% of the mouse genome has something like 1:1 similarity (behind cats at 90%, and chimpanzees at 96%), 90% of it can be lined up with humans and 99% of it has a direct analogue somewhere in the human genome. Why would we be able to draw lines from 99% of the mouse genome to the human one and say "This mouse section functions the same as this human section" unless we shared a common ancestor way, way back in time? It would certainly be a very strange design decision.

   This isn't just idle speculation, both being mammals, we share a relatively recent ancestor, so we can expect to be similar to them.

   That's just (some of) the evidence for evolution going from the ground up. Top down we have some more. In other words, the applications we put our knowledge of evolution towards. Evolution is key to much of the current research in biology - it especially helps in organismal biology and ecology. As for a more practical application: it helps us in medicine as we anticipate possible evolutionary paths bacteria can take or how to assist in cures for genetically influenced disorders. Because of our ancestrally shared genetics with Chimps, for example, we are coming to understand Alzheimer's disease better.

   So in conclusion: Evolution has the evidence. Stacks upon stacks of evidence. On top of that its explanatory power is applied to medicine and we are all the stronger for it.

   What evidence does the God-hypothesis[3] have? Can you support it without using circular (or any other fallacious) logic? I can draw the support from the ToE[4] back through chemistry and geology (among others) and further down the chain to basic mathematics. What chain of support does the God-hypothesis have?

...

   Also, in regards to your comment on penicillin: That's how they obtained their first sample; but how do you think they tested it to make sure if it worked?

EDIT: Cleaned up some parentheses.
 1. both ridiculous terms, as they are effectively the same thing over different amounts of time
 2. based on where the fossils are found, among many other interconnected portions
 3. not God-theory, hypothesis
 4. Theory of Evolution - and keep in mind what the word Theory means in a scientific context. The same context that calls gravity a theory
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 02:11:02 PM by Avatar Of Belial »
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1992
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #445 on: November 23, 2011, 05:35:28 PM »
Quote
We do not understand every nuance of how our solar system came into existence, or how atoms work, but the explanatory power of those theories are beyond anything else anyone has to offer. 
So that makes them worthy of excluding God? Perhaps you are asserting these things from a presupposition that evolution is correct and that’s all there is to it.

No, BS.  It doesn't make them worthy of excluding ANY god, including yours.  But what it does do it provide a totally natural, valid theory that explains ALL the facts without difficulty.  When you have something like that, then anyone attempting to provide a new and more valid theory, must explain HOW the new theory fits the facts better than the old one. 

I have no presupposition that evolution is correct.  I wasn't indoctrinated to believe in evolution.  In fact, I didn't even know what it meant until I was in high school.  If someone were to come along with a more valid theory that explained how the facts fit together with a higher degree of accuracy, then I would reconsider my position on evolution.  I don't specifically CARE that evolution is correct.  It doesn't have to be correct in order for me to feel good about myself.  I have no vested interest in it being true.  If I didn't know anything about evolution, you still wouldn't have any proof that your God is real.  I would still reject it based on that.

Quote
Evolution is not speculation.  If we evolved from lower life forms (which is beyond doubt at this point)
Disagree. It is not “beyond doubt.” Maybe you’ve just been brainwashed into believing that. There are many, many, many holes.


You got me.  I've also been brainwashed to think that the earth revolves around the sun and that it spins on it's axis.  I've been brainwashed to think the sun is a star and that there are 8 planets in our solar system. 

Quote
Now, when attempting to decide between which of the two theories is more likely true, the only way to do it is to examine which is a more evidence based, more accurate, and more 'explanatory of the facts' theory, and in that battle, you LOSE.  Your theory just opens more questions, such as the one's I've asked you.  I DISAGREE with your point, BS.  It's not that I don't get it.  I just think you're an idiot for thinking it's better than the natural theory.   
I won’t sink to your level of adolescent name calling but I could say the same thing back and be no less correct.

UGH! Why do you choose to respond to the idiot comment and not to the heart of that argument?  This is exactly what I would expect from you.  Shrink away from the hard question and dwell on the ad hom.  Ignore the fucking insult and respond to the point I made.  Do you disagree or agree with what I said above?  That one theory is MORE valid than a competing theory if the first theory explains how the facts work together more accurately?  Do you think your God theory explains the facts we observe every day better than the natural theory?  Because if you are going to say yes, I would love to do a fact by fact discussion and prove to you just how wrong that idea is.   

Quote
We HAVE a valid explanation as to where morality originated.  And it's natural. And it fits the facts well. 
Your opinion

Where do you disagree with it? 

Quote
If I were to say to you, "Oh, man.  Strawberries are awesome!" would you stop me and correct me as if I were making an objective statement that is backed up by some sort of cosmic force that agrees with me that strawberries are awesome?  Or would you understand that simply, to me, strawberries are awesome?  What is the difference between making the statement "strawberries are awesome" and "Murder is bad"?  Also, what is the difference between saying "I think strawberries are awesome" and "I think murder is bad"?  Do you correct everyone who goes around making what appear to be objective statements?  Or do you just accept that they aren't making an objective statement and only expressing their opinions? 
Whether you like strawberries and whether you are determined to ‘terminate’ God/religion, etc. on the basis of your assumptions and opinion are two VERY different things.

Now you're missing the point. I consider this sentence a dodge of the questions I asked.  Please answer each of the following questions individually as I post them, just as you did in your last post to me...

If I were to say to you, "Oh, man.  Strawberries are awesome!" would you stop me and correct me as if I were making an objective statement that is backed up by some sort of cosmic force that agrees with me that strawberries are awesome? 

What is the difference between making the statement "strawberries are awesome" and "Murder is bad"?

Also, what is the difference between saying "I think strawberries are awesome" and "I think murder is bad"?

Do you understand that people who say "Strawberries are awesome" aren't making an objective statement and only expressing their opinions?

Quote
I also have to ask you where do you draw the line?  Who decides what is moral and immoral? 
God.

Can you provide evidence for this please. 

Quote
Does God judge whether or not strawberries are objectively good?
Good in what sense?. Good to the taste buds or good from a moral standpoint?


Both.  Does God have taste buds?  If he does, and he likes strawberries, does that mean we all have to like strawberries?  But please answer from a moral standpoint as well. 

Quote
You Christians always pick the most black and white issues you can.  Hitler, rape, murder, but what about the gray areas?  Are there objective wrongs and rights when it comes to things like fingernail length for men?
Is fingernail length a moral issue?


It might be if it is seen as effeminate by homophobic Christians.  Please answer the question.  What about the gray areas?  How do you know what God considers a moral issue and what is not?  Does God judge us on running yellow lights?  What about burping at the dinner table?  What is God's judgement on telling someone they look fat in those jeans? 



Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
  • Darwins +48/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #446 on: November 23, 2011, 05:39:55 PM »

The Bible says ANYONE who works on the Sabbath must be PUT TO DEATH.

SOUNDS LIKE SOME PRETTY SERIOUS SHIT TO ME.

This on the other hand is grossly overstated to the point where it simply is not true. According to the Bible, "Sabbath Law" only came into effect at Sinai millennia after God supposedly created man. This law was a part of a covenant that was not applicable to all of mankind. So basically this law and the other 618 were laws for the ancient people of Israel and any who dwell in the land they controlled and it did not extend beyond that.

Hi, TruthOT. Last time I checked, you were finally free from the chains of Judeo-Christian mythology. If this is true, congratulations. :)

You wanna play?

Let's play . . .

1) We've got  Matthew 5:17. Even if there are other passages that contradict Matthew 5:17, the fact remains: All this confusion could not possibly come from an all-knowing, all-powerful being who truly wants to get his message across. If someone who has been lied to their entire life starts getting suspicious of these Goddamn liars and stumbles upon this website looking for the real truth, my post might help enlighten them. For these people, your post doesn't do shit to slow the Freight Train Of Truth. This website is one giant BEAT DOWN. Wacky-ass, crazy bullshit is gettin' beaten the fuck down all over the internet.

2) Any command that involves putting people to death better have some warning labels near by. If all that stuff you stated above is true, you should give The Creator of the Universe permission to have your well-explained footnote follow every single passage that involves divinely-sanctioned execution in His entire Manual. We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt. Better late than never.

3) I could go on and on and on . . .

Quote
This on the other hand is grossly overstated to the point where it simply is not true.

Simply not true? If it simply wasn't true, you wouldn't see intelligent atheists bringing up the subject at every turn of the corner. Atheists aren't the desperate ones who need to search for needles in haystacks that aren't even there. The motherfuckers who wrote this bullshit laid it flat on the table for us to devour. Furthermore, we are spoon-fed by the Goddamn Liars For ChristTM who get tangled up in their own feeble bullshit every time they try to defend this blatant nonsense.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #447 on: November 23, 2011, 05:52:35 PM »
Too bad Kirk Cameron and all those crocoduck nutters cannot recognize a 'transitional fossil' when they see one. While in grade school, I made little cartoons via the flip-book method, so I was able to recognize them when I saw them.

Just like a baby growing up to an adult. Day to day you don't notice any difference, but come back after a year or so, you will see a transition. I had wondered for a long time what they meant when they said that there are no transitional fossils, because it was so frikking obvious. Recently, I got it. It took seeing the 'crocoduck'  and when I saw it... &)


--------------------------------------------------------------

The Theory of Growing Up the way it's supposed to be according to Kirk Cameron:

There is a baby. Then there is a baby with an adult head. Then they get the adult arms. Then they get the adult legs. Then they get the adult torso. Then they get the adult chest. Then they activate their reproductive organs.

We don't see this in the fossil record so it is obvious there there are no transition fossils from infant to adult. Nothing grows up this way, so therefore the Theory of Growing Up is false. Therefore nothing grows up.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This is what he sounds like to me. It's ironic. Back when I was a Christian going to church, I had respect for him.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 06:04:18 PM by TruthSeeker »

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1341
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #448 on: November 23, 2011, 06:05:07 PM »

I have to still say, I think BS is still using the information that he learns here to use on the other helpless non-intellectuals out there to continue to convince them into this superstitious, imaginary belief system for whatever his motives are (they all have motives); I really think we're doing society a diservice now for he knows and understands our rational thinking and knows it's based on reality but he also is well aware of the great power and control (again, for whatever his motives are) he can have over other people not in this forum.

I'm am amazed how one person can continue to play a game that even he knows why it was made and pretend to us that this is what he seriously believes.  He's using a computer that obeys the laws of quantum mechanics that is a 'theory' that has been conclusive in test after test yet will continue to try and use with no eveidence whatsoever in a god that is totally imaginary....  What a weird world of people (evolved bugs) we live in.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 06:12:28 PM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #449 on: November 23, 2011, 06:10:55 PM »


I have to still say, I think BS is still using the information that he learns here to use on the other helpless non-intellectuals out there to continue to convince them into this superstious, imaginary belief system for whatever his motives are (they all have motives); I really think we're doing society a diservice now for he knows and understands our rational thinking and knows it's based on reality but he also is well aware of the great power and control (again, for whatever his motives are) he can have over other people not in this forum.


Highly unlikely. If he were doing that we'd be covering new ground. Instead we're doing the same thing we've been doing for over a hundred pages of various threads. Bs got all of this information a very, very long time ago. He just ignored it. He wouldn't learn anything new by using the same arguments for all of this time. He could have gotten the stuff he wanted in about ten pages of posts and moved onto getting more info.

Occams Razor. He's just that much of an idiot.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1341
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #450 on: November 23, 2011, 06:13:45 PM »
^^^ you're probably right, the 'simplest' explanation is usually the correct one...  ;)

I just had an awkward conversation with a person (a religous one in fact) who says they belive in ghosts.  And get this, they even went as far as to tell me the story of something they saw move without any other force or wind to move.

I studied and still like physics and insisted that even though he didn't understand why something moved doesn't mean there's such thing as ghosts or the supernatural.

As a matter of fact, the first thing that should be immediately ruled out in science is the supernatural 'ghosts did it' or 'god did it' theory.  These should be immediately set aside (pushed off the table) as any kind of 'reasonable' explanation for something happening or actions.

And here we are, with BS just not able to understand why we easily dismiss something he is obviously emotionally attached and invested in.   These people just need to be saved!  ;)
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 06:30:46 PM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #451 on: November 23, 2011, 07:22:25 PM »
^^^ you're probably right, the 'simplest' explanation is usually the correct one...  ;)


It doesn't get much simpler than BS. He's like two ball bearings rattling around in a tin can. I honestly doubt that he's even a grown adult. He doesn't even know his own bible worth a damn.

Seriously though, I wouldn't worry about BS twisting or misusing anything that's said here. You've seen how he twists words on the people who post to him. The best he can manage is "Your opinion" and "You're doing it too".

Can you imagine the sort of person that would actually listen to him and take him seriously. Even most theists aren't that out of touch with reality.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2661
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #452 on: November 24, 2011, 11:05:07 AM »
And it’s not just an opinion.  It’s based on observation, something that everyone can do when they are build a hypothesis.  I know that’s a foreign concept to you, since you have no way to use observation and facts to support your claims.   
Which gets back to my last post.  You have yet to show that your god is any source of objective morality and we can look in the bible and in the history of Christianity itself to see how the morals of Christians change repeatedly as they declare that God “really” meant “x” all through the ages.  Now, that you’ve said you’ll address my point, I’ll be waiting.  But I do expect you to come up with more excuses.

What I said on the end of my last post was : it's not up to a theist to show that atheists are wrong about where morality comes from, it is up to a theist to show that morality can ONLY come from God, and in no way can be invented by men or animals, even if it's incorrect.

Some of the edicts in the OT, that Christians call "morality" are pretty stupid. I can make up this type of morality myself : "Thou shalt not eat chicken on a thursday". There; I have proven that I have a capacity to make morals as good as some of God's. Since man can make morals, the theist now has to identify which morals can only be made from a God. The best way would be to ask God which morals he made. (A low blow, I know, since no theist ever agrees on what God says.)

What they have to resort to is a proxy method of saying that the morals that God could have made, are evidenced by cross-cultural similarity. However, there are many other cross-cultural inventions and theories that arise, and these are the product of man, so cross-culturality does not prove anything, but similar environmental constraints. A theist might as well claim that anything which is cross-cultural is proof of God, so why do they choose morals?

Both Wallace and Darwin worked on the theory of evolution at the same time, independent of each other. This cross-cultural similarity in their theories must have come from God. (* The cry goes up... I scored a goal with that one *)

Having just admitted that the Theory of Evolution comes from God, a Christian now has to demonstrate that it could only come from God, and could not be invented by man. The thought occurs to me that maybe Satan is behind all this cross-cultural communication. That would explain a few things.

But, back to serious: a Christian has to PROVE that the similarities come from God, not use argument ad whinge. I see a lot of argument ad crapping on, but no proof that man could not make some of the morals, or which ones he definitely didn't make.

Then of course, since the Bible is not entirely cross-culturally legitimized, it's proof of the hypothesis that another god may have made the core morality, and that most of the rules in the Bible were made by man.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #453 on: November 25, 2011, 09:33:03 AM »
Supposing God is real, supposing the whole biblical narrative, from creation to fall to redemption, is true.  Is God then under an obligation to save you?

Demanding God's salvation as some sort of right you are entitled to won't get you anywhere.  Humbly and brokenly asking for it as something you don't deserve - you might have more luck that way.
Wait a minute. Supposing bible god is real and the bible is true - god IS under an obligation to save me! First of all regarding "the fall" - I didn't "fall", that was his feeble-minded newbies. If bible god created everything (including me) then my "flaws" are part of his creation and he has no business condemning me for the way that he created me. Do you see how stupid that is?
"I genetically altered my child to have a horn growing out of their head. I hate horns! I kicked that child out of my house until it has the horn surgically removed and begs me for forgiveness."

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #454 on: November 25, 2011, 12:14:31 PM »
Hi, TruthOT. Last time I checked, you were finally free from the chains of Judeo-Christian mythology. If this is true, congratulations. :)

Thanks for the congrats, but how is my former belief or lack of current believe relevant to anything I asserted.   

You wanna play?

Let's play . . .

"Playing" gives me a rush. You're on!

1) We've got  Matthew 5:17. Even if there are other passages that contradict Matthew 5:17, the fact remains: All this confusion could not possibly come from an all-knowing, all-powerful being who truly wants to get his message across. If someone who has been lied to their entire life starts getting suspicious of these Goddamn liars and stumbles upon this website looking for the real truth, my post might help enlighten them. For these people, your post doesn't do shit to slow the Freight Train Of Truth. This website is one giant BEAT DOWN. Wacky-ass, crazy bullshit is gettin' beaten the fuck down all over the internet.

Why change, or attempt to change someone's mind by employing flawed techniques. If you wanna do it effectively, use some shit they can't throw back in your face and call on out for being wrong on. Using a flawed argument only serves to further strengthen their position that you are wrong, biased, and unfair, and that they are wholly correct.

2) Any command that involves putting people to death better have some warning labels near by. If all that stuff you stated above is true, you should give The Creator of the Universe permission to have your well-explained footnote follow every single passage that involves divinely-sanctioned execution in His entire Manual. We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt. Better late than never.

3) I could go on and on and on . . .

Quote
This on the other hand is grossly overstated to the point where it simply is not true.

Simply not true? If it simply wasn't true, you wouldn't see intelligent atheists bringing up the subject at every turn of the corner. Atheists aren't the desperate ones who need to search for needles in haystacks that aren't even there. The motherfuckers who wrote this bullshit laid it flat on the table for us to devour. Furthermore, we are spoon-fed by the Goddamn Liars For ChristTM who get tangled up in their own feeble bullshit every time they try to defend this blatant nonsense.

Whether they are intelligent or not is irrelavant to the specific issue I pointed. Intelligent people, as well as a majority of people can all agree and have that agreement back a FLAWED ARGUMENT.

There is plenty to attack and many flaws that can be correctly pointed out, BUT you hurt those arguments when you focus the argument on issues that really aren't what there being made out to be.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #455 on: November 27, 2011, 01:43:49 PM »
I do have to agree with Truth OT on a couple of points he brought up. It took a very long time, arguement after arguement before he even began to question his faith. The thing is, he really does care about the truth, hence his username. But like all Christians, he thought he knew the truth. He knows the tipping point that got him to look at the Bible objectively, with a neutral disposition.

I had my own.

Personally, I think for each person it'll be different. For me, it was the declaration that women are property, time and time again, and that was in violation of my SPAG. A sexist chauvenistic pig that loves double standards would have read those passages, and would have only been justified in the way he treats women. I've seen it myself.

I had a neighbor while I was growing up and she said to my mother, "I won't witness to your children, if you don't tell my child, I'm wrong [with my choice of religion]." My mom took that to mean, "I know my religion is wrong, but don't tell my child that." It has been quite awhile since I left Christianity, so I missed the exaggeration. Truth OT on the other hand, knows how a Christian would read it. He is right that Christians will take something, and if you're not completely honest, will turn it around and use it to justify thier own position. All they will see that you had to lie (from thier point of view). For the sake of the truth, please don't be shooting yourself in the foot. Don't be using the same techniques that Liars for Christ™ like to use.

Marshall Brain even makes a flawed arguement in one of the videos. The Garden of Eden and the Flood are things that via indoctrination from the time of the person's birth have been told are true. Saying that as how the Bible is Anti-Scientific, while true, is dismissed out-of-hand by the Christian. He wastes the point, justifying the Christians. I've seen that myself, too. He really should have picked somethings in the Bible that Christians didn't know were in there, post the verses, and use that. Like The Earth is Flat, Pigeon blood cures leprosy and the magic potion in Numbers 5 that could only be used to psyce out an ignorant superstitious woman that has no idea how the world really works. Also when you force that woman to consume dust people have been walking in, there is a very real possiblity that the woman could get sick and that has no bearing whether or not she's been cheating on you. Since the jews were ignorant on the way reality works[1], they would use that to confirm thier suspicion.

We could learn a few things from Truth OT, how a Christian that shares many values that he himself has, would read our posts. If our messages would be dismissed out-of-hand because they thought we were overexagerating IF we were telling the truth, or outright lying. As I mentioned earlier, I missed it myself, because I already know the Bible was written by ignorant men. Such arguements don't work when you're trying to convince people that, when they think it comes from an All-Knowing God.
 1. and therefore not told by an "All-Knowing" God
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 02:04:30 PM by TruthSeeker »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #456 on: November 29, 2011, 03:54:37 PM »
@ Velkyn re: post # 443.

You contributed nothing that would help explain how a random evolutionary process created morality. Your answer to question #1 does not even address the question and makes some strange unfounded accusation that I feel all disagreements involve some aspect of morality. Same for #2….you didn’t even offer a constructive argument explaining why the inclination to care for others would not place a burden on that individual and jeopardize that individual’s chance of survival. As for the assertion I made in item #3, you failed to explain how and why unselfish selfishness fits into your version of evolutionary morality. For all three of these, you gave some commentary and some opinion and threw in some accusations but did an extremely poor job demonstrating making a convincing argument and pointing out where I am in error with the specific issues raised.

With regards to your response to my post #341, you missed the main point entirely. The author’s primary bone of contention was that absent empirical biological proof for the existence of this thing we call morality, the materialistic atheist should remain silent. Do you agree or disagree with this? He is making the same point I have been making all along. The non-theist is arguing for evolutionary morality on the basis of non-empirical evidence. So, the question remains, why is the theist criticized for doing the same mental process when arguing for his/belief in God.

The rest of your post is just more accusations and senseless babble. Frankly, it is my opinion that you submitted your post hastily and with the singular intention of trying to save face.

If you would like to make another attempt at submitting an intellectual response to the issues I raised, I will gladly review and respond. If you don’t, that is fine, too.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #457 on: November 29, 2011, 04:20:28 PM »
(posting #444 snipped to preserve space)


In response to your post, I am cutting and pasting comments I have made in other threads:
Quote

Creationism logically satisfies my need to understand:

How we got here.
Why we’re here.
Where we’re going.
How the universe and ‘life’ came to be.

In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe point to an Intelligent Designer. The TOE and abiogenesis attempts to explain this but comes up way too short to convince me. There are so many assumptions, hypotheses, and floating variables behind crucial areas of it. In addition, I see very little, if any, benefit derived from phylogenetics. In fact, it only demonstrates that different species have similar DNA which could point to an Intelligent Designer just as easily as it could to a common ancestor. Convincing evidence of beneficial random mutation is virtually non-existent. Why has evolution not eliminated schizophrenia? Evolution cannot explain our desire to create things like art and music. Evolution cannot explain why animals have been known to flee an area just before a tsunami occurs. The TOE cannot account for why or how sexual reproduction evolved.  Why do chickens return to their coop at the same time and in the same order everyday?.. .and on and on I could go. These may seem like trivial issues but attempts to explain how the processes of evolution would/could account for them does not fit. Also, I could add dozens and dozens of more unanserable questions to the list. And this says nothing of the BIG blank that alleged abiogenesis creates.

Quote
I never said that evolution was not a valid theory. What I said was that it lacks the power to invalidate God and/or the Bible. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t science seek the truth and avoid trying to proclaim a certainty ? Wouldn’t it be much more sensible and reasonable to assert that evolution simply offers an alternate way of explaining how life as we know it evolved ? There is nothing CERTAIN about it and that’s the whole point of my argument….it does not have the power to dismantle Christianity yet it is continually used for that purpose.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #458 on: November 29, 2011, 04:29:55 PM »

I have to still say, I think BS is still using the information that he learns here to use on the other helpless non-intellectuals out there to continue to convince them into this superstitious, imaginary belief system for whatever his motives are (they all have motives);

Yes, I do occasionally share the content of some of the discussions from this site.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #459 on: November 29, 2011, 06:26:55 PM »
Then I shall respond to what you have quoted here.

In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe point to an Intelligent Designer.

How so? Life is overly complex - detrimentally so. There are many excesses that could be simplified and/or combined. There are more efficient ways to do things. What purpose does the third eyelid (the Nictitating membrane) have in humans, for example? It doesn't do anything but get irritated. The uses of a tail bone (in a creature with no tail) could easily have been made in a more functional, and less fragile form. Intelligent design, this is not.

   When it comes to the universe: "Vastness"? I can make a movie lasting five hours with the camera staring at a rock the entire time. Sure, it's designed, and "Vast", but intelligent?

I would contend that if anyone were foolish enough to claim credit for designing the universe, (s)he should immediately be labeled an idiot.


Quote
There are so many assumptions, hypotheses, and floating variables behind crucial areas of it.

   Creationism is nothing but assumptions and floating variables. First up: Assuming there is a god, assuming it's the god of the bible, assuming the creation story is accurate, and assuming that all the years, translations, pastors, priests, and popes haven't screwed it up too badly since it was written.

   When we ask a hard question; we get thrown the central floating variable "No one can know the mind of God".

You have no evidence, you ignore the data that is actually presented, and you throw up barriers whenever someone starts investigating and you have the gall to put down a scientific explanation that has more evidence than the Theory of Gravity for having too many assumptions!?

I doth protest, good sir.

But perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you think are these "assumptions", "educated guesses", and "floating variables" that do so much harm to it?


Quote
In addition, I see very little, if any, benefit derived from phylogenetics. In fact, it only demonstrates that different species have similar DNA which could point to an Intelligent Designer just as easily as it could to a common ancestor.

Fix'd that for ya.

Why do creatures need such similarities in their genetics? It is exceedingly inefficient for the creatures themselves. Why should a mouse have a genome that is so close to a human? The differences between us are vast, so why wouldn't the "creator" actually build a new creature instead of breaking down an existing one and splicing it together? If nothing else, it's certainly lazy design for a supposedly "omnipotent" being.

Quote
Convincing evidence of beneficial random mutation is virtually non-existent.

Correction: You've ignored it.

Quote
12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment
   Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.

   All mutations are random, and occasionally they are beneficial. How do you think you gain a resistant strain of bacteria? They don't target what medicine they become immune to, they mutate. The beneficial mutation is the one that they were lucky enough to aquire before treatment was applied; any bacteria that didn't obtain that mutation died off. So not only do we repeatedly show beneficial mutations - we apply natural selection every time we practice medicine (on infected patients).



Quote
Why has evolution not eliminated schizophrenia?

Why has God not eliminated schizophrenia? You're shooting yourself in the foot with this one. Evolution is an undirected process; it isn't going to target specific things to "fix". If it fails to fix something that is a detriment to the species' procreation then the species takes a hit in its population or just outright goes extinct. Schizophrenia doesn't actually affect that capability; so what does it matter as far as evolution is "concerned"?

Now lets compare to the directed force of a supposedly "intelligent" creator.
Is he willing to eliminate schizophrenia, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh schizophrenia?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then how the hell did he create the universe?
   ~Epicurus (Sorta)


Quote
Evolution cannot explain our desire to create things like art and music.

Sure it can; but before we even go into it, why does it need to?

Quote
Evolution cannot explain why animals have been known to flee an area just before a tsunami occurs.

Most animals have more acute senses than humans, which is explained by evolution. However, this particular idea about animals fleeing may very well be a myth. I cannot find anything more concrete than "eyewitnesses" who may very well have only noticed odd behavior because there was a tsunami (or earthquake, as that is what they would have felt) to corelate it to.

Some articles on the matter:

National Geographic get mixed results.
Quote
Research on both acoustic and seismic communication indicates that elephants could easily pick up vibrations generated from the massive earthquake-tsunami, she said.

Poole has also experienced this firsthand.

"I have been with elephants during two small tremors, and on both occasions the elephants ran in alarm several seconds before I felt the tremor," she said.

One of the world's most earthquake-prone countries is Japan, where devastation has taken countless lives and caused enormous damage to property. Researchers there have long studied animals in hopes of discovering what they hear or feel before the earth shakes. They hope that animals may be used as a prediction tool.

Some U.S. seismologists, on the other hand, are skeptical. There have been documented cases of strange animal behavior prior to earthquakes. But the United States Geological Survey, a government agency that provides scientific information about the Earth, says a reproducible connection between a specific behavior and the occurrence of a quake has never been made.

"What we're faced with is a lot of anecdotes," said Andy Michael, a geophysicist at USGS. "Animals react to so many things—being hungry, defending their territories, mating, predators—so it's hard to have a controlled study to get that advanced warning signal."

In the 1970s a few studies on animal prediction were done by the USGS, "but nothing concrete came out of it," Michael said. Since that time the agency has made no further investigations into the theory.

Snopes is pretty sure it's coincidence.
Quote
Some folks place their faith in the unusual reactions of animals, recalling that before at least a few major quakes, strange behavior was observed in critters local to the event. However, that animals have occasionally acted strangely just prior to the onset of a devastating earthquake doesn't mean they always do. A great many quakes have happened where everyone's cats, dogs, and even the wild critters in the field continued behaving in quite normal fashion right up until the moment that they hit.

As to why folks tend to believe animals can sense impending quakes, or the weather or time of day having something to do with an increase in seismic activity, humans look to make sense of their world and the sometimes terrifying forces at work within it through application of patterns. They examine tragedies in search of elements common to them, then look to apply whatever patterns they think they've found to future events, in hopes of seeing trouble coming before it arrives and thus of having a chance of getting out of its way.


Quote
The TOE cannot account for why or how sexual reproduction evolved.

While I'll admit the "how" is still fuzzy; your "why" is a tad rediculous, if I interpret your meaning of it correctly. If you are looking for a directed purpose, then remember that I said evolution is an undirected process - "purpose" is the wrong question to ask there. However, the "why does it still exist" would be a much better question, and one we do have answers for. Spread of advantageous traits, novel genotypes, deletrious mutation clearance, etc.

Quote
Why do chickens return to their coop at the same time and in the same order everyday?
Probably because of their evolved social hierarchy - but really this is less of an evolution question and more of a "lets just throw as much random crap as possible and maybe I'll confuse them" question. It does not bode well for you.

 
Quote
.and on and on I could go.
As could I, but I'll settle for not having more inanity like the chicken question thrown about.


Quote
These may seem like trivial issues but attempts to explain how the processes of evolution would/could account for them does not fit.

Care to explain how they don't fit?

[/quote]Also, I could add dozens and dozens of more unanserable questions to the list. And this says nothing of the BIG blank that alleged abiogenesis creates. [/quote]

And I could probably answer a few of them, but your questions show your true level (lack) of knowledge on the topic. It's almost painful to read. Really, go read up on the "unanswerable question" before you ask it. It might actually be answered.

Quote
I never said that evolution was not a valid theory. What I said was that it lacks the power to invalidate God and/or the Bible. [...] There is nothing CERTAIN about it and that’s the whole point of my argument….it does not have the power to dismantle Christianity yet it is continually used for that purpose.

You have it a tad backwards. Evolution is there, it doesn't care about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or what-have-you. You are the one putting it at odds with your god, thus it is your own refusal to even look at the evidence, stubborn ignorance of the topic, and futile rambling off of inane questions that invalidate your god far more than anything evolution could or does say.

Quote
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t science seek the truth and avoid trying to proclaim a certainty ? Wouldn’t it be much more sensible and reasonable to assert that evolution simply offers an alternate way of explaining how life as we know it evolved ?

Science attempts to find truth, yes, but it wants certainty - and it puts its weight behind the most powerful explanation available. Evolution fits all of the evidence, predicts future evidence, and neatly ties together multiple fields of science. It is one of the most certain scientific theories we have. Creationism, on the other hand, has to ignore most of that in order to get anywhere.



Quoting yourself when you were asking stupid questions makes them no less stupid. You have some reading to do on the topic of evolution if you want to convince anyone you know what you're talking about.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #460 on: November 29, 2011, 07:00:39 PM »


Creationism logically satisfies my need to understand:

How we got here.
Why we’re here.
Where we’re going.
How the universe and ‘life’ came to be.

In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe point to an Intelligent Designer.

It may satisfy your need to understand, but there is nothing logical about "magic man must have done it" which is the essence of creationism. It starts with an appeal to ignorance, assumes its own premise, and generally ends up with special pleading its way into the judeo-Christian God. The only thing logical about creationism is that it can pretty much provide a textbook example of logical fallacies. Well, if the textbook companies weren't being bought up by Christians.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline fishjie

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
  • Darwins +11/-0
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #461 on: November 29, 2011, 09:22:18 PM »
Dude still hasn't responded as to why god decided to create satan in the first place, how can he be talking about how it logically satisfies anything.    "GOD IS SUPER COOL AND HIS WAYS ARE ABOVE OUR OWN" is not logical, its a cop out.

when you can explain how an omnipotent, omniscient yet loving creator can allow suffering, then you can talk about logical.   until then the entire creation story is bogus 

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #462 on: November 29, 2011, 09:43:27 PM »
I am only going to respond to a couple of your comments. 1. We are starting to drift onto another topic here. 2. Much of what you commented on has been discussed ad nauseum and I am not going to go back over all it again.

You have it a tad backwards. Evolution is there, it doesn't care about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or what-have-you. You are the one putting it at odds with your god, thus it is your own refusal to even look at the evidence, stubborn ignorance of the topic, and futile rambling off of inane questions that invalidate your god far more than anything evolution could or does say.

Refusing to acknowledge that evolution is used as a means to eradicate Christianity means you are blind to the world around you. Perhaps you are not directly doing so yourself but it is the basis for much of the insulting and derogatory comments directed at us Christians. 

Quote
Science attempts to find truth, yes, but it wants certainty - and it puts its weight behind the most powerful explanation available. Evolution fits all of the evidence, predicts future evidence, and neatly ties together multiple fields of science. It is one of the most certain scientific theories we have. Creationism, on the other hand, has to ignore most of that in order to get anywhere.

Yes, it may be one of the most "certain theories" we have but it still does not negate a Creator.


Quote
Quoting yourself when you were asking stupid questions makes them no less stupid. You have some reading to do on the topic of evolution if you want to convince anyone you know what you're talking about.

You are going to have to be more original than this. You think I've never heard that one before? It's the default criticism that gets leveled at me nearly every time I engage in an 'evolution' based discussion around here. You have no idea what I do know and what I don't know so save this baseless babble for someone else.   

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
  • Darwins +48/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Most True Christians Are Sadists
« Reply #463 on: November 29, 2011, 09:48:14 PM »
I do have to agree with Truth OT on a couple of points he brought up.

Which couple of TruthOT's points do you agree with, if you don't mind me asking?
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.