Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#3447 Jan 3, 2013
I once saw Castro fall over on the news.
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Who has ever seen a red shift anyway?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3448 Jan 3, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The red shift does not qualify as “extra ordinary” evidence.
Why would we need extraordinary evidence for "things are moving"?
Jeff wrote:
Who has ever seen a red shift anyway?
Tons of scientists. And virtually everyone has heard the audio equivalent when a fire truck has passed them.
Jeff wrote:
No one i have ever met or read has ever observed one specie changing into another.
Well I just gave you a link to some resources, so now you have.
Jeff wrote:
I didn't say it was impossible
Yes, you did. You said what he did was "impossible by military standards".
Jeff wrote:
but that if you compare what Alexander had with some of the armies he faced he should not have won. There is no “extra ordinary” evidence that shows why he won.
Give me an example. Which battle?
Jeff wrote:
If people want to demand that Christians have “extra ordinary” evidence for their beliefs then we will insist the same principle applies to other claims in science and history. What we have seen is that many scientific and historical claims cannot live up to this principle either.
You haven't shown one yet.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3449 Jan 3, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no doubt that millions of people's lives are improved when they follow the teachings of Christ. Those who are screwing up the world are not following the teachings of Christ.
What wisdom do you live by?
ANOTHER good JOKE!!!

About 85% of the US is Christian, so rather than face the fact that it's you Christians causing all the wars, murders, drug usage, hate crimes, and on, and on, and on... You try blaming it all on the small 15%.

But your JOKE aside, you totally avoided the point "pearl" made. You always seem to do that, why?
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#3450 Jan 4, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim that the "universe is ever-expanding" is a claim that requires extraordinary proof since it something that is never observed in our world. You didnt give any evidence for it. By your criteria you are not justified in believing because it fails the “extraordinary evidence” principle.
Every time you stand on a street corner and listen to the cars passing by you experience the “Doppler Effect” also known as the “red shift’ in relation light waves. The sound waves produced by the cars as they approach you sound higher pitched than the sound of the cars moving away from you. The light waves from objects moving toward us appear as shorter light waves (blue) than light waves from objects moving away (red) from us.

Read a science book!

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#3451 Jan 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you stand on a street corner and listen to the cars passing by you experience the “Doppler Effect” also known as the “red shift’ in relation light waves. The sound waves produced by the cars as they approach you sound higher pitched than the sound of the cars moving away from you. The light waves from objects moving toward us appear as shorter light waves (blue) than light waves from objects moving away (red) from us.
Read a science book!
Jeff has no intention of reading anything that isn't sanctioned by his fundie religion, if he even reads that. He thinks, because he is ignorant, the rest of humanity is.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3452 Jan 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you stand on a street corner and listen to the cars passing by you experience the “Doppler Effect” also known as the “red shift’ in relation light waves. The sound waves produced by the cars as they approach you sound higher pitched than the sound of the cars moving away from you. The light waves from objects moving toward us appear as shorter light waves (blue) than light waves from objects moving away (red) from us.
Read a science book!
Science books are not written in the format that fundies can understand.

They need to be changed to something like:

And behold! As thou standeth on a street corner and harken to the cars passing by thou experience your Lord's “Doppler Effect” also beknown as the sacred “red shift’ in relation to the angels of light. The sound waves that proceedith from the Lord by the chariots of iron as they approach thou sound higher pitched than the sound of the chariots of iron moving away from thou. The angels of light from objects moving toward thou appear as shorter angels of light (blue) than angels of light from objects moving away (red) from thou.

Read a science book saith the Lord thy God!!!

“The Topix Legend of "GS"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#3453 Jan 4, 2013
-The Star Reborn- wrote:
<quoted text>
Science books are not written in the format that fundies can understand.
They need to be changed to something like:
And behold! As thou standeth on a street corner and harken to the cars passing by thou experience your Lord's “Doppler Effect” also beknown as the sacred “red shift’ in relation to the angels of light. The sound waves that proceedith from the Lord by the chariots of iron as they approach thou sound higher pitched than the sound of the chariots of iron moving away from thou. The angels of light from objects moving toward thou appear as shorter angels of light (blue) than angels of light from objects moving away (red) from thou.
Read a science book saith the Lord thy God!!!
Excellent example of your behavior on the Christian forum. No wonder you have to have multiple accounts. The more I read the more concerned I become about the extent of your brain damage.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3454 Jan 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
The proper cliche you're looking for is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
That is not a rule of logic.More of a rhetorical device. Besides, if God exists then resurrection is not an extraordinary claim since God creates life from dirt.
Christianity makes extraordinary claims and doesn't back them up, so they should be rejected by any rational person.
Then the so-called rational person has to explain the origin of life absent intelligence. Atheism rules out God and makes fixed naturalistic assumptions about all places at all times
Impossible standards? They're the same standards that YOU apply to everything other than your religion.
No not really.
The burden is on believers to prove such an event happened, not on skeptics to disprove it.
The burden is on the person making the claim. There is a good historical case for resurrection. Ehrman states he does not know what happened after Jesus died.
&fe ature=related
Actually, naturalistic arguments are very effective because supernatural claims haven't been validated. They have the worst track record in the world.
Supernatural claims are rare. Jesus is historical. Hostile accounts have Jesus down as a sorcerer so neither hostile or friendly deny supernatural events as it relates to Jesus.
If I told you I could fly like Superman, you'd think that was BS until you saw some damn good evidence of it. Why? Because people don't fly like Superman.
Right.
It doesn't add any weight; it's a cultural phenomenon that primitive peoples have used to explain the world. Why is there lightning? Angry god! Why do our crops grow? Happy goddess!
That is dismissive. All of human history believes God in one form or another. Many rely on God for ultimate justice. Humans have a sense of justice where wrongdoers have to give account. If wrongdoers escape human justice then they will not escape justice from God. People escape human justice every day and others a victimized by criminals. Women are raped, others are murdered, innocents suffer, etc. There is injustice everywhere. That is why Christians attempt to right the wrongs of their past when they convert. They make amends. Stop doing destructive things etc. If no God, then there is not ultimate justice. Both criminal and victim end up in the ground and that is it. So why try and make amends?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3455 Jan 5, 2013
Gillette wrote:
C'mon, you are smarter than this.
Take the Documentary Hypothesis, for example. Modern translating and text analysis skills of the last century have now given scholars the ability to pull apart the 4 strands of different author's stories in the Pentateuch, plus the later anachronisms, which would seem to argue against one author of that time, i.e. Moses.
So what does academia do with this knowledge? Ignore, it? Sit on it? Say, no this is different from what our parents and pastors taught us, do it must be wrong?
Scholars follow the textual and historical clues wherever they lead. Christian apologists work another agenda and will say pretty much anything to defend the received truth or interpretation that has been passed to them.
As far as Bible prophecies, what is wrong with making the intelligent observation that many of the scriptures that have Jesus fulfilling prophecies or foreshadowings were written AFTER Jesus by men working a positive agenda to promote Jesus and his Messiahship or divinity -- i.e. people who WANTED TO SHOW JESUS fulfilling prophecy?
Why should that not be taken into consideration? How is that setting an "impossible standard' for prophecy?
They have no real proof and their conclusion effectually states Christian primary sources was a scam or a contrived hoax. Essentially a lie whereas they write about fall of Jerusalem after the fact and make it appear it was before the fact. There is no ancient precident which exposes the alleged hoax. All you have is a conspiracy theory with no ancient evidence to back any of it. It would be like writing about the fall of Nazi Germany now and then back dating it to the 1930s and writing about it as a future event. Gospel accounts has destruction of Temple as a future event.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#3456 Jan 5, 2013
-The Star Reborn- wrote:
<quoted text>
Science books are not written in the format that fundies can understand.
They need to be changed to something like:
And behold! As thou standeth on a street corner and harken to the cars passing by thou experience your Lord's “Doppler Effect” also beknown as the sacred “red shift’ in relation to the angels of light. The sound waves that proceedith from the Lord by the chariots of iron as they approach thou sound higher pitched than the sound of the chariots of iron moving away from thou. The angels of light from objects moving toward thou appear as shorter angels of light (blue) than angels of light from objects moving away (red) from thou.
Read a science book saith the Lord thy God!!!
Nice job!
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#3457 Jan 5, 2013
-The Star Reborn- wrote:
<quoted text>
Science books are not written in the format that fundies can understand.
They need to be changed to something like:
And behold! As thou standeth on a street corner and harken to the cars passing by thou experience your Lord's “Doppler Effect” also beknown as the sacred “red shift’ in relation to the angels of light. The sound waves that proceedith from the Lord by the chariots of iron as they approach thou sound higher pitched than the sound of the chariots of iron moving away from thou. The angels of light from objects moving toward thou appear as shorter angels of light (blue) than angels of light from objects moving away (red) from thou.
Read a science book saith the Lord thy God!!!
I have noticed that many fundamentalist Christians seem to think that “God”, Jesus and the Apostles all “spake” Middle English.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#3458 Jan 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That is not a rule of logic.More of a rhetorical device. Besides, if God exists then resurrection is not an extraordinary claim since God creates life from dirt. <quoted text> Then the so-called rational person has to explain the origin of life absent intelligence. Atheism rules out God and makes fixed naturalistic assumptions about all places at all times
<quoted text> No not really.
<quoted text> The burden is on the person making the claim. There is a good historical case for resurrection. Ehrman states he does not know what happened after Jesus died.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =p2w6G5i6Y0AXX&feature=rel ated
<quoted text> Supernatural claims are rare. Jesus is historical. Hostile accounts have Jesus down as a sorcerer so neither hostile or friendly deny supernatural events as it relates to Jesus.
<quoted text> Right.
<quoted text> That is dismissive. All of human history believes God in one form or another. Many rely on God for ultimate justice. Humans have a sense of justice where wrongdoers have to give account. If wrongdoers escape human justice then they will not escape justice from God. People escape human justice every day and others a victimized by criminals. Women are raped, others are murdered, innocents suffer, etc. There is injustice everywhere. That is why Christians attempt to right the wrongs of their past when they convert. They make amends. Stop doing destructive things etc. If no God, then there is not ultimate justice. Both criminal and victim end up in the ground and that is it. So why try and make amends?
Im only going to focus on one thing here. This; "Atheism rules out God and makes fixed naturalistic assumptions about all places at all times."

You were only correct in this part; "Atheism rules out God..."
The rest of the sentence is incorrect. Atheism stops at a very specific line. There is no God. Period. It makes no other assumptions, assertions or claims.

You folks have to stop lumping the atheism conclusion regarding what Religions say about an existence of a God - and what the many diverse fields of the Sciences do.

As an Atheist all I need pay attention to is what Religions say, period. I dont have to adopt any other POV, be it scientific or other...because my conclusions about what Religions say are not based on what Science says about the natural world.

Certainly some atheists may go down that path...but its not a requirement of disbelief. There is no doctrine-dogma of disbelief.

I wholly doubt what Religions say, not what science says and how that contrasts with what Religions say. I dont have to ponder on why the Universe, our world exists, or how life started and grew, etc, etc...
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#3459 Jan 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I have noticed that many fundamentalist Christians seem to think that “God”, Jesus and the Apostles all “spake” Middle English.
You mean Jesus wasn't a tall, blue-eyed, blondish haired man of Northern European descent?
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#3460 Jan 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That is not a rule of logic.More of a rhetorical device. Besides, if God exists then resurrection is not an extraordinary claim since God creates life from dirt. <quoted text> Then the so-called rational person has to explain the origin of life absent intelligence. Atheism rules out God and makes fixed naturalistic assumptions about all places at all times
<quoted text> No not really.
<quoted text> The burden is on the person making the claim. There is a good historical case for resurrection. Ehrman states he does not know what happened after Jesus died.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =p2w6G5i6Y0AXX&feature=rel ated
<quoted text> Supernatural claims are rare. Jesus is historical. Hostile accounts have Jesus down as a sorcerer so neither hostile or friendly deny supernatural events as it relates to Jesus.
<quoted text> Right.
<quoted text> That is dismissive. All of human history believes God in one form or another. Many rely on God for ultimate justice. Humans have a sense of justice where wrongdoers have to give account. If wrongdoers escape human justice then they will not escape justice from God. People escape human justice every day and others a victimized by criminals. Women are raped, others are murdered, innocents suffer, etc. There is injustice everywhere. That is why Christians attempt to right the wrongs of their past when they convert. They make amends. Stop doing destructive things etc. If no God, then there is not ultimate justice. Both criminal and victim end up in the ground and that is it. So why try and make amends?
Make amends? Really? After conversion?

So basically now they are shamed into asking for forgiveness - how not enlightened is that?

And what about the many more who are raised in the faith and are still intolerant, abusive jerks?

And ULTIMATE JUSTICE is perhaps one of the most specious and weakest of reasons to believe in your God any one can conjure. Especially in light of the FACT that someone can seek forgiveness on their death bed...and POOF! No more Hell!

The true attraction about Ultimate Justice, is that it excites the Believer to think that their enemies will be toasted for eternity. Its the revenge fantasy that is so attractive, nothing else.

Plus if you're behaving out of fear of punishment - you just negated all of Proty doctrine. Not being bad for fear of punishment is not what enlightens anyone...its just fear of the whip...and we know how that really works with both Humans and animals.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3461 Jan 5, 2013
Punisher wrote:
Im only going to focus on one thing here. This; "Atheism rules out God and makes fixed naturalistic assumptions about all places at all times."
You were only correct in this part; "Atheism rules out God..."
The rest of the sentence is incorrect. Atheism stops at a very specific line. There is no God. Period. It makes no other assumptions, assertions or claims.
Atheism assumes death means extinction. Humans have no souls. Rights are derived from men, not God. Humans are only physical.
You folks have to stop lumping the atheism conclusion regarding what Religions say about an existence of a God - and what the many diverse fields of the Sciences do.
Since science is neutral on God it does not validate atheism.
As an Atheist all I need pay attention to is what Religions say, period. I dont have to adopt any other POV, be it scientific or other...because my conclusions about what Religions say are not based on what Science says about the natural world.
Certainly some atheists may go down that path...but its not a requirement of disbelief. There is no doctrine-dogma of disbelief.
I wholly doubt what Religions say, not what science says and how that contrasts with what Religions say. I dont have to ponder on why the Universe, our world exists, or how life started and grew, etc, etc...
All that is your choice and at the end of the day you are either right or wrong. Your last sentence says it all. Things your atheism cannot answer is not to be thought about.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3462 Jan 5, 2013
Punisher wrote:
Make amends? Really? After conversion?
So basically now they are shamed into asking for forgiveness - how not enlightened is that?
If i cheat you then i should feel shame. Shame serves a purpose.
And what about the many more who are raised in the faith and are still intolerant, abusive jerks?
It is a growth process. Christians are called to hate sin and love sinners and when they speak out against sin they are accused of all sorts of things. In other words tolerance only applies if the Christian also accepts the habitual sin. Habitual sin damages people and puts them in jeopardy with God. If the sin involvers partners then the effect is on others also. If i really cared about that female, would i really try to seduce her outside of marriage? Put her in a position where she has to answer to God? No, i would not.
And ULTIMATE JUSTICE is perhaps one of the most specious and weakest of reasons to believe in your God any one can conjure. Especially in light of the FACT that someone can seek forgiveness on their death bed...and POOF! No more Hell!
Well you have one weak precident for that. The thief on the cross. But he was already under a severe form of human justice.
The true attraction about Ultimate Justice, is that it excites the Believer to think that their enemies will be toasted for eternity. Its the revenge fantasy that is so attractive, nothing else.
Not really. It incites me to do what i know is right. God will deal with the others. Besides, we are not to judge people who wrong us. Not to hate them. By our standard of measure it will be measured out. That was the defect of the Pharisees. They thought they were more righteous than others.
Plus if you're behaving out of fear of punishment - you just negated all of Proty doctrine. Not being bad for fear of punishment is not what enlightens anyone...its just fear of the whip...and we know how that really works with both Humans and animals.
Proty doctrine? Your description is one dimensional. People do right things out of love, for example, there is compassion. If a person is committed to God then they want to do things which are pleasing to Him. If they love each other or are basically good then they naturally want to help others whenever and however they can.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#3463 Jan 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>

1. Atheism assumes death means extinction. Humans have no souls.
2. Rights are derived from men, not God. Humans are only physical.
<quoted text>
3. Since science is neutral on God it does not validate atheism.
<quoted text>
4.All that is your choice and at the end of the day you are either right or wrong.
5.Your last sentence says it all. Things your atheism cannot answer is not to be thought about.
Aye, aye, aye...stop adding things. Read what is written.

1. Not true for all atheists. Many Atheists I know have adopted a personal POV re; the alleged existence of a soul, and its purpose, etc. No one OWNS the idea, no one belief system has ownership on the concepts and philosophies surrounding the unproven, separate entity we call a soul.

Stop defining what YOU Know nothing about.

2. For some. Not all.

The point is that Religions make many claims about Humans, that they reject because they gild them with all sorts of unproven supernatural nonsense. I dont care if Xtians use strict science or not - if they could only prove their claims of super beings and magic. Do it. Dont claim it, prove it.

What we experience is physical...no matter how you dress it up its still all physical.

Rights are Human made. Rights are enforced by humankind and they are altered and shifted as various cultures progress and "civilize" themselves...while some fall backwards at times. Rights are still just an ehtereal concept..there is no actual subtance to them that we can hold in our hands and say, "See here, this is a right!" As we know in the US many people define "pursuit of happiness" very differently than others...there is great debate about what are rights and what are not within the parameters of the Constitution. Clearly they are not Black and White.

3. Right, but it helps many people figure their way thru all the absurd and unproven claims of Religions. If Religions say X and science can prove or disprove it...that helps many people.

Study of the natural world in fact keeps proving to me that the Religious explanations are just so weak to be off the table for consideration any longer. IMO. Sciences didnt decide my atheism, it now merely provides more support for my conclusions. But Religions still do the heavy lifting of my disbelief. What they say is what keeps my disbelief in good standing. Most especially what the current crop of American Xtians say.

5. No, no, no. Dont add things that are not there. What I said is that I dont HAVE TO consider these Big Q's. No one really has to, they choose to. But no one HAS TO...do you get it?

My lack of belief in your or any God/s doesnt force me to find other answers. I might seek them, but I am not forced to.

I dont spend my days wondering how life began...I spend them in the more parochial pursuits of normal life. My family, my work, my pleasures, my outreach, etc...how life started is irrelevant to most of our lives.

And for the love of your God stop trying to define what an Atheist and what Atheism is - you dont have a clue. You rely on Xtian propaganda. Atheism is not an umbrella under which people gather and make rules and regulations about Beliefs. Its but a decision about what Religions say. Period.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#3464 Jan 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If i cheat you then i should feel shame. Shame serves a purpose.
Yet we know that many people can not feel/experience shame. Or empathy, etc. They are wired not to. Physically.

What if you cheat me to teach me a lesson? Should you feel shame?
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#3465 Jan 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<q.
<quoted text> It is a growth process. Christians are called to hate sin and love sinners and when they speak out against sin they are accused of all sorts of things. In other words tolerance only applies if the Christian also accepts the habitual sin. Habitual sin damages people and puts them in jeopardy with God. If the sin involvers partners then the effect is on others also. If i really cared about that female, would i really try to seduce her outside of marriage? Put her in a position where she has to answer to God? No, i would not..
yeah but I would say the bulk of Xtians grow very little. But thats my POV. It would take more space than we have here to explain it in detail. But suffice to say, Xtianity in its current forms in the US is not about spiritual growth at all - its about being right on doctrine, about protecting an icon of worship, the Bible, and about making personal claims of absolute salvation.

But this "hate the sin, love the sinners" rap is laughable. History tells us a very contradictory story. "Love" (please define that term, would you?) has hardly been the approach of Xtian-dom towards those deemed sinners.

Our society, our system of government, etc is not an altar of worship.

Yeah society has to learn to tolerate various personal choices of the individuals as long as they dont truly and provably threaten the whole. And the "things" that American Xtianity is obsessed over right now DO NOT threaten the Whole. Plus, our society is ntot concerned with Sin, or how it might concern Your POV about a GOD. Thats for the individuals who believe to deal with. Not Society. We are not the Biblical Israel, or the New Israel, or the new Eden in any shape or form.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#3466 Jan 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<
<quoted text> Well you have one weak precident for that. The thief on the cross. But he was already under a severe form of human justice.
<.
explain this precedent and what you mean.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 9 min Huntington Guy 17,259
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? (Jun '14) 22 min messianic114 4,711
Christians mentally block out this verse. 45 min witchie poo 23
The Dumbest Creationist on Earth 58 min passerby 119
Is Paul a false Apostle? (Sep '13) 1 hr tahoegirl 1,869
I am not a human. 1 hr hmmmmm 34
What will Eden be like? 1 hr Believer 1
Why doesn't God let its believers know who has ... 2 hr dollarsbill 575
Let's talk about God's definition of love 2 hr dollarsbill 446