Bartholomew Oglethorpe

United States

#622677 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Um... Ok.
Of course you wouldn't think so. You've been ruined by Christianity.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622678 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No dude, the reverse *example* is.
<quoted text>
An I out there campaigning to stop a gay marriage? No.
Am I out there trying to teach your kids that God is good and atheists are evil and stupid? No.
Am I out there plastering banners on buses saying "There probably is a God"? No.
Am I out there trying to remove your atheist symbols from graveyards? No.
Am I out there telling your daughter she cannot have an abortion? No.
What the F_CK are you talking about?!??!
Responding to this again, since I "dodged" it.

What you said has absolutely nothing to do with my assertion that homosexuality is not the opposite of god. I posted a bit from a comic lampooning people like you who complain about "explaining gay people to their kids." You then tried to switch it around, basically claiming that I would have a problem explaining god to my kids. I don't know how it went from explaining things to children, to you complaining about all the ways in which you are "persecuted."
Bartholomew Oglethorpe

United States

#622679 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they are, it's called folk philosophy.
Just because Bart says something is true does not mean it is...
What is called folk philosophy? Sexual desires and beliefs are not the same thing.

And just because you have been culturally conditioned to believe that an emotional response you had to stimuli was Big Baby Jeebis does not make that nonsense real.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622680 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not with the times, man. THIS is an example of forcing it to my kids:
"Gay History Now Required, by Law, to Be Taught in California Social-Studies Textbooks"
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/07/ga...
Really? So when your child reads about the civil rights movement in their textbooks, "blackness" is being forced on them? Are we to pretend that gay people did not, and do not have to fight for their rights? Just ignore it?

Are the textbooks gonna say "you should totally be gay, man. Just go with it." ? Are you really that insecure about the sexuality of your children that you think reading about gay people might turn them gay? Would it matter if they turned out to be gay? If they did turn out to be gay, would it be the gays fault? Does it concern you that, gasp, they might learn to accept gay people as fellow human beings and learn that they should be extended the same rights as everyone else?
Bartholomew Oglethorpe

United States

#622681 May 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot thermopane windows.
Yes! Christians love them some pareidolia.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622682 May 9, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>BTW- if you don't care about what I have to say, why are you even READING my posts- let alone RESPONDING to them?
Why do you- and so many like you- LIE for your Jesus?
Well, ohhh bright one its like this... You posted to me, and unlike YOU i respond to a poster when they ask a question ,or have something to say,,(which would be you,)...And dont flatter yourself, i SCROLL past your foolish postings, which btw is ALOT........

I will kindly show you how much i care about what you have to say or even respond to ur post,
read this carefuly >>> tchau <...> Bye bye..

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#622683 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What was that singe celled animal?
How was it studied?
What is it called?
When did it emerge?
Most importantly - HOW did it become a life?
<quoted text>
There was only one question about abiogenesis, not questionS...
All good questions, and all unknown.
So your fantasy , is about as good as the evolutionary biologists.
Except for the facts and evolutionary biology parts.
Other than that , you are right.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622684 May 9, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Your morals come from the Bible? My condolences. That book is one big stinking mess of mayhem.
No, silly..... My God giving morals, came from my God giving conscience and awareness to distinguish right from wrong, good and Evil, along with my God giving right to apply my God giving morals to Gods wonderful giving grace and way of life...

Keep your sympothy.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622685 May 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>The point, you apocalyptic idiot, is that it doesn't matter how hard you believe anything!
Absent evidence, it's delusion!
It's hard to be humble among u guys and gals...

As frustrating as it is, ive said this many times soooooooooooo once more for you okie dokie artie chokie.......

I have my evidence, i have all i need.. I am terribly sorry it piss's you off that i am confident enough to say that....

ITS "your" delusion macumazahn, not mine....

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#622686 May 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Notice I said "maybe." I don't know if you are intentionally vague or intentionally absurd.
And no, I never said we should "skip that part." I only said that it is unreasonable to demand that I show how consciousness can come from unconsciousness to even suggest that the brain makes thought. As of now, in the absence of any sort evidence for "quantum woo," eternal consciousness, or an afterlife, the only option we have is that consciousness came from unconsciousness.
It is not unreasonable to have to know something about how consciousness can come from unconsciousness in order to assume something about what causes consciousness. We have nothing.

There is no evidence that unconscious molecules can ever become aware of themselves so what I'm saying is your belief and mine are on level ground. Your belief is not more probable than mine.

You can be convinced that yours is more probable but science cannot back you up. That's the whole point here. But of course you refuse to admit that obvious truth.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622687 May 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the god that changed the "laws?" Then, you admit, they are subjective.
Huh? Did you ask me a question, and are you expecting an answer?

Surely not.......

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622688 May 9, 2013
Bartholomew Oglethorpe wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it is you who agrees with Ted Bundy.
Hogwash, my morals are NOTHING like that demons was, and what that sick man done was pure Evil....
He became a Born Again Christian in the slammer. His slate was wiped clean. He's flawed but forgiven.
So he says, and thats all we have to go on. If he repented, then i am sure i will see em...
He gets to wash the feet of Jesus right next to you, for eternity, while your 'soul body' has to wonder in fear of a relapse, a fall, a free will dose, you know, just like Biblesatan.
Biblesatan wasn't compelled by the story, even with first hand knowledge. Even Biblesatan knew Biblegod as an immoral, amoral fool.
As for the rest of this foolish gabber, looks like you are clueless about Salvation/God's Grace....

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#622689 May 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> You're missing the point. If a man without a hippocampus has a sense of being even in the absence of the ability to form long term memories, then I see no reason why we shouldn't have a sense of being while sleeping (if being is eternal), especially considering we *do* have the ability to form long term memories. What I'm saying is: not having a hippocampus clearly does not "shut off" our sense of being, so your claim that we simply "can't remember" our sense of being is fallacious, since we do have the ability to record memories during sleep. There's no reason why we shouldn't remember our nights and be lucid in every dream, unless we are in fact unconscious. Stop it with that "event" crap. Why should our sense of being only be active when an "event" happens? And if this is true, and a dream is an "event," then why is our sense of being so garbled and sometimes not even present during dreams?
No,*you* are not making any sense, or *you* are not understanding *me*. You state that in the absence of a hippocampus we still have a sense of being. That supports my belief. What does that have to do with memory? If a person without a hippocampus 'sleeps without dreaming' they too will have no memory of "being". If a person with a hippocampus 'sleeps without dreaming' they will have no memory of "being" either. So how does this help you?

Even if a person with a functioning hippocampus is awake they still can't remember their sense of being because as I've explained, it is not an event, and for another reason that I'll explain.

Take a moment, try to close out your senses. No tasting, no feeling (except for your @$$ against the chair, but that is a "given" so we will have to ignore that; pretend you are in a dark zero-g chamber), no sight, no sound, no smell. OK, the one thing you cannot close out is your sense of being. You sense that you are "there" or "alive".

You are familiar with that sense of being but it doesn't form a memory because it is not an event. You know you were awake a minute ago but you can't remember your exact specific 'sense of being' from a minute ago because, just as electrons behave the same under the same conditions, the sense of being is exactly the same no matter in what instant of time you are sensing your being.

Get it? The sense of being never changes. You may feel old but your sense of being never ages, your sense of being still feels like it always did.

Your recording device is on when awake but you still can't remember your sense of being because it is always exactly the same.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#622690 May 9, 2013
IMO, the sense of being is unaltered even if someone drops an anvil on their toe. Sure you are in intense pain and you probably cannot concentrate on your sense of being. But if you could block out the pain (and I'm sure there are people (monks?) that can), then you would still feel your sense of being. I myself am in pain most of the time and sometimes it can get intense. but I have gotten good at blocking it out. Matter fact sometimes the more pain I'm in the more I can separate my sense of being from my "body". Another way of saying that is that I can separate myself from my body.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#622691 May 9, 2013
X marks the spot. Thanks for the attention. If you guys would at least admit the obvious truths then you might earn a little more respect around here. Yea, we don't have to know anything about how molecules became aware of themselves in order to assume they did. And you guys give Intelligent Design people a hard time? Hey I give them a hard time too if they ask for too much, because I agree it cannot be a theory, but you guys are just as bad as they are, in an opposing direction.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622692 May 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>"Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective."
Snipped from one of my posts. I even left in the context so you can't accuse me of quote mining. Do I need to find more posts where I echo a similar sentiment (that religious belief is not important until it interferes with objectivity) or do you accept that I clearly have no issue with religious scientists, only with "scientists" who allow their religion to inform their science?
Im sorry, but lady you have to be the most foolish hypocrit thats EVER been on topix...... Double standard, and many other things i could think of......

How can you NOW say this, ohh never mind too late u done did....

Do you want me to find THE post of yours where you PLAINLY stated that,,

"science REMOVES >>>> bias <<<<<< and human errors"""?

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622693 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
If a scientist uses the scientific method and has data to substantiate it, it doesn't matter what they believe. science is science and they are still a scientist. Who are you to say their faith informed their science? You won't even be objective and read the data...no...you immediately assume it's biased. what that tells me is one of two things...you're either prejudice or shallow. maybe both... Pick one.
I pick "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc etc..........Z

Just saying.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#622694 May 9, 2013
How can you remember your sense of being from a minute ago when it is no different from your sense of being that you are feeling now?

If you inhale *exactly* the same way 60 times, and *all* other variables are *exactly* the same, you can't tell one from the other; you can only differentiate them by chronology. You know you inhaled 60 times but that's all.

Just like you know you existed for the last 60 seconds, but not because you can differentiate one integral slice of time from another (unless some other variable changes).

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#622695 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>No, not technically.

But when atheists advocate a Santa display while at the same time denigrate a Manger display, I see that as biased and somewhat symbolizing atheism.

Or how atheists bitch n whine about prayer in school then turn around and throw a St Patrick's Day party (leprechauns and all), that's more symbolism and bias.
Atheists throw St. Patrick's day parties?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#622696 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>What is our 'common ancestor'?

The theory of evolution hinges on the idea that all life came from one life. What life is that?

Since that question has never been answered, how could it be taught in a basic biology class?

Oh, that's right. I'm being childish and ignorant and I should just "believe" in evolution like you do.

Yes of course. But my line of questioning is about the supposed common ancestor we all share.

Of which Koder claimed is a simple biology class but has yet to definitively answer.
Nobody has that answer.

Not even you.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Secrets To Dog Training: Stop Your Dog's Behavi... 14 min Jack Miller 1
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 31 min arabian 5,425
hill climb racing hack last update NOV 2014 33 min hill climb racing 1
hill climb racing hack for android 43 min Hack free 2
Clash of clans hack last updated NOV 2014 1 hr Hack free 1
Moses never existed 1 hr truth 553
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr truth 554,868
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr onemale 263,441
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr Catcher1 175,040
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr jjustice0981 603,601

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE