Author Topic: really? [#1558]  (Read 6025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #58 on: July 12, 2009, 05:30:11 PM »
That is interesting. According to wikipedia the population in 2000BC was 35,000,000,[1] and the population growth rate seems to be 5,000,000 every thousand years. Sure, that's according to wikipedia, but still I doubt that after 2,500BC the population was only 8 people, then Noah's sons wives had children, then the (Adam and Eve) cycle begins all over again.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
« Last Edit: July 12, 2009, 05:34:17 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Positiveaob

Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #59 on: July 12, 2009, 05:48:12 PM »
The youtube videos for WWGHA made me think god wasn't real, like deep down i was stuck as a believer, but my logical mind (I have an IQ of 126 by the way so I'm not just some random idiot coming on to spam your forums.)  told me "impossible! where is ANY proof?"

...

and emily said

---------
Quote
in fact, one of the original founders of Harvard law tried to disprove the bible, but found it reliable.

So... your point.
---------

My point is that the bible is as reliable as anything else.  You believe that the pope excommunicated Henry VII in 1533 right?  I just pulled that out of my history book, are you going to say that it is ridiculous and reflect the idea that it happened?

Why would I care what the founder of Harvard Law (founded nearly 200 years ago) thought on the subject?  Do you want us to start listing smart people who feel otherwise (try googling Project Steve)?

As far as your example goes, if your IQ is greater than 70, you should be able to figure out the difference between the reliability of what your history book says about this event and what the bible says about anything.  No one attaches divinity to what your history book says.  No one bases their life on what your history book states and expects/demands others to do the same.  Wars arent fought over what your history book states about Henry VII's excommunication, etc. etc.

Aside from that, what your book says about this event was likely taken from evidence, records, and multiple sources, rather than just stating that an event took place and using itself as its own proof.
If you desire peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you would be a disciple of truth, then inquire. - Neitzsche

Support the Military Religious Freedom Foundation!

Offline Positiveaob

Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #60 on: July 12, 2009, 05:55:11 PM »
I still would like for a fundamentalist to tell me someday what carnivores ate after leaving the ark.
If you desire peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you would be a disciple of truth, then inquire. - Neitzsche

Support the Military Religious Freedom Foundation!

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2009, 05:59:20 PM »
everyone didn't necessarily die, boats existed in this time period, when the water started rising they may have gotten on the boats, after all the bible claims that Noah warned them repeatedly.

Have you read the Gilgamesh saga?  If not, you should consider it;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/eog/index.htm

Excerpt from the Preface of the Thompson translation;

Quote
THE Epic of Gilgamish, written in cuneiform on Assyrian and Babylonian clay tablets, is one of the most interesting poems in the world. It is of great antiquity, and, inasmuch as a fragment of a Sumerian Deluge text is extant, it would appear to have had its origin with the Sumerians at a remote period, perhaps the fourth millennium, or even earlier.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2009, 06:11:25 PM »
A previous conversation on the Noah world wide flood story;

The Great Flood is Possible and Feasible
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=5953.0

My contributions from that thread (edited);

Noah's Ark summary;

1. It's a rip-off of The Epic of Gilgamesh;

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

2. No world wide flood ... thus, no Noah and family surviving a world wide flood.  Why?  Civilizations that were supposedly wiped out by the flood ... didn't notice!

3. Maybe it's a local flood?  If that substantial change was OK, then why treat the story seriously at all?

4. Maybe it's metaphorical?  Really?  I'm all ears.  Make it make sense as metaphor.  What does it teach?

5. Is it recorded in ice cores?  Nope.  No world wide flood recorded in ice cores.

6. Is it recorded in sediment layers on ocean beds and magnetic alignments of the crustal plates (Atlantic and elsewhere)?  Nope.  No sediment layers showing a world wide flood.  No correlation with magnetic alignments in the crustal plates either.



Noah's Flood - debunked
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY[/youtube]



Excerpt from "This Dynamic Earth", formatting and presentation matches the original (no emphasis added);

Quote
Magnetic striping and polar reversals

Beginning in the 1950s, scientists, using magnetic instruments (magnetometers) adapted from airborne devices developed during World War II to detect submarines, began recognizing odd magnetic variations across the ocean floor. This finding, though unexpected, was not entirely surprising because it was known that basalt -- the iron-rich, volcanic rock making up the ocean floor-- contains a strongly magnetic mineral (magnetite) and can locally distort compass readings. This distortion was recognized by Icelandic mariners as early as the late 18th century. More important, because the presence of magnetite gives the basalt measurable magnetic properties, these newly discovered magnetic variations provided another means to study the deep ocean floor.



A theoretical model of the formation of magnetic striping. New oceanic crust forming continuously at the crest of the mid-ocean ridge cools and becomes increasingly older as it moves away from the ridge crest with seafloor spreading (see text): a. the spreading ridge about 5 million years ago; b. about 2 to 3 million years ago; and c. present-day.

Early in the 20th century, paleomagnetists (those who study the Earth's ancient magnetic field) -- such as Bernard Brunhes in France (in 1906) and Motonari Matuyama in Japan (in the 1920s) -- recognized that rocks generally belong to two groups according to their magnetic properties. One group has so-called normal polarity, characterized by the magnetic minerals in the rock having the same polarity as that of the Earth's present magnetic field. This would result in the north end of the rock's "compass needle" pointing toward magnetic north. The other group, however, has reversed polarity, indicated by a polarity alignment opposite to that of the Earth's present magnetic field. In this case, the north end of the rock's compass needle would point south. How could this be? This answer lies in the magnetite in volcanic rock. Grains of magnetite -- behaving like little magnets -- can align themselves with the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field. When magma (molten rock containing minerals and gases) cools to form solid volcanic rock, the alignment of the magnetite grains is "locked in," recording the Earth's magnetic orientation or polarity (normal or reversed) at the time of cooling.

Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3572
  • Darwins +113/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2009, 07:06:02 PM »
That is interesting. According to wikipedia the population in 2000BC was 35,000,000,[1] and the population growth rate seems to be 5,000,000 every thousand years. Sure, that's according to wikipedia, but still I doubt that after 2,500BC the population was only 8 people, then Noah's sons wives had children, then the (Adam and Eve) cycle begins all over again.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

I haven't done the numbers recently but it is 'theoretically' possible assuming an exponential growth rate with the women breeding like rabbits.

That's the least of the problems that you find when looking at the myth of Noah's Ark though.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Carocrazy132

Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #64 on: July 13, 2009, 02:53:48 AM »
A previous conversation on the Noah world wide flood story;

The Great Flood is Possible and Feasible
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=5953.0

My contributions from that thread (edited);

Noah's Ark summary;

1. It's a rip-off of The Epic of Gilgamesh;

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

2. No world wide flood ... thus, no Noah and family surviving a world wide flood.  Why?  Civilizations that were supposedly wiped out by the flood ... didn't notice!

3. Maybe it's a local flood?  If that substantial change was OK, then why treat the story seriously at all?

4. Maybe it's metaphorical?  Really?  I'm all ears.  Make it make sense as metaphor.  What does it teach?

5. Is it recorded in ice cores?  Nope.  No world wide flood recorded in ice cores.

6. Is it recorded in sediment layers on ocean beds and magnetic alignments of the crustal plates (Atlantic and elsewhere)?  Nope.  No sediment layers showing a world wide flood.  No correlation with magnetic alignments in the crustal plates either.



Noah's Flood - debunked
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY[/youtube]



Excerpt from "This Dynamic Earth", formatting and presentation matches the original (no emphasis added);

Quote
Magnetic striping and polar reversals

Beginning in the 1950s, scientists, using magnetic instruments (magnetometers) adapted from airborne devices developed during World War II to detect submarines, began recognizing odd magnetic variations across the ocean floor. This finding, though unexpected, was not entirely surprising because it was known that basalt -- the iron-rich, volcanic rock making up the ocean floor-- contains a strongly magnetic mineral (magnetite) and can locally distort compass readings. This distortion was recognized by Icelandic mariners as early as the late 18th century. More important, because the presence of magnetite gives the basalt measurable magnetic properties, these newly discovered magnetic variations provided another means to study the deep ocean floor.



A theoretical model of the formation of magnetic striping. New oceanic crust forming continuously at the crest of the mid-ocean ridge cools and becomes increasingly older as it moves away from the ridge crest with seafloor spreading (see text): a. the spreading ridge about 5 million years ago; b. about 2 to 3 million years ago; and c. present-day.

Early in the 20th century, paleomagnetists (those who study the Earth's ancient magnetic field) -- such as Bernard Brunhes in France (in 1906) and Motonari Matuyama in Japan (in the 1920s) -- recognized that rocks generally belong to two groups according to their magnetic properties. One group has so-called normal polarity, characterized by the magnetic minerals in the rock having the same polarity as that of the Earth's present magnetic field. This would result in the north end of the rock's "compass needle" pointing toward magnetic north. The other group, however, has reversed polarity, indicated by a polarity alignment opposite to that of the Earth's present magnetic field. In this case, the north end of the rock's compass needle would point south. How could this be? This answer lies in the magnetite in volcanic rock. Grains of magnetite -- behaving like little magnets -- can align themselves with the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field. When magma (molten rock containing minerals and gases) cools to form solid volcanic rock, the alignment of the magnetite grains is "locked in," recording the Earth's magnetic orientation or polarity (normal or reversed) at the time of cooling.

Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

maybe the person who made that video should understand that if 64% of people believe it, then "most" didn't leave it behind

Offline MrFriday

  • 100% Superstition Free
  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1522
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • To Question God
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #65 on: July 13, 2009, 03:59:58 AM »
I stated earlier that i typed faith wrong.  And please watch the video instead of just insulting my religion, ignoring my post in almost every way.
I did go ahead and listen to the entire set of videos that you posted. I can tell you that it is not especially compelling or new but Mr Baucham is certainly a powerful, articulate speaker with a passion for what he preaches. I can see why it would be compelling for someone who already believes or wants to believe in the Bible or someone who is easily persuaded by slick talkers. However, we have dealt on this forum with each issue he raises many times and they don’t provide any good reason to believe the Bible is true.

I would guess that what we are supposed to find interesting about Voddie Baucham's video is his set of reasons to believe in the Bible which can be found first at about 1 minute into the second segment of the series. He starts by saying that believers usually give poor reasons for believing in the Bible like "I was raised that way" or "I tried it and it worked for me." He says that to be taken seriously they need to have a reasoned response when people ask them why they choose to believe in the Bible. So he starts off well but then he doesn’t really do what he says he’s going to do. He says that he has a reasoned response and this is it, "I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."

Of course, anyone who has checked out the conversations on this forum knows that we have already dealt with all of these claims. While it may be a more specific and detailed response, it really isn’t a reasoned response. It is still essentially just believing what others have said without evidence. He gives no well reasoned arguments although I suppose he might actually think he does. The claim that the stories in the Gospels are eyewitness testimony is very weak and we have discussed it at length in several threads. And even if some of the words in the Bible came from eyewitnesses, the words were heavily embellished as they were handed down by word of mouth for decades until they were written down. We can tell this because even within the books of the Bible we can see a progression of increasing mythic grandeur from the newest to the oldest writings. We also have writings of others from the time of Jesus that don’t mention him or any of the events that should have been earth shattering if they had actually occurred. Where is the reporting of people rising out of their graves when Jesus was crucified?

Mr Baucham uses 2nd Peter 1:16-21 as his proof that the Bible is authoritative eyewitness accounts of supernatural events of a divine origin. To sum up his assessment of this passage, he believes the Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents because the authors say it is. The authors say they witnessed supernatural events that were divine in origin. Apparently he thinks people who claim to be eyewitnesses are undeniably telling the truth. He also doesn’t seem to realize that eyewitness accounts are typically rather unreliable. If this were not so, we wouldn’t ever need courts or trials. All we would need to do is go ask an eyewitness what happened. In his world, it appears that no one ever lies or makes mistakes when they claim to have witnessed something. He talks about eyewitness testimony and never provides any other evidence - not a single thing. He just believes what the Bible says because it claims to be written by eyewitnesses who claim to be telling the truth and claim to know that what they saw was divine (not human) in origin. How hard do you think it would have been to pull the wool over the eyes of a person living in first century Galilee? This was an age where superstition was everywhere and scientific knowledge was virtually nonexistent. These were credulous people willing to believe in all sorts of cockamamie nonsense. And how in the world does one say that something had a “divine  origin”? What standard is used to tell if something is divine or human in origin? I just wonder what these people would think of David Copperfield.

Mr. Baucham says we can be sure that no one changed any of the manuscripts of the Gospels because “we can get as early as 120CE with some of the copies that are in existence” while copies of documents referring to other historic figures can be thousands of years after their life. Apparently no hanky panky can go on in just a century. He says that for the Bible we have more extant manuscripts that were written much closer to the events than we do for other historic figures but we don’t have a problem believing that they existed. How many times have we heard that canard? This claim is true in some cases but it is only part of the story. There is a lot more to say about those manuscripts than just how close they were written to the events in question.

How many of those other historic figures demand that we live our lives based on their teachings and threaten us with eternal torture if we don’t? How many of those other figures have followers who control and manipulate millions of people and cause them to indulge in hatred, bigotry and murder? There is a lot more reason to be skeptical of some historic figure that demands your worship and total obedience than for other historic figures no matter how important they were in their day. It is also interesting that he fails to mention that for other historic figures there are many contemporaneous corroborating documents while for the life of Jesus there are precisely zero contemporaneous documents corroborating the stories. There was absolutely nothing written about Jesus during his life. He also fails to mention that there is physical evidence of many other historic figures but none for Jesus. Mr. Baucham makes a big issue out of minor facts about the Bible but completely glosses over or ignores many important questions about it.

When it comes to changed texts in the Bible, he came up with a strawman to argue about. In this strawman some overzealous monks changed the gospels secretly and replaced the real ones as if anyone thinks that is how changes got into the Bible. He thinks that in a time when only a few highly educated people could read and write, when all documents had to be written down by hand and there were seldom two copies of the same document in any given location that it would have been impossible for anyone to change what these documents say. But even though this is a nonsensical argument, it isn’t even relevant because it isn’t how the theology of the Bible was changed. He doesn't mention that all of the gospels were written anonymously in different countries and in different languages than that of the participants (read eyewitnesses). It doesn't bother him that the earliest date we can ascribe to any of these documents is many decades after the supposed events and they were clearly derived from oral traditions. He doesn’t mention the hundreds of inconsistencies in their stories about the same events. In fact, he calls them internally consistent. I have to ask, what Bible is he reading?

When he asked everyone to turn to Psalm 22 he mentioned that back in Jesus day, if he wanted to ask you to turn to Psalm 22, he would not have been able to tell you to look it up by the numbers because the verses have only been numbered for a few hundred years. He said he would have to tell you to look it up by the title of the section which was “the first line of the verse.” Then he wowed the audience by quoting the first line in the original language (a nice bit of misdirection). He didn’t mention that no one had copies of these documents in which to look up anything - well no one except Priests or other church leaders. He didn’t mention that most people (perhaps over 90%) were illiterate. He seems to think that people in Jesus’ day went around with their own copies of scrolls they could read. This kind of anachronistic thinking is a key problem in everything he says. It is the very reason his strawman argument makes sense to him. He thinks nothing in the books the Bible came from could have been changed because everyone would notice it didn’t match what their Bible scroll said. Listening to him one would get the impression that he thinks the books of the Bible were linked together from the beginning or at least a few decades after Jesus death. He wouldn’t want to mention that they were selected from hundreds of possible candidates for the canon by church leaders hundreds of years later based on nothing but what they personally believed. The real history of the formation of the canon is nothing like what most Christians seem to think happened. They seem to believe that God decided what books should be included or that each book was written to be specifically included in the canon. They think we know who wrote these books and when they wrote them. They also think there are no forgeries in the Bible. It appears that Voddie Baucham has never heard of the textual critical method because he says we should determine the validity of the Bible like we determine things in court. He also says that science can’t help us to determine if any of it is true because the scientific method can’t be applied to history. However, it can be applied to many of the claims in the Bible and every time it is applied, the Bible loses.

I thought it was funny when he quotes Psalm 22 and is so amazed that the story of Jesus in the Bible matches with so many of the details. It apparently never occurred to him that those who wrote the New Testament wrote these things about Jesus specifically so they could say that his life matched the prophecy. Even at that he went through some extreme linguistic contortions to make some of the words in Psalm 22 match Jesus death. For instance when it says “a band of evildoers encompass me” he says “one on the right and one on the left.” Apparently being between two thieves is being encompassed by a band of evildoers. I think it is clear to any serious scholar of the Bible that what is said in the New Testament about Jesus was intentionally retrofitted to the Hebrew Bible. The early Christians needed authority to support their claims and the only way they could get that was to steal it from an older religion. But in this case, as with all of the others, the Hebrew Bible wasn’t talking about Jesus in Psalm 22. It was talking about Israel as often was done in the Hebrew Bible.

When he says the Bible is corroborated he says "What's corroboration? Oh I don't know, maybe three languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic), three continents (Asia, Africa, Europe), over forty authors most of whom never met one another[1], who wrote over a period of some 1500 years, and tell one singularly woven together story. How's that for corroboration?" I don’t know about you but I would answer him that it is pretty lame corroboration because it just isn’t true. The Hebrew Bible does not remotely tell the same story as the New Testament and even in the New Testament, the authors don’t tell a consistent single story. The Gospels contradict each other all over the place. The other books in the Bible introduce even more contradictions and inconsistencies. I want to make a point here that this is a Christian who is clearly saying that the Old Testament is valid and important to the Christian religion. He’s not throwing it under the bus. I suspect he will do that if the right argument comes up. But for this one he is happy to include it as “corroboration” for the story of Jesus and his version of God. Just try talking about Numbers 31 with him.

The kicker is in the last segment where he says, “We have no external evidence that would argue against the Bible’s claim to be the word of God.” Does that sound familiar? We are constantly being asked to prove their claims wrong. There is no evidence that would argue against unicorns existing but we don’t just accept such claims. There is no evidence that would argue against Zeus being the creator of the universe but we don’t accept those claims either. There is no evidence that Mohammad wasn’t visited by the angel Gabriel or that Joseph Smith wasn’t visited by the Angel Moroni (as well as God and Jesus) but we don’t accept those claims (well, most of us don’t). In any case, I think that is a pretty bold statement even if you go by Voddies’ standards. If eyewitness evidence is always reliable and valid, at least when it is in the Bible, what about all the people in the Bible who believed in other god’s and said that the Hebrew God or the Christian God was false. If we can believe the Bible, these people were there and witnessed the events. They did not believe the claims of Christians or Hebrews were true. Maybe that’s why he said there was no external evidence to prove the claims of the bible are untrue.

Well, this is too long so I’ll stop now although I could go on talking about prophecy and other aspects I missed.

Now, I have listened to your “evidence” and have found it wanting. What else do you have?
 1. The apostles all had to have met one another. The other people weren't eyewitnesses to Jesus so who cares what they said?The claim is that they all tell a cohesive tale culminating in Jesus divine sacrifice.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 01:14:44 PM by MrFriday »
"Faith is believing in something you know isn't true" - Mark Twain

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2009, 05:11:56 AM »
^^^ MrFriday, that post is a treasure.  I for one really appreciate your investment in Christian theology - now being put to such good use  ;)
Git mit uns

Offline Agga

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4290
  • Darwins +27/-42
  • The Forum is made of its members.
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2009, 05:18:34 AM »
I was just about to type something similar.  Spot on.
I've left WWGHA now, so do everyone else a favour and don't bother replying to my old posts and necromancing my threads.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2009, 05:52:42 AM »
Quote
maybe the person who made that video should understand that if 64% of people believe it, then "most" didn't leave it behind

Carocrazy: That's all you've got to say about the video. No argument against it? What gives... The video is very critical of the story of Noah's Ark so I am sure it must have struck a chord with you.



As for MrFriday's post, well done, as usually!  :)
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 10:34:00 AM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #69 on: July 13, 2009, 07:58:20 AM »
maybe the person who made that video should understand that if 64% of people believe it, then "most" didn't leave it behind

Please explain to me why that thought was the reply you chose to provide after being given pages of text, comments, and minutes of video.  Was this your best effort, or even an effort at all?

I question your honesty.




Edit: Cleaned up text.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 10:44:43 AM by Hermes »
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Pastafarian

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #70 on: July 13, 2009, 09:54:57 AM »
Quote
MrFriday, that post is a treasure.  I for one really appreciate your investment in Christian theology - now being put to such good use

Seconded (well, thirded after Agga). Respect Sir.
Don't pin that on jesus! He has enough nail holes as it is - House

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #71 on: July 13, 2009, 10:31:51 AM »
It seems that caro is just one more lying Christian.  People can be willfully ignorant.  It is a shame when they are such hypocrites.  When the the Flood happen?  Give me a date. 
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 10:33:34 AM by velkyn »
"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 kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2009, 11:06:41 AM »
A very sincere thanks MrFriday. And I agree wholeheartedly with the others    ...respect.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline JesusHChrist

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #73 on: July 13, 2009, 12:11:29 PM »
Nobody expects the Atheist Inquisition!

Our chief weapons are...Mr. Friday!

Well done sir.
Love the Christian. Hate the delusion.

"you dick hole just go f**k your self in hell go to hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! damn iam a strong beliver in the christ and he is compbeled at you !!!!!!!! screw you baster !!!!!!!!" -- random Christian #1636

Offline Carocrazy132

Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #74 on: July 13, 2009, 12:14:46 PM »
^^^ MrFriday, that post is a treasure.  I for one really appreciate your investment in Christian theology - now being put to such good use  ;)

yeah it looks good, i'll have to read that book sometime XD

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #75 on: July 13, 2009, 12:25:28 PM »
^^^ MrFriday, that post is a treasure.  I for one really appreciate your investment in Christian theology - now being put to such good use  ;)

yeah it looks good, i'll have to read that book sometime XD

I hope you read it right away and very thoroughly. MrFriday brings a lot of great ideas to the board, and very knowledgeable in Christian theology. I hope you can take something positive away from what he had written.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline 13UnderTheGun

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #76 on: July 13, 2009, 01:24:31 PM »
^^^ MrFriday, that post is a treasure.  I for one really appreciate your investment in Christian theology - now being put to such good use  ;)

yeah it looks good, i'll have to read that book sometime XD

No Caro, why don't you just keep your head stuck down in the sand. It's ok, continue to be a drone with no independent thought or reasoning skills. Better yet, go read something written by Ken Ham instead.
The more we learn about the heavens, the more we realize that Heaven is imaginary.


LOOK GOD DOES EXIST AND IF U CANT SEE THAT THEN YOUR A STUPID RETARDED IDIOT WHO IS AN ATHIEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offline MrFriday

  • 100% Superstition Free
  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1522
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • To Question God
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #77 on: July 13, 2009, 01:28:52 PM »
^^^ MrFriday, that post is a treasure.  I for one really appreciate your investment in Christian theology - now being put to such good use  ;)

yeah it looks good, i'll have to read that book sometime XD
So are you saying that after I took all the time to watch the entire series of videos[1] and put a response together, you don't have a few minutes to read it? Weren't you complaining that people were dismissing your views without checking out what you posted? Are you being a teensy bit hypocritical?
 1. six parts totalling 29 minutes and 30 seconds
"Faith is believing in something you know isn't true" - Mark Twain

Offline Timtheskeptic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Darwins +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • atheist and loving it
    • atheist blogspot
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #78 on: July 13, 2009, 03:12:27 PM »
^^^ MrFriday, that post is a treasure.  I for one really appreciate your investment in Christian theology - now being put to such good use  ;)

yeah it looks good, i'll have to read that book sometime XD
So are you saying that after I took all the time to watch the entire series of videos[1] and put a response together, you don't have a few minutes to read it? Weren't you complaining that people were dismissing your views without checking out what you posted? Are you being a teensy bit hypocritical?
 1. six parts totalling 29 minutes and 30 seconds

Yes she is being hypocritical. ^__^
Me:What are you looking at Eminem?
Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #79 on: July 13, 2009, 08:10:51 PM »
She's read it, she just ain't got an answer.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #80 on: July 13, 2009, 08:13:34 PM »
It's sad. What a hypocrite. She came here complaining and basically begging people to listen to the videos and make a reply. But when someone does, she runs away.

--Sad  :'(
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline SimpleMan

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #81 on: July 13, 2009, 08:21:38 PM »
Ugh. I lose the will to even make an attempt when I see something like this.  :(

OP you could have just said:

"I saw your videos and almost became an atheist, but I was too scared of dying and don't want to hear about it anymore!"

You could have been honest, and humble, like your bible tells you to be, and then we wouldn't have had this problem.
I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father who loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #82 on: July 13, 2009, 10:06:59 PM »
maybe the person who made that video should understand that if 64% of people believe it, then "most" didn't leave it behind

Please explain to me why that thought was the reply you chose to provide after being given pages of text, comments, and minutes of video.  Was this your best effort, or even an effort at all?

I question your honesty.

[ no response from Carocrazy132 ]

So, I take it from your lack of response that you've got nothing?
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Timtheskeptic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Darwins +20/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • atheist and loving it
    • atheist blogspot
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #83 on: July 13, 2009, 10:10:11 PM »
It's sad. What a hypocrite. She came here complaining and basically begging people to listen to the videos and make a reply. But when someone does, she runs away.

--Sad  :'(

yes, sad and strange. pitiful really.
Me:What are you looking at Eminem?
Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

Offline Carocrazy

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #84 on: May 29, 2010, 03:28:00 PM »
Hello, I am the OP of this thread.
I know it's been a year but I searched back to find this thread because it seemed to be the most appropriate thing to do.

First and foremost: Thank you, thank you all.

After you guys started eating me alive with evidence and I could no longer sustain myself in the argument, I started saying dumb things to try to rationalize what you were asking.  I started searching the internet for a counterpoint to everything.  I gave up and left the forums, "It's okay, I still have my faith, just block them out." I thought, "Just because I Don't know the answer, doesn't mean no one does!".  I clang to my faith like a scared child to his teddy bear.  Well, as my preacher was saying things in church I noticed I kept thinking things made no sense.  The next few weeks I noticed I couldn't keep thinking about how illogical most of the stories were.  They all sounded like kids stories.  Then I realized they were made to be kids stories because they needed to capture people early.  That was the first time I was able to see Christianity from a real world view, the first time I was able to look at Christianity the way I look at everything else, the first time I was able to say "Why SHOULD I put my faith in this?".  In short, about 2 months after this threads last post was posted, I became a rational human being.  I still haven't gotten around to telling my parents however, due to the fact that my extended family is extremely religious and the thought of them thinking I'm not scares the crap out of me.

I am                                     , and thank you for showing me the truth.

[modbreak]Removed personal details[/modbreak]
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 03:54:55 PM by Moderator_A25 »
Religion is so easy to disprove you need not even look into the reasons it's wrong, the reason it claims it's RIGHT is enough.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3572
  • Darwins +113/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2010, 03:46:33 PM »
I am impressed that you returned and posted that!
If nothing else, you deserve respect for an admission of error.  One of the hardest things to admit for most people is that they just don't know the answer to things that they think they 'should' know.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Operator_A25

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1893
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: really? [#1558]
« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2010, 03:58:10 PM »
Carocrazy,

Thank you for your excellent post. I have edited it to remove your personal details, since we try to preserve anonymity for safety reasons. Good luck!

-A25
Former Global Moderator Account