Recent Posts

21

General Religious Discussion / Re: Skeptic, do satan and or demons fear god?

« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:42:02 PM »

You guys are simply just not understanding.

God sees everything (past, present, future) all at once. So to God, Satan is simultaneously starting armageddon and also simultaneously not starting it. But, from our viewpoint it just looks like Satan didn't make his decision yet. But, In God's eyes Satan did make the decision already.

You have to just stop looking at things as if human minds are the only way God can see things.

22

General Religious Discussion / Re: Evolution of the bible. (skeptic, jst, luk)

« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:36:54 PM »

and what does it prove about the maker of the manses, stubborner & eviler surely we cannot possess these attributes in greater quantity than from we came??

it's simple free will. Worship and follow God, and He'll be by your side.
Turn your back on God, He will turn His back on you.

Do you really expect you to be able to turn your back on God and still have God do all these things for you and not care? That would be a pushover. Try that attitude with your boss at work and see how quickly the boss turns his back on you and sends you out the door.

23

Evolution & Creationism / Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...

« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:32:30 PM »

See? This is where evolution becomes unbelievable. All of these species all with different features and nobody has any clue as to why these new features would even start evolving. Think of all the different features of all the sea creatures. Yet, they all live in the ocean. The ocean is the ocean, so what factors influenced those creatures to start evolving all these traits willy-nilly?

Who says that "nobody has any clue"?  I certainly didn't.  I said that I didn't know for sure, and that's because I'm not an evolutionary biologist (and thus don't have the in-depth knowledge to be able to give a reasonably definite answer).  You should probably avoid overstating your case like this, as it makes your argument quite unbelievable.

For example, you say "the ocean is the ocean", yet...is a beach going to support the same kind of life which can live in the open sea?  Is shallow, warm water going to support the same kind of life as frigidly-cold water three miles down?  What about water one mile down?  What about areas with coral reefs (which create habitats for different organisms than live in other shallows)?  You act as if the ocean is going to be the same everywhere, but it's clearly not.  Even in areas which have approximately the same conditions, there's going to be differences simply due to divergence (organisms developing differently in different areas)

Speaking of evolution, what makes you think that traits develop willy-nilly?  Traits appear in a population over time due to mutations, but it's the local conditions in ecological niches that determine if those traits allow an organism to prosper or make it more likely to die out.  For example, an organism which has a thick fur coat and thick blubber to survive sub-zero winter temperatures would not last long in tropical or sub-tropical areas, so mutations which favor those traits will not prosper.

The forest is the forest so why did gorillas turn black while the orangutan is practically redish/orangeish?

Same problem as above.  What makes you think "the forest is the forest"?  It isn't, any more than "the ocean is the ocean".  Even biologists who don't work with evolution at all would recognize the fallacy of this assumption of yours.

This is where we get down to the tough questions.

Hardly tough, not if you've studied ecosystems at all.  I get the impression that, like many Americans, you just have a vague general idea of things that are outside your own personal life experience.  The problem is, you can't draw accurate conclusions from such general assumptions, especially when your assumptions aren't based on actual data in the first place.

Well, that makes some sense. perhaps I was a tad bit mistaken and a bit hasty with the post.

I still have a hard time believing in evolution, but at least you made it sound a bit more understandable.

24

General Religious Discussion / Re: Evolution of the bible. (skeptic, jst, luk)

« Last post by eh! on Yesterday at 11:30:00 PM »

All of that happened because man doesn't care about God. They do their own thing. People don't care if God was right in front of their faces. They would still rebel.

Your statement only proves (and shows) how stubborn, stupid, and evil man can truly be.

and what does it prove about the maker of the manses, stubborner & eviler surely we cannot possess these attributes in greater quantity than from we came??

25

General Religious Discussion / Re: Beginning of the end!!

« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:29:07 PM »

Septic, 

Again, explain the scientific meathod used to prove Gen 39:37-39:

(37) Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.

(38) Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,

(39) they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

And while you're at it, go ahead and explain the scientific proncipals behind the cleansing ritual from Leviticus 14's "law of the leper".

That verse is not an instruction though. It just says that it happened. Perhaps god did that.

You guys haven't even touched on Genesis 17:12 and how it wasn't discovered until 1935 why circumcision on the 8th day was the best for the baby. Yet, it was in the Bible all along. there really is no skirting around that one.

26

General Religious Discussion / Re: Atheists, How Did Christianity Start?

« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:17:25 PM »

skeptic54768, in your own words, what does Occam's razor state?

Still waiting for an answer to this.

He didn't answer but I think it's this...   "The first blade shaves incredibly close, the second even closer, the third, forth, fifth and sixth blades shave down to the cellular level, and the seventh blade shaves to the atomic level."

Buy Occam's Razor, for the closest shave in the universe.*

*Occam's Razor is not liable for bankruptcy caused by buying the $440 replacement cartridges.

i know what it says. it says that the simplest explanation with the least amount of assumptions is probably correct. To deny the resurrection is to make tons more assumptions as to what happened with the body than to simply say "He rose."

27

General Religious Discussion / Re: Evolution of the bible. (skeptic, jst, luk)

« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:15:19 PM »

Bonus question a little off topic but I think it still ties in.  I think we all can agree that Polytheism existed prior to moses.  So following the bible story how does a world where a giant flood wipes out all but 8 people, they spawn a thriving Egyptian culture steeped in hundreds of years of polytheism with Israelites also being polytheists.  All this happens in 700 years with Noah only dead 400 years.  When did polytheism take over the world completely ?  Between when Noah actually had conversations with god, the world was destroyed  8 people spawned millions a polytheistic culture of Egyptians was able to form and enslave 2 million israelites.  When did the world have time to forget about the one true god and need a refresher course?

All of that happened because man doesn't care about God. They do their own thing. People don't care if God was right in front of their faces. They would still rebel.

Your statement only proves (and shows) how stubborn, stupid, and evil man can truly be.

28

General Religious Discussion / Re: Why [God] made me with a fallible brain?

« Last post by ParkingPlaces on Yesterday at 10:07:03 PM »

Do you not understand that, if the story is true, in Eden, there was no wrong prior to the consumption of the fruit. Hence A&E had no experience to base decisions on. That god told them not to do something must have been very strange to them.

The story is told as a great moral lesson. But to people who already know the basics. A&E could not know what wrong was, because until they did it, wrong didn't exist.

I disagree. "Wrong" existed before the creation of the Eden, it was "created" by Satan. God telling them "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die." proves something, right?

Which means that A&E were made sinners by satan prior to their doing the wrong thing, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to. And your god was an accomplice, coming up with a rule without explaining what a rule was, telling them "no" when they had no idea what that mean, etc. So we humans are the fall guys for the god/satan dichotomy, and we're the ones that cook while they sit around over beers laughing at our plight.

I made that last part up. But that's okay, because religion made up the first part.

29

Religion & Society / Re: Satanic Temple seeks Hobby Lobby-style exemption

« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on Yesterday at 09:43:38 PM »

lol Mr B....

Are you saying that in the case of abortion, fundy asshats should have a right to proselytize their belief system on women?

Not at all. All I am saying is that abortion is a medical procedure and that I can't think of any medical procedures that do not come with counseling and written material about the procedure. So I have no idea what the fuck the Satanic Temple  is actually complaining about.

30

Chatter / Re: Why do some (most?) people think fun means (exclusively) sex, drugs, and so on?

« Last post by jynnan tonnix on Yesterday at 09:03:54 PM »

Oops, sow, sew, how one letter can change the meaning, or a big …What?

I wish I acted more like my younger brother, although I saw much more of the world. He had a 25 year long party.  I used to tell him, are ya done yet?  Sowing that is.. With my accent, it sounds like sewing. So naturally I would spell it that way with no regard to the reader. 
 

It sounds the same no matter the accent, I think. I've never come across anyone who pronounces them differently (though I don't suppose I've heard everyone I know say both words). Easy mistake to make. The only reason I corrected it was because OAA didn't seem familiar with the expression.