Comments
3,141 - 3,160 of 5,221 Comments Last updated 35 min ago

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3307
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation is false. We know how the earth and everything around it came into existence.
The concept of a flat earth is false. God himself is quoted as saying that it is a circle (a circle being a literal circle - not a sphere).
Stationary earth claims. The Bible claims on various occasions that the Earth is held in place. This is not true, nor would being metaphorical about it convey any worthwhile message.
The Bible says that the moon gives off light. It does not. It reflects light.
The Bible says that snow and hail are "stored in the kingdom of God." Obviously, this is false. We know exactly how both form.
The Bible claims that the earth sits on 4 pillars. False.
The Bible claims that rabbits chew their cud. Also false.
The Bible claims that bats are birds. Once again - false.
You can see all of these and more at http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/errors.htm
I know and have read of many Scientists that are also Christians, some of whom are trying to prove that God exists since no one has proven that He doesn't. Creation and evolution are both still conclusively UNproven and therefore, still up for individual interpretation, it is possible that God created us with the 'evolution gene' just like the x men were born with the 'mutant gene'. As for your claims regarding the Bible, can you show me the passage that say bats are birds? Do you know what cud is? Yes, the moon reflects light, then gives it back, try it with a mirror go on. The Earth sits on 4 pillars, the Bible claims this just like that? Can you show me? From an actual Bible? Ta :)

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3308
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
We quote the Bible to examine
a) it's ridiculousness and
b) the hypocrisy of those who say they've read it.
At least - that's what I do. Can't speak for the person you're quoting.
I provided the quote, it's a well known one and I couldn't help but think of it regarding the hypocrisy of one judgemental person who calls themselves 'Christian'.

So often they forget their own book of rules.

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3309
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I was a Sunday School Teacher for 10 years. I sincerely regret the harm I did to those kids.
It may surprise you, dearie, but many atheists were once devout, tithing theists who spread the lies that some call 'good news'.
I'm sorry you feel that way.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3310
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
But that does not mean they don't exist.
Litteraly thousands of years of lack of empirical evidence seems to tilt the scales....and not in your favor.

Do you worship fairies, goblins and unicorns....if you don't, why not?

Why do you not use "Alice In Wonderland" as your holy book? Thousands upon thousands of deities have come and gone over the ages but thousands are still around. I believe in one less than you do.

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3311
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing the fundamental difference between my mother and God. My mother EXISTS, and I can prove she does.
I can prove that love exists, because we know what causes love: chemical reactions in the brain. Once again - no God needed. It's just not something I have the capability to prove to someone over the internet.
God, on the other hand, has no evidence. You have yet to give me any evidence, and have only tried to compare God to my mother, which is blatantly fallacious.
By the way, how is saying, "Believe in and love me or you'll go to hell," not a threat? An incredibly unjust one, at that. "YOU WILL BE PUNISHED INFINITELY FOR YOUR FINITE CRIMES!"
I did not compare God to your mother, I compared love to faith. Before you told me you can't prove love exists and the 'chemical reactions' you speak of, indicate lust, not love. No one has proven that God does not exist, theories are not proof, look it up, go on. Yes, punishment is usually a consequence of crime. That is why people get arrested for murder, theft etc...Many laws are based on the 10 Commandments. Tell me, do you have a degree in Science?

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3312
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided the quote, it's a well known one and I couldn't help but think of it regarding the hypocrisy of one judgemental person who calls themselves 'Christian'.
So often they forget their own book of rules.
That is a generalisation, do you personally know every Christian on the planet?

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3313
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Litteraly thousands of years of lack of empirical evidence seems to tilt the scales....and not in your favor.
Do you worship fairies, goblins and unicorns....if you don't, why not?
Why do you not use "Alice In Wonderland" as your holy book? Thousands upon thousands of deities have come and gone over the ages but thousands are still around. I believe in one less than you do.
I tried that, didn't work out for me personally, I can't speak for others. There is no conclusive proof either way, at this point it's all just a matter of opinion. Opinion is not evidence either. I'm sorry if you had bad experiences with Christianity but that doesn't make you an authority on every Christian or in the Bible you clearly do not believe in or understand. It also does not give you enough credibility to tell a Christian how to be a Christian. That's just my opinion anyway, which means less than nothing, but there's no need to get so worked up. Each to their own.
Peace <3

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3314
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
I know and have read of many Scientists that are also Christians, some of whom are trying to prove that God exists since no one has proven that He doesn't. Creation and evolution are both still conclusively UNproven and therefore, still up for individual interpretation, it is possible that God created us with the 'evolution gene' just like the x men were born with the 'mutant gene'. As for your claims regarding the Bible, can you show me the passage that say bats are birds? Do you know what cud is? Yes, the moon reflects light, then gives it back, try it with a mirror go on. The Earth sits on 4 pillars, the Bible claims this just like that? Can you show me? From an actual Bible? Ta :)
Evolution is fact. Go read a few biology books.

It is possible that God created us with the evolution gene - however, the Bible makes no mention of it. You are just speculating.

Leviticus 11:13-19 "And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind, every raven of any kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. "

Cud is slightly digested food which is regurgitated and swallowed a second time. Rabbits do not do this.

Reflection is completely different from shining.

1 Samuel 2:8 "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them," Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding," Job 38:6 "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?"

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3315
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a generalisation, do you personally know every Christian on the planet?
No, but I was once one of the flock and we all agreed wholeheartedly.

Then again, there are 38,000 sects of xtianity worldwide.

Do YOU know every single one of them??? Or would you prefer to generalize?

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3316
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Big Bang Theory is a theory, a theory is an educated guess, not a fact. Yes humans have evolved over but how we came to be is not proven.
<quoted text>
Cud.
There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.

Second, refection is a process whereby these animals pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the hares are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.

Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgitate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more while mixing it with saliva.

So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.http://www.tektonics.or g/af/cudchewers.html

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.(See also Deut. 14:11, 18)
Is there a biological error here? Aren't bats mammals, not birds?

Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).

It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

Foundations of the Earth are the Lords means the Lord built the Earth, the Bible is not to be taken literally, it's a spiritual text, but it's cool you just don't get the point at all. The corner stone is Jesus Christ. Many passages are written in analogies and parables or riddles.

Keep reading the Bible, it's good for you even if you don't understand it. The moral of the story is?

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3317
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but I was once one of the flock and we all agreed wholeheartedly.
Then again, there are 38,000 sects of xtianity worldwide.
Do YOU know every single one of them??? Or would you prefer to generalize?
No not at all. Where have I generalised? You don't know me and yet you clump me with your views, which I find to be untrue of myself and my 'flock' as well as many others I do know. It's 41000 now by the way.
<3

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3318
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
I tried that, didn't work out for me personally, I can't speak for others. There is no conclusive proof either way, at this point it's all just a matter of opinion. Opinion is not evidence either. I'm sorry if you had bad experiences with Christianity but that doesn't make you an authority on every Christian or in the Bible you clearly do not believe in or understand. It also does not give you enough credibility to tell a Christian how to be a Christian. That's just my opinion anyway, which means less than nothing, but there's no need to get so worked up. Each to their own.
Peace <3
You're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say I had a 'bad experience' quite the contrary, I had an enlightening experience. You do not know how much I understand or how little, you are again projecting yourself on others.

I studied the bible very hard for 20 years and that is precisely why I no longer believe.

You are right about opinions, I'll give you that quite easily. The bottom line however is that your opinions are completely unfounded. Meanwhile, mine are backed up by total lack of empirical proof(over thousands of years, the inconsistancies of your bible and the lack of cohesion amongst you), your warm, fuzzy feelings notwithstanding.

If that's worked up, so be it. I can certainly understand the pull of that 'eternal life' hook, I was in it's grasp for a long time. I can also understand the yearning for fairness. The good are rewarded and the meanies are punished, everything neat and tidy.

It seems yours works for you and mine works for me.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3319
Jan 2, 2013
 
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I assure you, I do not.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3320
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Juicylu wrote:
The Big Bang Theory is a theory, a theory is an educated guess, not a fact. Yes humans have evolved over but how we came to be is not proven.
<quoted text>
Cud.
There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.
Second, refection is a process whereby these animals pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the hares are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.
Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgitate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more while mixing it with saliva.
So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.http://www.tektonics.or g/af/cudchewers.html
Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.(See also Deut. 14:11, 18)
Is there a biological error here? Aren't bats mammals, not birds?
Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).
It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html
Foundations of the Earth are the Lords means the Lord built the Earth, the Bible is not to be taken literally, it's a spiritual text, but it's cool you just don't get the point at all. The corner stone is Jesus Christ. Many passages are written in analogies and parables or riddles.
Keep reading the Bible, it's good for you even if you don't understand it. The moral of the story is?
You are using the wrong form of the word "theory"

Scientific theory is, to put it brutally simply, something that accurately explains how something works. The theory of Evolution explains how evolution works. Evolution is still a fact.

Animals that "chew their cud" are generally agreed to be animals that vomit and re-eat already partially digested food. Every animal the Bible lists as animals that chew their cud do this... except rabbits.

The point of what I am saying is that the Bible IS wrong. Many people say that the KJV Bible is the "perfect" English translation because it is first. Unfortunately, if we go by that (or even later translations) the Bible is demonstrably false.

You can copy and paste Christian propaganda all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible was written by people whose understanding of the world was no different than the other cultures in the area at the time, which means the Bible is NOT INERRANT.

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3321
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
You're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say I had a 'bad experience' quite the contrary, I had an enlightening experience. You do not know how much I understand or how little, you are again projecting yourself on others.
I studied the bible very hard for 20 years and that is precisely why I no longer believe.
You are right about opinions, I'll give you that quite easily. The bottom line however is that your opinions are completely unfounded. Meanwhile, mine are backed up by total lack of empirical proof(over thousands of years, the inconsistancies of your bible and the lack of cohesion amongst you), your warm, fuzzy feelings notwithstanding.
If that's worked up, so be it. I can certainly understand the pull of that 'eternal life' hook, I was in it's grasp for a long time. I can also understand the yearning for fairness. The good are rewarded and the meanies are punished, everything neat and tidy.
It seems yours works for you and mine works for me.
That's so sad but ok, your last sentence made sense. Each to their own, indeed. You go on judging and I'll go on praying for you and others like you.
Blessings <3

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3322
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
You are using the wrong form of the word "theory"
Scientific theory is, to put it brutally simply, something that accurately explains how something works. The theory of Evolution explains how evolution works. Evolution is still a fact.
Animals that "chew their cud" are generally agreed to be animals that vomit and re-eat already partially digested food. Every animal the Bible lists as animals that chew their cud do this... except rabbits.
The point of what I am saying is that the Bible IS wrong. Many people say that the KJV Bible is the "perfect" English translation because it is first. Unfortunately, if we go by that (or even later translations) the Bible is demonstrably false.
You can copy and paste Christian propaganda all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible was written by people whose understanding of the world was no different than the other cultures in the area at the time, which means the Bible is NOT INERRANT.
Ask a Scientist what the word Theory means in the Scientific community. You have no credibility.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3324
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask a Scientist what the word Theory means in the Scientific community. You have no credibility.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Theories explain facts, laws, and so on. The theory of gravity explains how gravity works. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works. The big bang theory explains how the big bang happened.

You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3326
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
No not at all. Where have I generalised? You don't know me and yet you clump me with your views, which I find to be untrue of myself and my 'flock' as well as many others I do know. It's 41000 now by the way.
<3
Thanks for the update, the times they are achangin'.

Post 3304# "it's just futile to judge something that you don't understand."

Here, you clump atheists into your own neat little cubby so you can dismiss at will.

You also equate faith with love as something that cannot be proven.
Let's elucidate:

Faith: 1.Com plete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Synonyms

belief - trust - confidence - credence - credit

Love:

Noun - An intense feeling of deep affection: "their love for their country".

Verb - Feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone): "do you love me?".

Synonyms
noun.
affection - fondness - darling - passion

verb.
like - be fond of - fancy - adore

So, it would seem that faith is a belief and love is a feeling, what think you?

For instance, you compare faith to love when one can plainly see that they are two completely different things. This is also called Association Fallacy, eg.

"An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion."

Also, in your original post you plainly dismissed 'brain chemistry' as only lust....yet when you read the definition of love, sexual attraction IS part of the definition.

I'll agree that anologies can be useful to help one understand an abstract thought or concrete reality....they can also be used for obsfucation purposes. Just some random thoughts here.

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

jill hart photography

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3327
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Theories explain facts, laws, and so on. The theory of gravity explains how gravity works. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works. The big bang theory explains how the big bang happened.
You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Now that's funny!!!! LMPCSAO!!!!
Danzig

Brämhult, Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3328
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Theories explain facts, laws, and so on. The theory of gravity explains how gravity works. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works. The big bang theory explains how the big bang happened.
You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Not at all. Science is based on the observation and discovery of the physical reality, and it's science as long as it stays there. When science tries to enter the field of the inner reality and our origin, then it's no longer science, but has turned into something else. I have a background within science. Alkuajatus is definitely not science and definitely not a belief.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

520 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 min Buck Crick 224,039
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Stilgar Fifrawi 720,282
SIGN of the end-times: the spread of homosexuality 6 min PDX Dave 27
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 7 min Vinod S 4,551
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Liam 532,456
I Say A Little Prayer 11 min Jenji 3
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 15 min USA-1 114,981
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 hr Clearwater 172,271
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 16 hr John 53
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••