Is there a God? [Archive] - Page 3 - SpursTalk.com Forums

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 10:50 AM

By the way, that list is not even COMPLETE.

How about the fact that Set, a mighty God wanted to kill Horus the baby? Isis had to run and hide Horus.

while the mighty King Herod wanted to kill Jesus the baby? Mary had to run and hide Jesus.

The general theme of a mother protecting her child from a cruel king who wants to kill the child is indeed paralleled. However, the more direct parallel is between Jesus and Moses.

Horus, "the living God on Earth"
Jesus, "the living God on Earth"

This is intentionally misleading. Horus is "the god of the living on Earth" as opposed to Osiris, who is the "god of the dead." Jesus is "God with us" and "the Son of the living God."

Bethlehem, place of Jesus' birth, is known as 'house of bread'. Horus is born in Anunn, also known as house of bread.

Anu, aka Heliopolis, was the ancient center of Egyptian Ra worship. Saying that Horus was "born" there is misleading. What happened is that rituals re-enacting events in the Horus myth were carried out there.

Anu means "city of the sun," not "house of bread." In order to go from Anu to "house of bread," first you have to associate the city of Anu with the constellation Virgo, and then associate Virgo with bread. The problem with these associations is that they are anachronistic, insofar as classical astrology did not come to Egypt until Alexander the Great conquered it. Prior to that, you have Babylonian astrology which had a zodiac of twelve "houses," but these are not associated with the modern constellation symbols of a scorpion, virgin, ram, fish, etc.

In addition, the reason Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem is because that is where King David was born, and there was a prophecy that the new King David aka the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem. That is much simpler than esoteric references to historically specious astrology.

Another specious parallel the Christ-mythers will use here is that Anu is a parallel to Bethany, where Jesus raised Lazarus. This supposedly parallels Horus raising his father Osiris. As we detailed in an earlier post, the link between Lazarus and "El-Osiris" is an etymological fiction, as is the tie between Anu and Bethany. (Bethany means "house of figs.")

Actually, Horus' birth WAS of an immaculate conception, aka virgin birth. You see, Osiris was DEAD. Isis tried to piece him back together, but she couldn't. His penis was thrown in a river. So she hovered over his body and 'drew his essence'.... She was impregnated by spirit. There was no actual intercourse and impregnation.
There is no "immaculate conception" of Jesus. The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine that says Mary, not Jesus, was conceived free from the curse of original sin.

Isis was missing Osiris' dead penis, so she fashioned one out of clay.

In any event, none of this is a "virgin birth," because nowhere in Egyptian mythology is it claimed that Isis is a virgin. At best, you could claim that Isis did not conceive in the usual way. "Virgin" means "never had sex before," not "conceived with a dead guy."

The God Taht announced to her that she would become pregnant.
The god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnated the virgin Isis by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.

You are referring here to Acharya S's reading of the panels and inscriptions at the Luxor Temple. Her reading is forced and wrong. Thoth announces to Amun that he is to impregnate the Queen of Egypt, Neith. He has sex with her and impregnates her. (The ankh is a symbol of life, and is a stylized representation of the sexual act.) He announces to her that she will bear his son, Amenophis.

Ina general sense, there are parallels between Jesus' nativity and various ancient legends of the birth of a king, but those parallels are the point.

Isis ultimately absorbed and represented hundreds if not thousands of different goddesses, all forms of the Mother, ISIS. Her worship survived until around the 6th century AD, until it was largely replaced by the new Mother, Mary, whose name was obviously influenced by Isis' form of MERI, Goddess of Nature and Harvest.

When you have to make the tenuous connection between the Isis account and some other parallel goddess, you have reduced the supposedly devastating connection down to the general idea of a female deity. You still won't find the name "Isis-Meri" outside of Acharya S's work.

A far likelier connection would be to Miriam in the Old Testament account of Moses' birth. You could then connect "Miriam" as possibly being derived from "Meri-Amon," meaning "beloved of God" in Egyptian, which could make perfect sense since she lived in Egypt.

There is little question that the Marian devotion which emerged, first in Greek Christianity, in the fourth century not the sixth, was in part fueled by converts from the pagan religions, who found in Mary a female object of devotion that was found otherwise in goddesses like Athena and Aphrodite. Even some of the titles carried over. The whole question of the best way to deal with this phenomenon was dealt with at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

Incorrect again. Ancient Egyptians, in fact, ALMOST EVERY MAJOR CIVILIZATION in human history celebrated Dec. 25th because that is when the Sun begins it's journey back to Spring and Summer.

This is said to be the Sun 'reborn' and coming back from death. Horus being the Sun God, Egyptians celebrated Horus birth as Dec. 21st-25th, but his ACTUAL entrance into Earth was "on the last day of the Egyptian Khoaik" which falls around Nov. 15

Jesus' birth day is NEVER mentioned in the Bible, however it too is celebrated on Dec. 25th once again, to coincide with the worship of the Sun. The date was chosen to occur on the same date as the birth of Mithra, Dionysus and the Sol Invictus (unconquerable Sun), etc.

Therefore, both Horus and Jesus are just forms of Sun worship and their birthdays ARE celebrated on Dec. 21st-25th even though NEITHER Jesus nor Horus was actually born on that day.
Christmas is celebrated on December 25. Its roots in our culture are connected to Roman Saturnalia, which shares several of the same traditions. Because it was such a popular holiday, early Christians "Christianized" it. That Christmas is more highly celebrated than Easter in the West is a residue of our pagan Gothic ancestry. That Easter is called Easter in English and not Pascha or some variant thereof may have some pagan reasons as well, though this is unclear. (Easter may refer to pagan goddess Eostra, or to the Morning Star, or to an archaic word meaning "white.")

To say conclusively that this means Christianity is just sun worship is highly speculative.

The Star in the East is Sirius.
Sirius was significant in Egyptian worship, but to tie this to the Star of Bethlehem is entirely speculative.

More to come.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 10:50 AM

double post

dickface

12-30-2008, 10:57 AM

mouse

12-30-2008, 10:58 AM

do not expose the fossil record as fake.

Look again. :smokin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1248079.stm

My point was scientist say if a certain fossil is found that means that layer or age of the earth is yoda yoda yoda years old. They even gave a chart. But they have found many fossils that were discovered many years later on another level of earth so the fossil chart was just something a so called scientist created and has been used in the text books with no real study.

some species have been found alive today debunking the fossil record.

The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in its favor. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species. Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed). Punctuated equilibrium, the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt the theory of evolution really is. You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 11:02 AM

B2B, the question of the thread was "Is there a God" and that fact cannot be proven either way. You've taken this into a debate about religion but that was not the original question of the thread. I've read all this crap about different religions that you and MH are posting but it still doesn't prove a damn thing. Period.
I know. I hijacked the thread for a better discussion. I know that might not have ever happened here before but its not a bad thing.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 11:05 AM

so let me get this straight -

MH and B2B are trying to prove that Christians are dumb for blindly believing in texts without getting any hard facts, and that Christians believe in lies that man simply made up....

....and they're trying to make this point by cut-pasting text from websites without looking at any actual source material, blindly believing that whoever came up with this didn't just make it all up....

....

........

.....................

:lmaoThere are a multitude of sources some rooted in visual fact, some rooted in math and some rooted in interpretation thats centered around opinion.

I agree that much of this "god" talk between different dieties can be looked upon as opinion.

Which is exactly why I've taken the stance I have because I'm not debating interpretation of different gods. I'm pointing out the significance of the personification of important dates and times relative to a calendar. None of which is up for interpretation. It is what it is.

Even ES see some similarities.

mouse

12-30-2008, 11:06 AM

Good morning Mouse. :)

.
Good Morning to you also! :toast
here is another vid to watch.

gstm9R3Bp0k

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 11:06 AM

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 11:12 AM

ES always has great posts in the political forum about religion and he delivers again. :tu

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 11:12 AM

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-462840.png

"A Text-Book for Geology" by Schuchert?
So... you're going with a Geology textbook that is from 1915? (https://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/6628983/used/A%20text-book%20of%20geology%20for%20use%20in%20universitie s,%20colleges,%20schools%20of%20science,%20etc.%20 and%20for%20the%20general%20reader.)

Got anything newer?

Modern research of the phenomena shows exactly how this is done, and they have found it happening all over the place. The phenomenon of polystrate fossils is fairly well understood by modern biologists/geologists, and the phenomenon does NOT point to a "young" earth scenario, merely one of localized, fairly rapid sedimentation, such as that of the ash deposits around Mt. St. Helens or places in rivers that get a lot of silt from erosion.

If this phenomenon was observed in EVERY substrata, then that would indicate that globally, there was a time when the earth experienced a global period of rapid sedimentation, such as the biblical great flood.

The problem with this is that this phenomenon is ONLY found in places that one would expect rapid sedimentation based on an "old-earth" theory and NOWHERE else.

Sorry charlie. This doesn't mean what you think it does.

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 11:17 AM

ES always has great posts in the political forum about religion and he delivers again. :tu

Eeek. Watching someone going up against ES on this topic is a bit like watching Spud Webb trying to dunk on TD. If he were a spice girl he would be Scary Smart Spice.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 11:17 AM

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 11:18 AM

Eeek. Watching someone going up against ES on this topic is a bit like watching Spud Webb trying to dunk on TD. If he were a spice girl he would be Scary Smart Spice.

I concur.

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 11:19 AM

Good morning Mouse. :)

I didn't bring up a flood because flood waters recede and only leave a few inches of silt, not yards. I was answering your question: mudslides, delta silt, or volcanoes cause polystrate fossils like the one pictured. I'm not a geologist, but upright fossils are found along with evidence of the phenomena I've mentioned and do not expose the fossil record as fake.

Dammit. You beat me to it. That's what I get for not reading the whole thread.

All it took was a quick jaunt to wiki and a few geologic journal articles.

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by mouse

Look again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1248079.stm

My point was scientist say if a certain fossil is found that means that layer or age of the earth is yoda yoda yoda years old.

Yada you must mean. Stupid you are.

Notice that too you did. Very funny thinking that I am.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 11:23 AM

Good Morning to you also! :toast
here is another vid to watch.

gstm9R3Bp0k
Intermediate species have been found.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080709-evolution-fish.html

Here is an example of DNA evolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080331-tuatara-evolution.html

Additional structural evolution.

Evolution of the mammalian middle ear

Edgar F. Allin

Department of Anatomy. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

The structure and evolution of the mandible, suspensorium, and stapes of mammal-like reptiles and early mammals are examined in an attempt to determine how, why, and when in phylogeny the precursors of the mammalian tympanic bone, malleus, and incus (postdentary jaw elements and quadrate) came to function in the reception of air-borne sound. The following conclusions are reached.
It is possible that at no stage in mammalian phylogeny was there a middle ear similar to that of typical living reptiles, with a postquadrate tympanic membrane contacted by an extrastapes. The squamosal sulcus of cynodonts and other therapsids, usually thought to have housed a long external acoustic meatus, possibly held a depressor mandibulae muscle.
In therapsids an air-filled chamber (recessus mandibularis of Westoll) extended deep to the reflected lamina and into the depression (external fossa) on the outer aspect of the angular element. A similar chamber was present in sphenacodontids but pterygoideus musculature occupied the small external fossa. The thin tissues superficial to the recessus mandibularis served as eardrum. Primitively, vibrations reached the stapes mainly via the anterior hyoid cornu, but in dicynodonts therocephalians, and cynodonts, vibrations passed mainly or exclusively from mandible to quadrate to stapes and the reflected lamina was a component of the eardrum.
In the therapsid phase of mammalian phylogeny, auditory adaptation was an important aspect of jaw evolution. Auditory efficiency, and sensitivity to higher sound frequencies, were enhanced by diminution and loosening of the postdentary elements and quadrate, along with transference of musculature from postdentary elements to the dentary. These changes were made possible by associated modifications, including posterior expansion of the dentary. Establishment of a dentray-squamosal articulation permitted continuation of these trends, leading to the definitive mammalian condition, with no major change in auditory mechanism except that in most mammals (not monotremes) the angular, as tympanic, eventually became a non-vibrating structure.

We also know that short term evolution of a species is possible and alive and well within our own era.

Washington, April 22 (ANI): A new research has shown that lizards are literally running on the fast track of evolution, with the prime example being Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia, that evolved in 30 years in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out.

According to a report in National Geographic News, in just a few decades, the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite.

In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea.

Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

According to Duncan Irschick, a study author and biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, when the researchers went back to the island, they had no idea if the original introductions were successful.

When they found that the island swarming with lizards, the researchers were taken aback.

The new habitat once had its own healthy population of lizards, which were less aggressive than the new implants, said Irschick. The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown, he added.

According to Irschick, the transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically.

Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.

Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valvesmuscles between the large and small intestinethat slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetations cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves, said Irschick, adding it was something that had not been documented before. This was a brand-new structure, he said.

Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider.

The rapid physical evolution also sparked changes in the lizards social and behavioral structure. For one, the plentiful food sources allowed for easier reproduction and a denser population.

The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses, the authors concluded.

Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, said Irschick. Thats unparalleled. Whats most important is how fast this is, he added. (ANI)

There is an abundance of supporting evidence.

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 11:27 AM

Scientist use the layers as a way to figure out the age of the earth using the geologic column which doesn't exist anywhere only in the text books.

That is because the "geologic column" is a teaching tool. It is a mental abstraction meant to be illustrative of a principle, and not a literal truth.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 11:27 AM

I was waiting for ES's .02 on this because my point doesn't center on direct god correlations. I'll hang up and listen. Thanks for taking my call.
Actually MH touched on a few things I was going to post this morning for ES.

I'm going to go back to my original point because its lost once again. I never set out to prove that there is no god. I'm tired of you people telling me that I haven't proved that there is no god because that was never my point.

Furthermore I stated from day 1 that many gods whether their lifes and times correlate to Jesus or not are personifications of astrological bodies rooted in relative time on earth.

Going back to the pagan calendar times and eras in relation to real time point to significant constellations summed up here

Important dates:

Easter should be associated with Passover, but Passover is fixed at 14th Nisan in the Hebrew calendar while Easter was fixed by the increasingly anti-Semitic church to fall on the Sunday after the full moon following the spring equinox

The name, "Easter" is derived from a pagan spring / fertility deity who appears variously as Eostre, the Saxon goddess of dawn with a hare's head (the origin of Easter bunnies), Ishtar from Ninevah, introduced into Britain with the Druids, Astarte the queen of heaven from Babylon whose worship involved sexual depravity! (The egg figures prominently in the worship of Easter - Astarte was said to have sprung from an Egg which fell from Heaven into the Euphrates) Even the fast of Lent which was introduce in the sixth century was borrowed from Babylon. A similar fast was observed by the Egyptians in commemoration of Osiris.

Palm Sunday This was not necessarily a Sunday on the year of Jesus' entry to Jerusalem, but the event occured on 10th of Nisan. Jesus entered Jerusalem to be tested by the religious authorities on the day that the Passover lambs were taken into the homes to be inspected to ensure they were free from blemish and suitable to be sacrificed.

The traditional greeting to pilgrims coming up to Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) for Passover was "Baruch haba bashem Adonai" (Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (Psalm 118 v 26). This took on a special significance when Jesus entered Jerusalem. (His name Yeshua means "The Lord is Salvation")

Christmas was not celebrated until the fourth century. The date of 25th December was fixed by the Council of Nicea to take over the pagan midwinter solstice festival of sol invictus (unconquered sun). It also conveniently took over the Roman winter festival of Saturnalia; December 17-21st. There were pragmatic reasons for this but it taints the celebration of our Saviour's birth with pagan symbols and customs.

Shabbat, The Saturday Sabbath was observed by the early church and was kept in Britain until around the twelfth century. The celebration of a Sunday Sabbath (even as "resurrection day" ) was never commanded in scripture. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was another victim of the state controlled church's desire to cut away from Jewish roots. Shabbat was the sign of the LORD's chosen and faithful people, the one which marked out the Jews for persecution down through the ages.

So what you have is a structure of organized beliefs thats centered around dates of significant importance in relation to periods of time. I managed to find a clip done by someone with way too much time on their hands

So using math you can accurately go back and make significant correlations with a multitude of different calendars depicting scores of important time periods, years, eras, seasons and so. All of which had their own special "god" or personification.

Since we find similarities between these personifications we see the pattern. Very little about Jesus was original. Most dates and moments of significance correlate to a personified god or time, era, season, year and so on.

Everything we have about Jesus is lifted from another source (god or time structure). There is zero first hand writings and everything thats referenced is a copy of a copy of a copy so much to the point that the very church which supports its cause questions authenticity. I've posted previously in this thread where the church has waited years, decades and centuries before authenticating bodies of work due to uncertainty.

How can you site sources that the church finds questionable or has admittedly altered to fit modern Christianity?

We can argue specifics about each and every god but the correlations still go back to time and math in relation to many variations of ancient calendars personifying points of interest.

So arguing the specifics of each god is competely irrelevant when it all boils down to mathematical time rooted in calendars long before the mathematical time pieces where used in the name of Jesus.

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 11:30 AM

Intermediate species have been found.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080709-evolution-fish.html

Here is an example of DNA evolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080331-tuatara-evolution.html

Additional structural evolution.

We also know that short term evolution of a species is possible and alive and well within our own era.

There is an abundance of supporting evidence.

Not only have intermediate species been found, so many intermediate species have been found that paleontologists have come close to fist-fights at conventions over whether to describe some of them as "reptile-like mammals" or "mammal-like reptiles" and the like.

The problem for modern biologists/sceintists is not "where are the intermediate species?" but "how do we quantify all of these intermediate species?". :lol

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 11:36 AM

How does the theory about 10,000 year old fossils explain the observations of astronomers and physicists who seem to believe the wild theory that the universe is 13 billion years old?

Perhaps there is a coyboy boot filled with photons out there somewhere?

Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP1) Observations by the good folks at NASA (click here for the full 46 page PDF file (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf)) Points to an age somewhere in the range of 13,000,000,000+ years.

Oopsies. NASA is in on the plot too.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 11:37 AM

I know. I hijacked the thread for a better discussion. I know that might not have ever happened here before but its not a bad thing.

:tu

Crookshanks

12-30-2008, 11:58 AM

smeagol

12-30-2008, 12:17 PM

B2B, if you think you can discredit Christianity simply by making some lose connection between Christian history and other ancient religions, then, as Chalupa has said more than once, your arguments are weak, at best.

Let me through some facts about Christianity into the discussion:

- There is very little doubt that Jesus was a man that walked the Earth in what we nowadays call modern Israel. His life is well documented in the Gospels and in other non-Christian literary sources (the best known is a Jewish historian called Flavius Josephus, who mentions not only Jesus, but also Caiaphas, Pilate, John the Baptist, etc)

- Not only direct witnesses of Christ's life have left us their writings. Men who knew the Apostles (St Ignatius of Antioch, St Polycarp, St Irenaeus, etc) have also left writings that talk about Christ's teachings.

- How can it be explained that many of the people who heard Christ's teachings were willing to die for them?

- The NT was writen by ignorant fishermen. How have this handful of fishermen been able to dupe so many people for so many years?

smeagol

12-30-2008, 12:19 PM

Phenomanul

12-30-2008, 12:22 PM

There are a multitude of sources some rooted in visual fact, some rooted in math and some rooted in interpretation thats centered around opinion.

I agree that much of this "god" talk between different dieties can be looked upon as opinion.

Which is exactly why I've taken the stance I have because I'm not debating interpretation of different gods. I'm pointing out the significance of the personification of important dates and times relative to a calendar. None of which is up for interpretation. It is what it is.

Even ES see some similarities.

The point you fail to understand is that the dates themselves don't matter. Most Christians know that Jesus was not born on Dec 25th or that he was crucified on the "3rd week of March". Many understand that the dates were standardized to suit the celebration - even borrowed from earlier 'Pagan' rituals existing during the time of the Roman Empire. As significant as you feel that may be... it doesn't 'corner', negate, or belittle the tenets of the Christian faith in any detrimental way...

Christians worship GOD and celebrate Christmas as a reminder of the Hope that Jesus' birth provided humanity.

Christians celebrate 'Easter' as a reminder of Christ's victory over death. A reminder that GOD did not hold anything back in His attempt to restore the relationship that he desired between Himself and mankind... even at the cost of His Son's life.

Agitator

12-30-2008, 12:28 PM

Agitator

12-30-2008, 12:29 PM

Most Christians know that Jesus was not born on Dec 25th.

.... and you should know because you've asked them all.

mouse

12-30-2008, 12:30 PM

That is because the "geologic column" is a teaching tool. It is a mental abstraction meant to be illustrative of a principle, and not a literal truth.

Then why is it in the text books?

, and not a literal truth.

This coming from a man who gets on everyone's case when they try and post half truths about 9/11 all of a sudden you only need partial truth? I will remember this quote next time you complain about posting some tin foil hat theory as you call them.

As for the many links to prove prehistoric Evolution, DNA, and fossils you guys have been teaching that crap for years and get funded by the government ovcourse there are going to be many more links and info on the subject, But just because there are more links to pictures of Unicorns than there are of Dead Jews doesn't mean it's any more real or the truth.

Your one to really insist on the facts and yet your willing to ruin your highly educated reputation here at ST defending a douche bag like Darwin?

Ok it's your call but at the end you will have nothing but old re-fried lies that have been de-bunked over and over as the new evidence shows how misguided you and and your GOD hating Igmo's are fighting a lost cause.

I have the truth on my side.

Agitator

12-30-2008, 12:35 PM

That is because the "geologic column" is a teaching tool...

Then why is it in the text books?

:lmao

You can't make this shit up. Are you for real?

Agitator

12-30-2008, 12:38 PM

Perhaps there is a coyboy boot filled with photons out there somewhere?

What the fuck are you talking about?

mouse

12-30-2008, 12:39 PM

That is because the "geologic column" is a teaching tool...

:lmao

You can't make this shit up. Are you for real?

It means it has been proven wrong time and time again. Why is it still in the schools? Just because I have a teaching tool that helps you remove a gerbil from your ass doesn't mean you want it found under your bed.

Agitator

12-30-2008, 12:39 PM

I was waiting for ES's .02 on this because my point doesn't center on direct god correlations. I'll hang up and listen. Thanks for taking my call.

I've got a God correlation. In my pants.

Phenomanul

12-30-2008, 12:40 PM

.... and you should know because you've asked them all.

Just general knowledge bud...

mouse

12-30-2008, 12:43 PM

Agitator

12-30-2008, 12:44 PM

Just general knowledge bud...

Do you always claim general knowledge about the exact beliefs of 1,000,000,000+ people?

I would be willing to bet that you are wrong about this. I would bet that that vast majority of Christians world-wide truly think that December 25th is exactly the birthday of Jesus.

"general knowledge" seems to be code words for "I pulled it out of my ass." in my experience.

Agitator

12-30-2008, 12:46 PM

It means it has been proven wrong time and time again. Why is it still in the schools? Just because I have a teaching tool that helps you remove a gerbil from your ass doesn't mean you want it found under your bed.

Bend over kid, and I'll show you my teaching tool.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 12:49 PM

About Jesus being born in Nazareth :

Nazareth is very closely worded to Nazaroth which in Hebrew is “the twelve signs (of the zodiac).”
Actually the Hebrew word is "Mazzaroth," but that doesn't sound as close. "Nazareth" probably comes from a Hebrew root word meaning "sprout."

Agitator

12-30-2008, 12:50 PM

Evolution is a theory at best and has never been proven so it's more of a religion, and you brain washed sheep want it taught in schools? You guys can post all the links your little keyboards can find at the end you will have nothing that proves your right you will only prove your ignorance.

If not for Manny you wouldn't even have a missing link.

So you believe in the 9-11 fairy AND creationism?

That explains why you would ask "why is a teaching tool in a text book?"

dur dee dur....

:lmao

Listen Rainman, I'm glad you have some sort of belief system that makes you happy, but please stop pretending your bullshit is gold.

The rest of us can smell it from here.

Richard Cranium

12-30-2008, 12:59 PM

So you believe in the 9-11 fairy AND creationism?

That explains why you would ask "why is a teaching tool in a text book?"

dur dee dur....

:lmao

Listen Rainman, I'm glad you have some sort of belief system that makes you happy, but please stop pretending your bullshit is gold.

The rest of us can smell it from here.

There is plenty of bullshit in this thread.

Crookshanks

12-30-2008, 01:03 PM

Do you always claim general knowledge about the exact beliefs of 1,000,000,000+ people?

I would be willing to bet that you are wrong about this. I would bet that that vast majority of Christians world-wide truly think that December 25th is exactly the birthday of Jesus.

"general knowledge" seems to be code words for "I pulled it out of my ass." in my experience.

Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound? You ridicule someone for saying that most christians know that December 25th is not the exact date of Jesus' birth, then you make the statement above! So how is it your statement is any more rooted in truth than Phenomanul's?

You screen name is very appropriate - you come into this thread on page 19 and start making stupid comments - and we've gone all this time without innappropriate sexual remarks - until YOU come along. Please go back to the troll forum where your remarks are appreciated.

mouse

12-30-2008, 01:08 PM

:lmao

Listen Rainman,

That movie won an Oscar so I have no problem with your lame 1980s attempt at smack talking, it's kinda refreshing to see someone here still lives in the past with snappy come backs like
bend over and I will show you my teaching tool! wow that was fresh and very creative.
Are you friends with Travis (local red neck) I bet you have pictures of all 5 of your dogs on your MySpace page.

You may want to mix in some facts about the subject with your many original top of the line insults you have so the topic can stay on course. :tu

Phenomanul

12-30-2008, 01:12 PM

Do you always claim general knowledge about the exact beliefs of 1,000,000,000+ people?

I would be willing to bet that you are wrong about this. I would bet that that vast majority of Christians world-wide truly think that December 25th is exactly the birthday of Jesus.

"general knowledge" seems to be code words for "I pulled it out of my ass." in my experience.

Whatever helps you sleep at night... either way there's no way of polling that many people... Your own presumption is flawed in the other direction, by the same principle. So even if I conceded on the technicality that no one can speak for all Christendom, it doesn't change the basic premise of my response to B2B.

The dates themselves don't matter...

Yet he and MH want us all to believe that the notion of shared/common 'holy' days somehow negates the authenticity of Christianity. Weak.

Most everything that MH posted was debunked by Lee Strobel in The Case for the Real Jesus. Everything else MH has sputtered since then, has been a lame attempt at justifying his reasons for having believed in his original (cut/paste) list in the first place; all of this without having conducted any research of his own.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 01:12 PM

Important dates:

Easter should be associated with Passover, but Passover is fixed at 14th Nisan in the Hebrew calendar while Easter was fixed by the increasingly anti-Semitic church to fall on the Sunday after the full moon following the spring equinox

Originally Christians celebrated the Pascha on 14 Nisan, then some decided to celebrate it on the following Sunday. Observance of the Eucharist on Sunday was adopted early on by Jewish Christians before the fall of Jerusalem who would go to the Temple on the Sabbath, and then meet with the other Christians for the Eucharist the following day, since they believed that Sunday was the day of the Resurrection.

Over time, Jewish observance of the Passover varied from community to community, with some groups even holding it before the spring equinox. This variability, along with a developing anti-Semitic attitude that Christians should not be relying on the Jews for their festival dates, ultimately culminated in the decision at the Council of Nicea setting the date of Easter. For a while, that responsibility ultimately fell to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and in Eastern Orthodoxy still does. Western Christianity uses the Gregorian calendar for liturgical purposes, and its date for Easter differs from the Orthodox date by one to five weeks.

The name, "Easter" is derived from a pagan spring / fertility deity who appears variously as Eostre, the Saxon goddess of dawn with a hare's head (the origin of Easter bunnies), Ishtar from Ninevah, introduced into Britain with the Druids, Astarte the queen of heaven from Babylon whose worship involved sexual depravity! (The egg figures prominently in the worship of Easter - Astarte was said to have sprung from an Egg which fell from Heaven into the Euphrates) Even the fast of Lent which was introduce in the sixth century was borrowed from Babylon. A similar fast was observed by the Egyptians in commemoration of Osiris.
One possible etymology for Easter is that it simply adopts the old Gothic name for the month of April, which was named after the pagan fertility goddess. Another is that it is related to an ancient name for the Morning Star (cf. Rev 22:16). Another is that is derived from an ancient Germanic word for "white" and that Easter was called something like "White Sunday."

The spring imgery of bunnies and eggs are indeed handed down from old Germanic paganism. In Latin and Eastern countries, paschal traditions are different and the holiday is elevated above Christmas.

A lot of American folk traditions, whether tied to Christianity or not, are very, very much tied to the traditions of the Germanic peoples from Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and England. However, they cannot be generalized to global Christendom.

Christmas was not celebrated until the fourth century. The date of 25th December was fixed by the Council of Nicea to take over the pagan midwinter solstice festival of sol invictus (unconquered sun). It also conveniently took over the Roman winter festival of Saturnalia; December 17-21st. There were pragmatic reasons for this but it taints the celebration of our Saviour's birth with pagan symbols and customs.
Some Christians celebrated it earlier than that, but it was largely to "fit in."

Shabbat, The Saturday Sabbath was observed by the early church and was kept in Britain until around the twelfth century. The celebration of a Sunday Sabbath (even as "resurrection day" ) was never commanded in scripture. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was another victim of the state controlled church's desire to cut away from Jewish roots. Shabbat was the sign of the LORD's chosen and faithful people, the one which marked out the Jews for persecution down through the ages.
Sunday was observed as the day of meeting for the Eucharist quite early, as I mentioned above. The original sources reflect some diversity of practice among the early church.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 01:23 PM

So using math you can accurately go back and make significant correlations with a multitude of different calendars depicting scores of important time periods, years, eras, seasons and so. All of which had their own special "god" or personification.

Since we find similarities between these personifications we see the pattern. Very little about Jesus was original. Most dates and moments of significance correlate to a personified god or time, era, season, year and so on.

Everything we have about Jesus is lifted from another source (god or time structure). There is zero first hand writings and everything thats referenced is a copy of a copy of a copy so much to the point that the very church which supports its cause questions authenticity. I've posted previously in this thread where the church has waited years, decades and centuries before authenticating bodies of work due to uncertainty.

How can you site sources that the church finds questionable or has admittedly altered to fit modern Christianity?

We can argue specifics about each and every god but the correlations still go back to time and math in relation to many variations of ancient calendars personifying points of interest.

So arguing the specifics of each god is competely irrelevant when it all boils down to mathematical time rooted in calendars long before the mathematical time pieces where used in the name of Jesus.
Now you've boiled it down to just general thematic similarities. You have prophecies based upon calculations on a calendar. You have the general themes of birth, death, and rebirth throughout civilizations. You have the observance of those themes in the passing of the seasons.

Maybe for a skeptic, this just looks like a version of nature worship tarted up with a few millenia worth of trappings. For the Christian, it looks like creation itself testifies to the fulfillment of the Gospel.

And so you've arrived at another impasse.

mouse

12-30-2008, 01:27 PM

I have to go to the VA in a few minutes but I will leave RandomLie and his heathen pals a heads up.

Scientist have claimed for many years stalactites take millions of years to form

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-431320.png

and yet they have been found in many places not even 60 years old.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-616844.png

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-616570.png

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-431714.png

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-616151.png

So much for your half baked facts!

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 01:30 PM

MH -the "facts" you posted are so preposterous - they are hilarious and unbelievable! You ridicule Christians for our beliefs and then you bring up that garbage? I'll say it again - Jesus was and IS the original and ONLY true Christ - all these other "religions" are variations on the story of Jesus. It is the pagan religions that plagarized the story of Jesus, not the other way around!

So they plagarized work that hadn't even existed? Great job.

The point you fail to understand is that the dates themselves don't matter. Most Christians know that Jesus was not born on Dec 25th or that he was crucified on the "3rd week of March". Many understand that the dates were standardized to suit the celebration - even borrowed from earlier 'Pagan' rituals existing during the time of the Roman Empire. As significant as you feel that may be... it doesn't 'corner', negate, or belittle the tenets of the Christian faith in any detrimental way...

Christians worship GOD and celebrate Christmas as a reminder of the Hope that Jesus' birth provided humanity.

Christians celebrate 'Easter' as a reminder of Christ's victory over death. A reminder that GOD did not hold anything back in His attempt to restore the relationship that he desired between Himself and mankind... even at the cost of His Son's life.So with so much proof via copies of copies of copies and zero first hand accounts and zero physical items this great leader was relegated to "standardized dates" and borrowed pagan rituals?

Why no definative celebration?

How do you explain the mathematics being as precise as it pertains to the big picture which predated his existence?

How are dates and times that correlate well before the mans existence have no value?

Isn't that the equivelant to a murder conviction despite a lack of true cause of death, weapon, blood and body. Billy did it because John said Rick said James said it was done.

How do you explain the church reserving judgement on the authenticity of the very texts you cite?

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 01:37 PM

Now you've boiled it down to just general thematic similarities. You have prophecies based upon calculations on a calendar. You have the general themes of birth, death, and rebirth throughout civilizations. You have the observance of those themes in the passing of the seasons.

Maybe for a skeptic, this just looks like a version of nature worship tarted up with a few millenia worth of trappings. For the Christian, it looks like creation itself testifies to the fulfillment of the Gospel.

And so you've arrived at another impasse.
I appreciate your response. One of the few I respect here. The thematics are a pattern rooted in math. I know you read the math pertaining to certain events. I understand that no math, no correlation, no lack of tangible evidence or first hand accounts matter. I understand that your own church questioning the orgins authenticity means nothing and I understand that hearsay is more reliable when it envolves Jesus but no other.

I keep saying that I'm nearing the end of this discussion.

I'll never ever understand how Christians can tell me that dates, time and math are of no important consequence.

You're right there is no response to that.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 02:02 PM

I appreciate your response. One of the few I respect here. The thematics are a pattern rooted in math. I know you read the math pertaining to certain events. I understand that no math, no correlation, no lack of tangible evidence or first hand accounts matter. I understand that your own church questioning the orgins authenticity means nothing and I understand that hearsay is more reliable when it envolves Jesus but no other.

I keep saying that I'm nearing the end of this discussion.

I'll never ever understand how Christians can tell me that dates, time and math are of no important consequence.

You're right there is no response to that.
I'm scrolling through the thread looking for a post where you go through the unreliability of the Gospel accounts and how every story is tied to an earlier narrative. I say this because I'm familiar with the arguments of the skeptic scholar who makes them, but I never saw you flesh them out. You only fleshed out the Jesus/Horus ones which are specious at best and mendacious at worst.

So you came to the honest skeptic's conclusion without giving the argument. That's fine, you can google and post it later.

Anyway, I'll answer the arguments you are probably going to make ahead of time. I think any orthodox Christian would agree that much of the Gospel account(s) can be cobbled together from Old Testament passages which otherwise would seem to be taken totally out of context. There are plenty of instances where an account of Jesus' life seems to echo an earlier Jewish narrative. To the skeptic, this might look like a Jesus legend was synthesized out of earlier Jewish material. To the Christian, this looks like fulfillment of prophecy. Even the Gospel of Luke itself portrays Jesus as using the OT to show the prophecies about himself.

Crookshanks

12-30-2008, 02:09 PM

So they plagarized work that hadn't even existed? Great job.
Herein lies the fundamental difference between believers and non-believers. We believe God created the world and the human race started with Adam and Eve. Because of their sin in the Garden of Eden, they were cursed and separated from God. God's plan of redemption came into being at this point. The first mention of Jesus is in Genesis Chapter 3 - so you see, from our viewpoint, there is NOTHING before the mention of Jesus.

Now, let's fast forward to the time of Noah. The inhabitants of earth had become very wicked and turned away from worshipping God. So God decided to destroy the earth and all its inhabitants. But the bible says "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." So God told Noah to build the ark and the only people that were saved were Noah and his wife and their 3 sons and their wives. So, we can start from that point. It didn't take long for the descendants of Noah to again turn away from God and become very wicked.

This is where Pagan religions come from - the wickedness of man caused him to turn away from the one true God and make other "gods" to worship.

But again - this is a matter of faith and belief. If you don't believe the biblical account of the creation or the flood, then nothing we say will make sense to you. On the other hand, for those of us who DO believe the bible - the things you say are foolishness to us.

And never the twain shall meet...

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 02:16 PM

So with so much proof via copies of copies of copies and zero first hand accounts and zero physical items this great leader was relegated to "standardized dates" and borrowed pagan rituals?
I don't understand why this is a problem. The only "ritual" Jesus instituted was the bread and wine. You can find some later traditions of other religions that copy the Eucharist, but not earlier ones.

Why no definative celebration?
From my understanding of Jesus' teaching, he was not particularly interested in instituting a new series of rituals for people to follow. That is not really the central part of the Christian faith. There is no New Testament equivalent to Leviticus.

How do you explain the mathematics being as precise as it pertains to the big picture which predated his existence?
Well, you either have the possibility that somebody knew the math and manufactured its fulfillment, or you have the possibility that the prophecy was correct.

Isn't that the equivelant to a murder conviction despite a lack of true cause of death, weapon, blood and body. Billy did it because John said Rick said James said it was done.

How do you explain the church reserving judgement on the authenticity of the very texts you cite?
You are obliquely referring to some skeptic arguments here without really putting them forth. Are we back to the reliability of the New Testament again? The same old point about ancient texts applies: one cannot use a highly skeptical standard for the NT, but then take all other ancient documents as totally reliable, especially since the NT is the best attested of them all by a comfortably wide margin.

And which church is debating the authenticity here? If we're talking about liberal protestants, then this whole point is moot because they don't really believe in Jesus except as a nice moralistic fable for their pet political beliefs anyway. Are you speaking perhaps on Richard John Neuhaus' refutation of Sola Scriptura vis-a-vis the teaching authority of the Church?

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 02:17 PM

Herein lies the fundamental difference between believers and non-believers. We believe God created the world and the human race started with Adam and Eve. Because of their sin in the Garden of Eden, they were cursed and separated from God. God's plan of redemption came into being at this point. The first mention of Jesus is in Genesis Chapter 3 - so you see, from our viewpoint, there is NOTHING before the mention of Jesus.

Now, let's fast forward to the time of Noah. The inhabitants of earth had become very wicked and turned away from worshipping God. So God decided to destroy the earth and all its inhabitants. But the bible says "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." So God told Noah to build the ark and the only people that were saved were Noah and his wife and their 3 sons and their wives. So, we can start from that point. It didn't take long for the descendants of Noah to again turn away from God and become very wicked.

This is where Pagan religions come from - the wickedness of man caused him to turn away from the one true God and make other "gods" to worship.

But again - this is a matter of faith and belief. If you don't believe the biblical account of the creation or the flood, then nothing we say will make sense to you. On the other hand, for those of us who DO believe the bible - the things you say are foolishness to us.

And never the twain shall meet...
You don't make any sense. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by listening to you. People on your side have asked you to shut up because you aren't helping.

Just like Mouse I'm likely to not respond to your idiocy again until you bring something worthwhile to the table.

Crookshanks

12-30-2008, 02:20 PM

Now you've boiled it down to just general thematic similarities. You have prophecies based upon calculations on a calendar. You have the general themes of birth, death, and rebirth throughout civilizations. You have the observance of those themes in the passing of the seasons.

Maybe for a skeptic, this just looks like a version of nature worship tarted up with a few millenia worth of trappings. For the Christian, it looks like creation itself testifies to the fulfillment of the Gospel.

Exactly! And here's an interesting part of the creation narrative. In Genesis 1:14, it says "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." (emphasis mine)

So you see - God created the stars and the sun and moon not just for light. Also, in Psalm 19:1 it says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork."

The Pagan religions took what God created for HIS glory and twisted it to fit their own humanistic ideas.

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 02:22 PM

Look again. :smokin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1248079.stm

My point was scientist say if a certain fossil is found that means that layer or age of the earth is yoda yoda yoda years old. They even gave a chart. But they have found many fossils that were discovered many years later on another level of earth so the fossil chart was just something a so called scientist created and has been used in the text books with no real study.

some species have been found alive today debunking the fossil record.

The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in its favor. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species. Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed). Punctuated equilibrium, the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt the theory of evolution really is. You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.

In other words, you didn't watch the video Summers posted after she sat through your Hovind garbage.

Crookshanks

12-30-2008, 02:26 PM

You don't make any sense. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by listening to you. People on your side have asked you to shut up because you aren't helping.

Just like Mouse I'm likely to not respond to your idiocy again until bring something worthwhile to the table.

EXCUUUUSE me! ONE person asked said I wasn't helping - and that person came to this discussion quite late and hasn't added much. And what I say makes just as much sense as your postings. You like to think you're so smart because you throw out mathematical formulas and "scientific" data - but it is all garbage and foolishness to believers - and that was the point of my post!!

And why doesn't my post make sense? If you believe the bible, then it makes perfect sense because the bible tells of the creation of the world and mankind. It doesn't make sense to you because you're a non-believer - AGAIN, that was the point of my earlier post!

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 02:27 PM

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 02:28 PM

Crookshanks

12-30-2008, 02:32 PM

Doesn't the bible say you shouldn't have other gods than Jehovah, or risk being put to death? Shouldn't worshiping Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary be a big no-no if you're going to believe the old testament?
Yes, the bible does say that. However, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of the Trinity - one and the same with God. So worshipping Jesus is the same as worshipping God. I really don't know who worships the Holy Spirit - I certainly don't. And protestants DON"T worship Mary. We believe she was blessed by God in that he chose her to bear his son; but other than that, she was no different than any other woman. It's the catholics who exalt Mary - but that's a whole 'nother argument!

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 02:33 PM

Now, let's fast forward to the time of Noah. The inhabitants of earth had become very wicked and turned away from worshipping God. So God decided to destroy the earth and all its inhabitants. But the bible says "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." So God told Noah to build the ark and the only people that were saved were Noah and his wife and their 3 sons and their wives. So, we can start from that point. It didn't take long for the descendants of Noah to again turn away from God and become very wicked.

So God is a sociopath?

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 02:34 PM

Yes, the bible does say that. However, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of the Trinity - one and the same with God. So worshipping Jesus is the same as worshipping God. I really don't know who worships the Holy Spirit - I certainly don't. And protestants DON"T worship Mary. We believe she was blessed by God in that he chose her to bear his son; but other than that, she was no different than any other woman. It's the catholics who exalt Mary - but that's a whole 'nother argument!
Foul down the left field line.

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 02:34 PM

Phenomanul

12-30-2008, 02:40 PM

So they plagarized work that hadn't even existed? Great job.

So with so much proof via copies of copies of copies and zero first hand accounts and zero physical items this great leader was relegated to "standardized dates" and borrowed pagan rituals?

It was a strategy that allowed Constantine to try and 'establish' Christianity as the 'official religion' of the Roman Empire. A historical event that does nothing to change the message of Christ. It was a 'political' policy, not a spiritual one.

If only Constantine understood that Christ emphasized the importance of a personal relationship with GOD moreso than the half-hearted attachment to 'rituals, rites, and traditions of religion and the law' then he would have realized that his strategy, though seemingly effective, was counter-productive.

Why no definative celebration?
Because the "when" is not nearly as important as the "cause" for celebration.

How do you explain the mathematics being as precise as it pertains to the big picture which predated his existence?

I really don't know what you're trying to get at here... But the math of the stars is nothing new.

GOD set all the stars in motion. A precise clockwork if you may.

If the celestial alignment which announced Christ's birth was a long awaited sign, wouldn't that suggest that GOD was using the stars to convey this message? And that someone out there was waiting to see it? Furthermore, because stellar/planetary motion is bound to laws of motion that then suggests that this event could have been predicted? That other starry events can also be predicted. That it was set in motion from the get-go.

Not to be lost on the argument; if celestial motion is bound to precise laws couldn't we just "rewind" the night sky to find evidence for the Star of Bethlehem? Wouldn't that be enough extra-biblical evidence supporting that such an event transpired just as the Bible described it?

Robert Larson used that very concept to find evidence for the Star of Bethlehem.

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/stage/stage.htm

Unlike your sources... his entire thought process is posted; the basis for his claims is substantiated by the night sky itself.

How are dates and times that correlate well before the mans existence have no value?

Isn't that the equivelant to a murder conviction despite a lack of true cause of death, weapon, blood and body. Billy did it because John said Rick said James said it was done.

You make no sense.

Dates existed before Jesus birth. Big Deal.
Other false religions existed before Jesus birth. Big Deal.

How do you explain the church reserving judgement on the authenticity of the very texts you cite?
Which ones? The Bible? Ummm....

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 02:40 PM

I appreciate your response. One of the few I respect here.
I'll never ever understand how Christians can tell me that dates, time and math are of no important consequence.

You're right there is no response to that.

Thanks for the respect. :lol The reason you don't understand is that you don't have the faith. Simple.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 02:43 PM

It's the Catholics who exalt Mary - but that's a whole 'nother argument!

She is the Mother of Jesus and we don't "worship" her or exalt her but I do show her respect and do pray to the Virgen de Guadalupe from time to time.
I've heard this whole Catholics worship other than God line many, many times.
:lol

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 02:46 PM

She is the Mother of Jesus and we don't "worship" her or exalt her but I do show her respect and do pray to the Virgen de Guadalupe from time to time.
I've heard this whole Catholics worship other than God line many, many times.
:lol

Where there's smoke, often there's fire. I was a devout Catcholic the first 18 years of my life, went to church 2-3 times a week, and practically all we ever did was pray to Mary. If she's not god, then why pray to her?

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 02:48 PM

I have to go to the VA in a few minutes but I will leave RandomLie and his heathen pals a heads up.

Scientist have claimed for many years stalactites take millions of years to form

(pictures omitted)

So much for your half baked facts!

"RandomLie" ?? That is truly the best riff done on my screen name that I have seen in the 5+ years I have been using it. Props.

For the rest of it:

If by "scientists" you mean the New Mexico Department of Tourism?

Heh.

"Scientists" say that "grow anywhere between a quarter-inch and an inch every century" (source linky dinky do) (http://science.howstuffworks.com/stalactite-stalagmite1.htm)

Your happy fun picture doesn't have a scientist say ANYWHERE that the stalactites formed over millions of years.

The scanned brochure presumedly written by the New Mexico Department of Tourism says "the world's most awesome monument to the wonders of nature" was created by drips of water over millions of years.

The "awesome monument" being the system of caves, not any particular formation.

Further, the fact that some geologic processes take thousands of years in no way proves a young earth theory. It is a bit like saying "these two cakes took 4 minutes to bake, so NO cakes will EVER take more than 4 minutes to bake".

You would have to show that ALL geologic processes take thousands of years, for the weight of evidence to point to a 10,000 year old earth.

This would include processes like radioactive decay.

Creationists fiddle with trying to discredit carbon-14 dating. The accepted half-life of U-238 is 4.5 BILLION years, (source) (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html) and this is used to assess the dates of truly ancient rock formations.

I may grant you that there is room for error of a few thousand years for C-14, but you can't credibly tell me that the U-238 and similar dating of rocks is off by BILLIONS of years, and that all measurements done on samples for decades has produced spurious results.

Further, I would ask why God is being so sneaky, and even bothering to have any element with a half-life of billions or hundreds of billions of years when the universe is supposedly only 10,000 years. Why bother?

DPG21920

12-30-2008, 02:48 PM

Where there's smoke, often there's fire. I was a devout Catcholic the first 18 years of my life, went to church 2-3 times a week, and practically all we ever did was pray to Mary. If she's not god, then why pray to her?

Why do people thank others when they accomplish things on their own? Like when an athlete wins an award and thanks his teammates; he could not do it his own.

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 02:51 PM

Further, I would ask why God is being so sneaky, and even bothering to have any element with a half-life of billions or hundreds of billions of years when the universe is supposedly only 10,000 years. Why bother?

I think it's been established over and over that god is a mischievous shit. I blame it on the parents.

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 02:51 PM

In other words, you didn't watch the video Summers posted after she sat through your Hovind garbage.

Mouse does not watch anything that might burst his preconcieved notions.

He is kind of inconsiderate that way.

Crookshanks

12-30-2008, 02:52 PM

She is the Mother of Jesus and we don't "worship" her or exalt her but I do show her respect and do pray to the Virgen de Guadalupe from time to time.
I've heard this whole Catholics worship other than God line many, many times.
:lol

Yes - it seems there was a VERY long thread talking about the very subject. As far as I'm concerned, the doctrine of salvation is all the matters; and, even though I'm a Southern Baptist, I don't subscribe to the notion that only Baptists can be saved. I admit I don't understand all the tenets of the Catholic faith, but I don't need to because it doesn't concern me.

And I would guess, that just as there are many different trains of thought even among baptist churches, that there can be some among Catholics as well. I think that's where some people get confused and why they make general statements like "all Catholics worship Mary" when it's simply not true!

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 02:56 PM

I think it's been established over and over that god is a mischievous shit. I blame it on the parents.

Chronos and Rhea?

(listens to the sound of Google searches)

Music, sweet music...

Phenomanul

12-30-2008, 02:58 PM

Why do people thank others when they accomplish things on their own? Like when an athlete wins an award and thanks his teammates; he could not do it his own.

The difference is Mary doesn't presently intercede for others... IMO

She fulfilled her role... is blessed for it... and we are to honor the fact that GOD chose her above all others to bear the Messiah. We are to be grateful for the fact that she accepted her task devotedly.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1st Timothy 2:5

But that discussion is for another day.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 02:59 PM

Where there's smoke, often there's fire. I was a devout Catcholic the first 18 years of my life, went to church 2-3 times a week, and practically all we ever did was pray to Mary. If she's not god, then why pray to her?

I hear ya and I've heard that same story from other ex-Catholics who leave the flock and I don't begrudge them for it. There is difference between worshipping other Gods and praying for guidance and help to a Saint or La Virgen de Guadalupe. I've never had an issue with it and never will.

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 02:59 PM

Personally, I think the earth was created from the blood and bones of a dead giant. At least that's what I believe this week.

Next week I will look into the Great Flood from the Mayan creation myths. Had to get rid of those pesky wood people somehow. I wonder if they are the ones that got trapped in the sediment from Mouse's pictures?

DPG21920

12-30-2008, 03:01 PM

The difference is Mary doesn't presently intercede for others... IMO

She fulfilled her role... is blessed for it... and we are to honor the fact that GOD chose her above all others to bear the Messiah. We are to be grateful for the fact that she accepted her task devotedly.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1st Timothy 2:5

But that discussion is for another day.

that is the point i was trying to make. there is a difference between giving thanks and worship.

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 03:01 PM

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 03:02 PM

The Young Earth theory would tend to support the Chinese version of creation that gives the age of the Earth at about 40,000 years.

When Pan Gu died, his blood flooded the earth, so any evidence of widespread flood supports this theory too. ;^)

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 03:03 PM

Fun break is over. This heathen needs to get back to work.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 03:06 PM

Yes - it seems there was a VERY long thread talking about the very subject. As far as I'm concerned, the doctrine of salvation is all the matters; and, even though I'm a Southern Baptist, I don't subscribe to the notion that only Baptists can be saved. I admit I don't understand all the tenets of the Catholic faith, but I don't need to because it doesn't concern me.

And I would guess, that just as there are many different trains of thought even among baptist churches, that there can be some among Catholics as well. I think that's where some people get confused and why they make general statements like "all Catholics worship Mary" when it's simply not true!

:tu I concur.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 03:23 PM

Where there's smoke, often there's fire. I was a devout Catcholic the first 18 years of my life, went to church 2-3 times a week, and practically all we ever did was pray to Mary. If she's not god, then why pray to her?
I think I've met more atheists and agnostics who grew up in the Archdiocese of San Antonio than from any other religious tradition, including secular upbringing. It cranks out religious skeptics like Southern Baptists crank out missionaries.

I have family by marriage who grew up as Catholics in New York, and they said their catechesis consisted of, "You sit here and we'll tell you what you have to believe, and you'll believe every bit of it or you're going to hell, and don't you dare ask any questions." Every last one of them is Protestant today.

So was San Antonio even worse?

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 03:25 PM

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 03:41 PM

Summary:

Its not a big deal that you guys can't agree on exactly how you should worship, what is literal and what isn't and who exactly should be worshiped. Only a portion of your Gospels corroborate each other and each and every one of them aren't first hand accounts but nonetheless you can pick and choose which fits best and how depending on the label of your organized faith. Some of your faiths although rooted in god will still result in hell because you misexercised your free will and choose the wrong style of worship. Disregard dates because its the priciple of the matter and its that priciple that was reverse duplicated all the way to the beginning of man all of which are in hell for falsely worshiping the wrong god. So yeah every Egyptian, Early Chinese and all the fucking Cavemen are super pissed off right now. These priciples were rightfully taken back thousands of years after the first pre-duplication. The celebrations were also pre-duplicated thousands of years before they were rightfully taken back at the expense of blood shed. Blood shed that was obviously retroactively neccessary to prove a point of orgin. Some facts matter when its hearsay and some facts don't matter at all when an issue questions the first hand accounts or physical maifestation of Jesus. There is no need for physical evidence because everything from your desk to your boogers provide you with everything you need to know. Remember most believers don't need to know shit they simply need to know how to exercise their free will and choose the one single proper path. Its not sacreligious to pray for your team or our personal victory at the expense of others because when its all said and done Jesus or God or Mary or a Donkey have awarded the ones that truely deserved it. Don't feel bad if god chose Philly over the Cowboys because that doesn't mean Whitten or Romo are going to hell it just means they either didn't pray hard enough or there are better believers on the Eagles. Free-will is only free enough to choose the one single proper path to the savior and not free enough to expect or desire tangible answers or explanations. So if you don't "freely" choose the right god within the right religion you're destined to cook like baby backs in the depths of inner earth or is hell below the South Pole. If you happen to fall in the odd category of an abandoned child raised by wolves who can only bark but not speak you might go to hell for not choosing god as your savior because in reality you're human and still maintain that free ability to choose only one path its just too bad you got stuck being raised by wolves.

Fuck it. I'm in. Praise be Jesus, God, Mary and the Donkey unless praising any of the above is against the rules of Christianity or possibly falls into the category of another denomination that might thrust me to hell for using my free willing ability to only choose one right path wrongly. It really not hard. There are no rules and tons of rules. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Regardless one mans heaven is another mans hell. Its the perfect tragedy.

Can someone make a short list of which Churches offer the best heaven and which ones worship god but falsely because I don't want to think that I'm worshipping properly only to be sent to hell because the dancing fainting nogs aren't the right ones.

Help me help myself.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 03:50 PM

No matter what evidence I show, it doesn't matter. Some people will just REFUSE to admit the amazing resemblance to many different Sun gods, celebrations, astrological value, etc

People like Extra Stout, even when I go out of my way to destroy his argument, doesn't matter.

You got to be a certain kind of crazy to ignore truth and just hang on to your belief of some god watching us everyday.
I am aware of the more compelling arguments by skeptics. You didn't post them.

The astrological/mythical parallels were in vogue maybe 40-50 years ago. On a general thematic level, of course there are basic parallels between accounts of mythic heroes, stories of birth, death, and rebirth, miracles, legends of creation, etc. The academy then got carried away in trying to find the most tenuous of parallels and ultimately dropped the whole school of thought.

Your "facts" are another thing entirely. They are simply part and parcel a copy-and-paste from Acharya S., whose work was so fanciful and fabricated that honest skeptics more or less disowned her. She wants to take the general thematic parallels among the various religions and legendary accounts and find detailed correlations that simply do not exist.

Her work was grafted into the film Zeitgeist, which does for religious skepticism what Loose Change did for government skepticism (I don't mean that in a good way). She is trying again soon, with a new tome written in conjunction with some of the more intellectually honest skeptics that supposedly is going to rein in her penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts.

That's the reason I even entered the thread in the first place -- I know that particular series of "facts" is mostly lies. If you had stuck to higher criticism, I wouldn't have bothered.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 04:06 PM

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 04:07 PM

No matter what evidence I show, it doesn't matter. Some people will just REFUSE to admit the amazing resemblance to many different Sun gods, celebrations, astrological value, etcES didn't refuse to admit the resemblances, but pointed out that your argument is elliptical. You never made the argument, but just pointed to some resemblances. ES also showed your sources to be erroneous.

People like Extra Stout, even when I go out of my way to destroy his argument, doesn't matter.ES destroyed your argument, and you never noticed.

You got to be a certain kind of crazy to ignore truth and just hang on to your belief of some god watching us everyday.Anyone who disagrees with MH is either crazy or laboring in bad faith. Even though your evidence is a ragbag, erroneous to boot and you never made an argument for your own conclusions.

IMO, you're the prime exemlar of bad faith in this thread, MH. You're unwilling to evaluate any counterargument, or even cede that any would be reasonable. Anything but an echo appears to be out of bounds with you. You demand that everyone yield to your philosophy, even though it is a beggar. You won't even argue your own brief. And then you berate others as being loons and morons for merely disagreeing.

Lazy!

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 04:08 PM

Looks like B2B is on the verge of a meltdown. I'll pray for you though so you can find a good life coach. Good luck.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 04:11 PM

Your "facts" are another thing entirely. They are simply part and parcel a copy-and-paste from Acharya S., whose work was so fanciful and fabricated that honest skeptics more or less disowned her. She wants to take the general thematic parallels among the various religions and legendary accounts and find detailed correlations that simply do not exist.

Her work was grafted into the film Zeitgeist, which does for religious skepticism what Loose Change did for government skepticism (I don't mean that in a good way). She is trying again soon, with a new tome written in conjunction with some of the more intellectually honest skeptics that supposedly is going to rein in her penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts.

That's the reason I even entered the thread in the first place -- I know that particular series of "facts" is mostly lies. If you had stuck to higher criticism, I wouldn't have bothered.She is definately guilty of over playing her hand. I think some of her work is based on legitimate arguments by others but she just takes it way to far to lend credibility. However I can tell the difference between a large portion of her opinion and credible points in Zeitgeist. I believe the first part of the movie would have been far better recieved if they took more credible sources for similar points of interest.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 04:13 PM

Looks like B2B is on the verge of a meltdown. I'll pray for you though so you can find a good life coach. Good luck.I'm not even close. In fact I'm coming over to the other side. Its fool proof. Just like MBS and credit default swaps.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 04:18 PM

There are no rules and tons of rules. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Regardless one mans heaven is another mans hell. Its the perfect tragedy.Not for the believer, but this is probably the best observation you've made so far.

Can someone make a short list of which Churches offer the best heaven and which ones worship god but falsely because I don't want to think that I'm worshipping properly only to be sent to hell because the dancing fainting nogs aren't the right ones.

Help me help myself.Since you asked, may I recommend Kierkegaard's rewrenching of Tertullian: credo quia absurdum. It's a leap in the dark, but if you don't play you can't win the lottery.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 04:28 PM

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 04:30 PM

She is definately guilty of over playing her hand. I think some of her work is based on legitimate arguments by others but she just takes it way to far to lend credibility. However I can tell the difference between a large portion of her opinion and credible points in Zeitgeist. I believe the first part of the movie would have been far better recieved if they took more credible sources for similar points of interest.
With credible sources, it would have been a different film.

There is one gentleman in particular who is the closest thing to an intellectually honest Christ-myther I can think of, but even he says some things that are really out there. There is a reason why he's the only one even remotely taken seriously by people who study this stuff -- the evidence just doesn't support the view. The evidence supports some kind of historical Jesus.

To be clear, that dosn't mean I expect people rationally to come to the conclusion that God became a human being, did a bunch of miracles to demonstrate his authority, submitted to being tortured and killed in the body so he could defeat death for all who trust in him by rising again, and then ascending into heaven. I don't expect people to deduce by the scientific method that the Spirit of God can just come into their hearts if they believe and start changing them to become kinder, more giving, selfless Jesus-like people. Those things are arational and supernatural. To the purely rational mind, these things are absurd. Kierkegaard spoke of the "leap of faith" necessary for the rational agent to believe.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 04:44 PM

There is one gentleman in particular who is the closest thing to an intellectually honest Christ-myther I can think of.Who, please? I like to read.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 04:46 PM

Who, please? I like to read.
Robert M. Price

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 04:49 PM

Thanks very much, ES.

Phenomanul

12-30-2008, 05:04 PM

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 05:09 PM

I think I've met more atheists and agnostics who grew up in the Archdiocese of San Antonio than from any other religious tradition, including secular upbringing. It cranks out religious skeptics like Southern Baptists crank out missionaries.

I have family by marriage who grew up as Catholics in New York, and they said their catechesis consisted of, "You sit here and we'll tell you what you have to believe, and you'll believe every bit of it or you're going to hell, and don't you dare ask any questions." Every last one of them is Protestant today.

So was San Antonio even worse?

I can't entirely blame my disillusionment with Christianity on the Catholic church. I left it because I thought it was too ritualistic, and thought it seemed like a bunch of sheep mumbling the same thing over and over every single Sunday in church. So in college I joined a fundamentalist Protestant church that preached the exact things Crookshanks has posted; that the bible is literally true (every word of it), that we're all evil sinners, that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will be tortured in hell because they're the greatest evil in the world, etc. When they pushed me to read my bible, I did (for the first time), and I was mortified by how petty and full of anger god was. I had heard most of the stories before in religion class at school, but they're always softened up for children. Not so when you get it from the horse's mouth in the bible, and none of god's crimes ever seemed justified. After a few months in a protestant church, I said to hell with both of 'em and never looked back.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:13 PM

-Horus was born of the virgin (FALSE -- not a virgin)

Actually, Horus' birth WAS of an miraculous birth. You see, Osiris was DEAD. Isis tried to piece him back together, but she couldn't. His penis was thrown in a river. So she hovered over his body and 'drew his essence'.... She was impregnated by spirit. There was no actual intercourse and impregnation.

Isis was a -virgin goddess-. If you want to tell me that because she and Osiris were together that she wasn't a virgin, then how about we open the pickle jar and talk about Mary being married to Joseph yet still a virgin?

There is even another story about Mut-em-ua, the Virgin Queen of Egypt.

The God Taht announced to her that she would become pregnant.
The god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnated the virgin Isis by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.

etc... This is not new. By the way, Mut is also one of ISIS' names. The Great Mother, Mut-Isis-Nekkhbet, all the same Goddess Mother.

- Isis-Meri (FALSE -- Merion is never appended to Isis)

Incorrect again. Isis is not her ONLY name. 'Goddess of Many Names' / 'Queen of the Gods' Click her for Link about Isis (http://www.ancientnile.co.uk/gods.php)

She is also known as Aset, Ast, Est, Meri-En-Sakar, and many others.

You see Egyptian Gods had -many forms- but they were all just different incarnations of the same Gods. One of Isis' forms was the Goddess of Nature and Harvest - MERI-EN-SAKAR. Click here for link (http://books.google.com/books?id=hlFtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=egyptian+god+meri&source=web&ots=b1eQammvH7&sig=KFWlUdbhLfUNFSTsFykZhXo8djY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA334,M1) They are all forms of ISIS, the Mother.

Isis ultimately absorbed and represented hundreds if not thousands of different goddesses, all forms of the Mother, ISIS. Her worship survived until around the 6th century AD, until it was largely replaced by the new Mother, Mary, whose name was obviously influenced by Isis' form of MERI, Goddess of Nature and Harvest.

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/images/mary.jpg

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/images/isis6.jpg

- December 25 (FALSE -- November 15, roughly)

Incorrect again. Ancient Egyptians, in fact, ALMOST EVERY MAJOR CIVILIZATION in human history celebrated Dec. 25th because that is when the Sun begins it's journey back to Spring and Summer.

This is said to be the Sun 'reborn' and coming back from death. Horus being the Sun God, Egyptians celebrated Horus birth as Dec. 21st-25th, but his ACTUAL entrance into Earth was "on the last day of the Egyptian Khoaik" which falls around Nov. 15

Jesus' birth day is NEVER mentioned in the Bible, however it too is celebrated on Dec. 25th once again, to coincide with the worship of the Sun. The date was chosen to occur on the same date as the birth of Mithra, Dionysus and the Sol Invictus (unconquerable Sun), etc.

Therefore, both Horus and Jesus are just forms of Sun worship and their birthdays ARE celebrated on Dec. 21st-25th even though NEITHER Jesus nor Horus was actually born on that day.

with his birth being announced by a star in the East (FALSE -- fabrication)

The Star in the East is Sirius. Sirius was -THE MOST IMPORTANT- Star to ancient Egyptians. The entire Egyptian calendar was based on the rising of Sirius. They created 12 months, with 30 days each.

Sirius is also EQUIVALENT to -Isis- .

link here (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/esp_sirio09.htm)

So. Isis aka Sirius, the mother of Horus, heralds her son's/the Sun's arrival.

and attended by three wise men.(FALSE -- fabrication, and note that the number of Magi in the biblical account is never defined)

Once again...

The Bible says the wise men brought 3 gifts. Gold, frankincense and myrrh. We assume it's 3 men.

However, we can now be SURE it is 3 men. The wise men ask Herod "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."

They saw his star in the east. The bright Star in The East has always been known as SIRIUS. In Orion's belt, there are 3 stars that point to Sirius. They always point to Sirius. They have always been called the THE THREE KINGS OF ORION.

By the way, Sirius is known as Isis, the constellation near Sirius is that of Orion, which was attributed to Osiris. Horus coming from the Father, through the Mother, to rise on Earth. Jesus says I come from my Father who sent me. Horus coming from Osiris (Orion)

-3- stars point directly to Sirius, which in turn, Sirius heralds the coming of the Sun. The Three Kings of Orion.

I will do the rest later.

-------------------------

Ok. ES seems to have the same STEREOTYPICAL problem that all Christian nitpickers have. I've seen it before.

"Oh, 'immaculate conception' is blah blah blah."

They get stuck on NITPICKING terms and just FOREGO and IGNORE the OVERALL REALITY of the story.

So, changing the phrase 'immaculate conception' to 'miraculous birth', now what? We still have the same similarity.

That right there is a complete destruction of christian defense.

All that crap about "fabrication" are all lies and misinformation.

Christians apparently don't care if ISIS was a virgin and had a miraculous birth of Horus, impregnated from thin air from a DEAD OSIRIS.

They don't care that it closely resembles the Jesus birth.

They want a carbon copy, EXACTLY like Jesus or they won't admit anything.

That is not honest. It's obvious that the Jesus story was COPIED and INFLUENCED just like all other Sun gods. They changed the details around for every incarnation, but the basic plot is the same.

To deny this is just dishonest and on the verge of insanity. It's the same cast of characters with details and names changed around for every different incarnation they thought up.

Really, there is no denying this. To just turn a blind eye and nitpick little words and ignore the overall similar stories is absurd.

RandomGuy

12-30-2008, 05:16 PM

Man, this shit is getting good. Classic thread!!!!!

DPG21920

12-30-2008, 05:19 PM

I can't entirely blame my disillusionment with Christianity on the Catholic church. I left it because I thought it was too ritualistic, and thought it seemed like a bunch of sheep mumbling the same thing over and over every single Sunday in church. So in college I joined a fundamentalist Protestant church that preached the exact things Crookshanks has posted; that the bible is literally true (every word of it), that we're all evil sinners, that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will be tortured in hell because they're the greatest evil in the world, etc. When they pushed me to read my bible, I did (for the first time), and I was mortified by how petty and full of anger god was. I had heard most of the stories before in religion class at school, but they're always softened up for children. Not so when you get it from the horse's mouth in the bible, and none of god's crimes ever seemed justified. After a few months in a protestant church, I said to hell with both of 'em and never looked back.

How is it a crime? So basically you are saying that if there is a heavan and God does not deam you worthy of entrance, that you should just be left alone and not sent to hell, correct? That would make everything easier?

Is it a crime for the guy who does the lethal injections to kill the man who raped and killed a child?

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:22 PM

You are referring here to Acharya S's reading of the panels and inscriptions at the Luxor Temple. Her reading is forced and wrong. Thoth announces to Amun that he is to impregnate the Queen of Egypt, Neith. He has sex with her and impregnates her. (The ankh is a symbol of life, and is a stylized representation of the sexual act.) He announces to her that she will bear his son, Amenophis.

Ina general sense, there are parallels between Jesus' nativity and various ancient legends of the birth of a king, but those parallels are the point.

WHO THE hell IS ACHARYA S?

Now back on topic.

YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT STORY WAS PUBLISHED WAY BACK IN 1922

SHAKEN CREEDS: The Virgin Birth Doctrine By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922
http://www.amazon.com/Shaken-Creeds-Virgin-Doctrine-Origin/dp/0766179885

http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

Holy shit. It's like talking to a crazy person. Seriously.

baseline bum

12-30-2008, 05:23 PM

How is it a crime? So basically you are saying that if there is a heavan and God does not deam you worthy of entrance, that you should just be left alone and not sent to hell, correct? That would make everything easier?

Is it a crime for the guy who does the lethal injections to kill the man who raped and killed a child?

Is it a crime to kill children? A mass murderer isn't my idea of a good guy.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 05:23 PM

ES, have you read Lee Strobel's works?

IMO He produces some of the most lucid apologetic arguments around... his thought process is highly logical and the rationale of his conclusions is almost always explained.

I am generally familiar with Strobel, but have not read his works outside of maybe a few pages of one book several years ago.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:26 PM

You better not ignore me like you did the other things.

You are referring here to Acharya S's reading of the panels and inscriptions at the Luxor Temple. Her reading is forced and wrong. Thoth announces to Amun that he is to impregnate the Queen of Egypt, Neith. He has sex with her and impregnates her. (The ankh is a symbol of life, and is a stylized representation of the sexual act.) He announces to her that she will bear his son, Amenophis.

Ina general sense, there are parallels between Jesus' nativity and various ancient legends of the birth of a king, but those parallels are the point.

WHO THE hell IS ACHARYA S?

Now back on topic.

YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT STORY WAS PUBLISHED WAY BACK IN 1922

SHAKEN CREEDS: The Virgin Birth Doctrine By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922
http://www.amazon.com/Shaken-Creeds-Virgin-Doctrine-Origin/dp/0766179885

http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

Now what do you have to say for yourself?

Opps? Seriously, you are not being honest. You are trying your damndest to lie and just hang on to faith. That is not the search for truth.

DPG21920

12-30-2008, 05:27 PM

Is it a crime to kill children? A mass murderer isn't my idea of a good guy.

You did not answer my questions.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 05:28 PM

Can we all at least agree that mormons are going to hell.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:28 PM

I've found the truth!!!

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:29 PM

Can we agree I just owned Extra Stout?

I completely destroy him over and over yet it doesn't matter to you.

I don't know why you guys do it. If Jesus isn't real, why hang on to it? Really, it's a huge hindrance to your edification.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 05:30 PM

Is it a crime to kill children? A mass murderer isn't my idea of a good guy.Lets not forget that man including the ones who walked with dinosaurs are all buring in hell. So anybody prior to the year 40 or so went to hell. Lots of Cavemen are seriously confused right now.

DPG21920

12-30-2008, 05:32 PM

Lets not forget that man including the ones who walked with dinosaurs are all buring in hell. So anybody prior to the year 40 or so went to hell. Lots of Cavemen are seriously confused right now.

I think he was referring to God being the killer.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:32 PM

It's absurd to believe the Jesus myth. Even when shown the reality that Jesus is just another form of Sun worship in a long line of Sun gods that share the same story and astrological events, it doesn't matter to some people.

Nothing will ever free them of their fear. They will be ruled by fear until they die.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:37 PM

I've never looked back.

DPG21920

12-30-2008, 05:37 PM

MiamiHeat = http://hillsidelending.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/pic_morpheus.jpg + http://www.dreamnotoftoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/simmons.jpg

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:37 PM

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:38 PM

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:38 PM

:lmao You crack me up. Fear my ass.

so you ignore how I just slapped your friend Extra Stout up there?

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:39 PM

MiamiHeat = http://hillsidelending.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/pic_morpheus.jpg + http://www.dreamnotoftoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/simmons.jpg

:lmao

DPG21920

12-30-2008, 05:40 PM

Another thing,

isn't it funny how Protestants think they 'fixed' Christianity by branching away from the obviously flawed Catholic doctrine?

Trying to purify and 'fix' a religion that was STARTED by Roman Catholics in the first place is like trying to clean and polish a flawed diamond into a perfect one. You can't do it. You started with an already flawed diamond. The Diamond has to be perfect from day one.

Man has been known to mess things up. God will love those who recieve his true message. Live on your own free will, but live a life of love. Care for those around you and you will be in my good grace.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:40 PM

so you ignore how I just slapped your friend Extra Stout up there?

:lmao You've yet to prove jack squat. :lmao

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 05:40 PM

Another thing,

isn't it funny how Protestants think they 'fixed' Christianity by branching away from the obviously flawed Catholic doctrine?

Trying to purify and 'fix' a religion that was STARTED by Roman Catholics in the first place is like trying to clean and polish a flawed diamond into a perfect one. You can't do it. You started with an already flawed diamond. The Diamond has to be perfect from day one.Please lets not forget the Mormons who also cherry picked what they wanted. I swear to god if the mormons don't go to hell I'm going to be pissed the fuck off.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:40 PM

Fear is how humans are ruled.

Look at how Hitler got the populace to do what he wanted. He attacked his own Reichstag and then blamed it on foreign invaders.

"AHHH!! We are being attacked!"

Through fear, the human population is easily ruled.

This is the same concept with religion. Judeo-Christian mythology is BASED on fear.

Do what I tell you - OR ELSE!

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:41 PM

The MiamiHeat doctrine is seriously flawed.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:42 PM

DPG21920

12-30-2008, 05:42 PM

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:43 PM

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:44 PM

Then he killed himself.

What does that have to do with what I said?

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:45 PM

Lol, ok.

I am going back to my original stance.

JoeChalupa is a troll who is using this thread as a playground :)

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 05:46 PM

:lmao You've yet to prove jack squat. :lmao
I'm bored enough to fight fire with fire.

You haven't proved jack squat yourself.

I fell like I've proven that Jesus was a load of horseshit. Christianity is the root of all evil.

You will never change my faith of that. NEVER. NEVER I TELL YOU. My religion says the burden of proof is on you. You have provided nothing. NOTHING.

/yelling/NOTHING/yelling/

meltingcheese/NOTHING/meltingjesus/

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:48 PM

Lol, ok.

I am going back to my original stance.

JoeChalupa is a troll who is using this thread as a playground :)

What ever calms your fear.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 05:50 PM

I'm bored enough to fight fire with fire.

You haven't proved jack squat yourself.

I fell like I've proven that Jesus was a load of horseshit. Christianity is the root of all evil.

You will never change my faith of that. NEVER. NEVER I TELL YOU. My religion says the burden of proof is on you. You have provided nothing. NOTHING.

/yelling/NOTHING/yelling/

meltingcheese/NOTHING/meltingjesus/

Like I've said all along and I've admitted that I cannot prove the existence of God but neither can you disprove it. Simple as that. You've not proven anything at all because of none of what you've posted is proof that Jesus Christ did not exist or is not the Son of God. NONE, NADA.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 05:52 PM

lol, joe. your trolling becomes obvious now :P

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 05:54 PM

B2B, help me out here. Did I or did I not just show that Extra Stout doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to the Egyptian story of Mut-em-usa ? He said it was a poor translation by someone named Acharya S, who I don't even know of.

I just showed him that the damn thing is accurate and was published in 1922 in a book, and I'm sure in other places too.

Yet somehow JoeChalupa still says I haven't proved 'jack squat' ?

Am I missing something here? I don't get it. what's your take?Acharya S is a bit of a loon who took the point you're trying to make and turned into a giant conspiracy theory far more reaching than any truth oriented advocate I or you have ever seen. She is easily citable because she's so extreme and people like us cite extremes to counter extremes.

I've already attempted to point out that she is a source of questionable credibility and that there are many many other more logical reasonable sources who echo similar stances. It fell on deaf ears.

There really isn't anything left to do here. They will never look reasonably at the situation. They're trained like super Nazi's that Tom Cruise couldn't even bring down.

The thing that always struck me as funny is that they always say that Jesus will return in this era...which has been cited for years from the Christians. So every time some whack job claims to be Jesus how do they know to ignore him. What if one of these crackpots were Jesus and he's returned as mortal man and everyone blew him off. Then Jesus would have to steal and rob people for food and shelter while living from cardboard box to cardboard box. Poor little unrecognized Jesus. His own people don't even acknowledge him. You guys should start paying attention Heyzues the homeless man.

ALVAREZ6

12-30-2008, 05:55 PM

haha disproving Jesus wasn't the son of God...

why don't we all start making stupid claims and that can't be disproven...like the flying spaghetti monster

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 05:56 PM

Like I've said all along and I've admitted that I cannot prove the existence of God but neither can you disprove it. Simple as that. You've not proven anything at all because of none of what you've posted is proof that Jesus Christ did not exist or is not the Son of God. NONE, NADA.I never set out to disprove god for the quadrillionth time. Fuck how many times do I have to say it.

I have proven there is no Jesus you ignored it. I proved it with my evidence the evidence seen by others who agree and the complete lack of evidence supporting his existence. So even if I believed there is a lack of evidence.

Ignore it. I don't care.

/yellingbabyjesus/YOU CAN NEVER BREAK MY FAITH IN NO JESUS. NEVER/yellingcryingbabyjesus/

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 05:59 PM

haha disproving Jesus wasn't the son of God...

why don't we all start making stupid claims and that can't be disproven...like the flying spaghetti monsteror better yet we could all just jump into a 20 page thread and pretend we're up to speed.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 06:03 PM

I never set out to disprove god for the quadrillionth time. Fuck how many times do I have to say it.

I have proven there is no Jesus you ignored it. I proved it with my evidence the evidence seen by others who agree and the complete lack of evidence supporting his existence. So even if I believed there is a lack of evidence.

Ignore it. I don't care.

/yellingbabyjesus/YOU CAN NEVER BREAK MY FAITH IN NO JESUS. NEVER/yellingcryingbabyjesus/

And how many time do I have to tell you that you CANNOT prove that Jesus never existed. You simply cannot. You are ignoring very simple facts. Just because you believe the facts prove it to YOU doesn't make it reality. You simply cannot prove it. How may damn times do I have say it!!! :bang :bang

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 06:05 PM

And how many time do I have to tell you that you CANNOT prove that Jesus never existed. You simply cannot. You are ignoring very simple facts. Just because you believe the facts prove it to YOU doesn't make it reality. You simply cannot prove it. How may damn times do I have say it!!! :bang :bang

And how many time do I have to tell you that you CANNOT prove that Jesus existed. You simply cannot. You are ignoring very simple facts. Just because you believe the facts prove it to YOU doesn't make it reality. You simply cannot prove it. How may damn times do I have say it!!! :bang :bang

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 06:07 PM

monosylab1k

12-30-2008, 06:10 PM

Threads like this are why I hate going into The Club. But for some reason I keep going in here.

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 06:10 PM

BacktoBasics

12-30-2008, 06:10 PM

Threads like this are why I hate going into The Club. But for some reason I keep going in here.I know man every thread here is 25 pages of lustful sins.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 06:10 PM

Oh, well. Believe and let live is my motto. I don't what's the motto with you guys but live long and prosper. You all can say I'm trolling, which I must I have been guilty of in the past but it doesn't bother me one bit. I'm no religious scholar but I'm very comfortable in my own beliefs and if you all want to call me stupid or ignorant for my beliefs than so be it.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 06:11 PM

And how many time do I have to tell you that you CANNOT prove that Jesus existed. You simply cannot. You are ignoring very simple facts. Just because you believe the facts prove it to YOU doesn't make it reality. You simply cannot prove it. How may damn times do I have say it!!! :bang :bang

I've already admitted that.

monosylab1k

12-30-2008, 06:11 PM

1) You know Jesus because of the Jesus mythology in the New Testament.

2) There is no historical account of Jesus -anywhere- outside of the Bible except ONE place by Josephus which was proven to be a forgery.

3) So therefore, if we prove that the Jesus mythology was just another form of Sun worship from a long line of Godmen just like Jesus, that pre-date Jesus, then we have proven he doesn't exist.

It's simple. Stop trolling

You'd get through to these people if you just show them that Jesus was black. Prove that and you'll have a gaggle of newly converted non-Jesus believers on your hands.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 06:12 PM

I've never called you stupid or ignorant.

I've called you dishonest because I KNOW that the facts presented here and unsettling to you, yet you still don't want to admit it.

Extra Stout

12-30-2008, 06:19 PM

WHO THE hell IS ACHARYA S?

Now back on topic.

YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT STORY WAS PUBLISHED WAY BACK IN 1922

SHAKEN CREEDS: The Virgin Birth Doctrine By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922
http://www.amazon.com/Shaken-Creeds-Virgin-Doctrine-Origin/dp/0766179885

http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

Holy shit. It's like talking to a crazy person. Seriously.
A lot has happened in biblical criticism and archaeology in the past 86 years to make that book out of date. We already covered the distinction between miraculous births and births by divine intervention on the one hand, and a virgin birth on the other. We also covered the mistranslations of the inscriptions at Luxor.

1922 was around the height of the liberal era. Liberals responded to the claims of modernism by simply stripping away all supernatural aspects of faith and reducing Jesus to a good moral teacher. Rough parallels to other legends of miraculous births were enough to make the point that one need not believe in such things that are nonsense to good sound reason.

A closer examination of the other legends finds that the biblical account is unique in that Mary not only conceived miraculously, but that she was virgo intacta. The Jesus account "one-ups" the other legends.

This is why, for example, Jane Schaberg, a more contemporary liberal feminist who makes the opposite argument about the virgin birth of Jesus -- that the uniqueness of Mary's being a virgin points to its fabrication by a patriarchal church that created an unattainable archetype in order to oppress women.

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 06:19 PM

1) You know Jesus because of the Jesus mythology in the New Testament.

2) There is no historical account of Jesus -anywhere- outside of the Bible except ONE place by Josephus which was proven to be a forgery.

3) So therefore, if we prove that the Jesus mythology was just another form of Sun worship from a long line of Godmen just like Jesus, that pre-date Jesus, then we have proven he doesn't exist.

It's simple. Stop trolling

So in your eyes if I die and there is no written proof such as a birth certificate or death certificate then that is proof that I never existed? Without a paper, scroll, tablet, cave writing or something else I never walked this earth?
Stop trolling damnit.

HighLowLobForBig-50

12-30-2008, 06:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggF8iTa26UQ

thought yall might like this

JoeChalupa

12-30-2008, 06:22 PM

I've never called you stupid or ignorant.

I've called you dishonest because I KNOW that the facts presented here and unsettling to you, yet you still don't want to admit it.

Wrong again. Nothing that you've cut and pasted has unsettled me in the slightest bit. Not even close. I've told you again and again that you CANNOT prove anything and you've yet to admit it. You can make theories and show "facts" but that doesn't prove anything. Who is being ignorant?

Troll

12-30-2008, 06:28 PM

Did someone say troll?

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 06:31 PM

jack sommerset

12-30-2008, 06:46 PM

Superman, sent by his father from space because he was going to be killed as a baby. Reaches Earth and saves mankind. Has super powers and helps people during his travels.

Do you understand how stories are used over and over?

Yup, I sure do. The Bible has some good ones to. The story of Job is one of my favorites or how Noah built that huge ass boat and loaded two of every animal on it to save everything oh and there is one line that just cracks me up, it goes something like this "its better to cast ur seed in the belly of a whore than the face of a rock" something like that. Basically Men don't jerk off, if you have to fuck go get a whore! A sort of ok for cheating!Love those tall tales!

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 07:16 PM

Can we agree I just owned Extra Stout?

I completely destroy him over and over yet it doesn't matter to you. Disagree completely.

Cutting and pasting links isn't an argument, and pointing to a syncretistic process by which Isis subsumes thousands of deities, resulting in some resemblance to the Christ tale, proves nothing by itself. Except that religions share a large number of themes and tropes, and almost all of them have a determinate relationship to the calendar and celestial bodies. And to whoever lives nearby.

You seem to think the priority of some theme or trope in a cult disproves the veracity of any cult that follows it. In fact, it only shows your confirmation bias. No such conclusion is necessary. Resemblance doesn't prove influence, and even were the influences proven, the cultus isn't refuted simply because material is borrowed.

There may be arguments out there that tend to back you up MH, but you haven't made them yourself. All you do is point to others who began with the same premise, then used the so-called evidence like a buffet line. Reading your so-called arguments is almost as bad as reading theosophy -- everything is based on bogus philology and superficial likeness.

I don't know why you guys do it. If Jesus isn't real, why hang on to it? Really, it's a huge hindrance to your edification.What I find intriguing is that the tale -- true or false -- is much more powerful and compelling to people than historicity, reason and science. That should tell you something right there.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 07:20 PM

Threads like this are why I hate going into The Club. But for some reason I keep going in here.It's like trying to leave a sore tooth alone, or not rubbernecking when you pass a wreck.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 08:33 PM

.Do you understand how stories are used over and over?That is the way they are generally used, MH. That is the way you use them yourself in this thread.

Your point?

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 08:55 PM

The story of Moses leading the people out of Egypt....

Apparently, while wandering through the desert, Moses and the people were led by God through the desert by a "pillar of fire" by night and a "pillar of cloud" by day.

Now, you have the supernatural literal translation of it. You believe this happened : http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2962/exod8thepillaroffireqg6.jpg

The reality?

Alexander the Great used an ingenious way to unify his campaigns during his many travels. During the night, he had his men carry a tall pole with fire on the very top to use as a signal to his men to follow. During the day, the men carried a tall pole with smoke for his men to follow.

Ancient Egyptians loved to travel in caravans by night due to the heat of the sun. They also used a tall pole with fire to guide them. The Egyptian military used this same technique, fire by night, smoke/cloud by day. As did the ancient Persians. In fact, this was THE way you safely traveled back then.

This was standard military practice for the Egyptians and many others.

So -2- poles or "pillars"..... One with Fire, the other with Smoke/Cloud.

Click here for reference (http://books.google.com/books?id=72ZR9KCh9lUC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=ancient+egyptian+military+pole+of+fire&source=web&ots=LOq3pKB0Jv&sig=fU607ATjaEg6fG2tpl1ZHTBkcGs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result)

-----------------

What is your explanation for all of this?

All of it just one big coincidence right?

Such dishonesty is really repulsive to a guy like me who believes we should always seek the truth

jack sommerset

12-30-2008, 08:59 PM

God created EVIL................. Nice guy.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:00 PM

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 09:01 PM

Do you realize how many millions of Christians and Jews believe the literal explanation behind the story?

Aren't you one of them?

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:05 PM

Really, the closest you come to making an argument in your own words is:

"It all couldn't be a coincidence, right?"

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 09:06 PM

Don't ignore the question.

Aren't you one of them? Do you believe the supernatural explanation to the stories such as the one above?

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:08 PM

Do you realize how many millions of Christians and Jews believe the literal explanation behind the story?

Aren't you one of them?Not at all. I respect exegetics. The plain meaning of scripture can be very hard to establish, and interpretation is a bitch.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 09:12 PM

So you don't believe in the literal, supernatural explanations behind the Biblical stories.

You are not a believer. Why are you arguing with me, again?

Busted :toast

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:22 PM

So you don't believe in the literal, supernatural explanations behind the Biblical stories.

You are not a believer. Why are you arguing with me, again?

Busted :toastNot quite. You jumped to conclusions. Because I think teasing a literal meaning from scripture is not only foolish, but perilous, does not mean I am an unbeliever. It only means I care about learning. You seem to be unalive to the distinction.

I get to say what goes for me, m'kay MH?

Offer to join the club declined, without regrets.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 09:28 PM

Ah, so only YOU have the answers to the real religion. You pick and choose what to believe, I see.

Good luck on that one. Maybe you should start a new denomination after you figure out what you choose to keep from the bible. :downspin:

--------

Anyway, to anyone else, sufficient proof was given and there is no denying it.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:32 PM

Ah, so only YOU have the answers to the real religion. You pick and choose what to believe, I see.I'm more about picking out the right questions, I'm lawyerly that way. I don't think I have the answers for anybody.

Prove me wrong, MH:

"Being MH means asking all the questions, and answering none."

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:38 PM

Good luck on that one. Maybe you should start a new denomination after you figure out what you choose to keep from the bible. :downspin:

--------

Anyway, to anyone else, sufficient proof was given and there is no denying it.You really shouldn't thump such a weak chest -- it might cave in.

If you really care so much, use the search function to find my religious affiliation. I don't particularly care to share it with you, nor to bandy words about it. You're a lousy conversationalist.

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 09:40 PM

Who doesn't? Doctrine and practice are two different things.

Prove me wrong, MH:

"Being MH means asking all the questions, and answering none."

Who doesn't? Are you asking me who doesn't pick and choose from the Bible to create their own religion ?

Is that a serious question....

:lmao

I'm here to discuss facts. If anyone has a rebuttal to the facts I posted, I will be entertained to watch you try and rewrite history.

There is no denying that Christianity is just another form of Sun worship and Judaism isn't far behind.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:43 PM

There is no denying that Christianity is just another form of Sun worshipYou seem to be stuck on this, but I notice it's a lonely canoe. Wonder why.

jack sommerset

12-30-2008, 09:47 PM

You seem to be stuck on this, but I notice it's a lonely canoe. Wonder why.

He isn't alone by any stretch of ur imaginaton.Thats really what keeps this topic going,imagination!

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:48 PM

I notice also your .000 batting average on direct questions to you, MH. Yet we all have to answer you, or we're cowards.

Your fellow atheists will no doubt thank you for upholding the stereotype of atheists as conceited, vindictive bigots.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 09:49 PM

He isn't alone by any stretch of ur imaginaton.Thats really what keeps this topic going,imagination!You're convinced by MH?

What was the convincing part?

MiamiHeat

12-30-2008, 10:02 PM

You seem to be stuck on this, but I notice it's a lonely canoe. Wonder why.

This is a logical fallacy that a child could recognize. Appeal to popularity. As if the amount of people on either side has anything to do with the validity of the argument.

Logical fallacy #1

Your fellow atheists will no doubt thank you for upholding the stereotype of atheists as conceited, vindictive bigots.

Logical fallacy #2

Ad hominem. Has nothing to do with the facts being presented.

You're convinced by MH?

What was the convincing part?

I have repeatedly made it a point to mention that all of this information is very old. It has been known to scholars and intellectuals for CENTURIES. NOTHING NEW. If anyone is 'convinced' by anything posted in this thread, it is not by me.

and lastly, you automatically assume anyone who holds this position must have been convinced in this thread.

Because nobody could have had this opinion before they came into the thread?

Do you realize how many millions of people do not believe? It's around the 3rd or 4th largest population, after Islam, Christianity, etc.

Yeah, with your overall asshole behavior and lack of logic, I don't think you are very important. Move along now, winehole23, I have -0- interest to interact with you.

jack sommerset

12-30-2008, 10:13 PM

This is a logical fallacy that a child could recognize. Appeal to popularity. As if the amount of people on either side has anything to do with the validity of the argument.

Logical fallacy #1

Logical fallacy #2

Ad hominem. Has nothing to do with the facts being presented.

I have repeatedly made it a point to mention that all of this information is very old. It has been known to scholars and intellectuals for CENTURIES. NOTHING NEW. If anyone is 'convinced' by anything posted in this thread, it is not by me.

and lastly, you automatically assume anyone who holds this position must have been convinced in this thread.

Because nobody could have had this opinion before they came into the thread?

Do you realize how many millions of people do not believe? It's around the 3rd or 4th largest population, after Islam, Christianity, etc.

Yeah, with your overall asshole behavior and lack of logic, I don't think you are very important. Move along now, winehole23, I have -0- interest to interact with you.

+1

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 10:16 PM

This is a logical fallacy that a child could recognize. Appeal to popularity. As if the amount of people on either side has anything to do with the validity of the argument.You took it wrong. It was meant as a put-down.

Logical fallacy #2

Ad hominem. Has nothing to do with the facts being presented.
More putdown. One good turn deserves another, right?

I have repeatedly made it a point to mention that all of this information is very old. It has been known to scholars and intellectuals for CENTURIES. NOTHING NEW. If anyone is 'convinced' by anything posted in this thread, it is not by me.An even balder appeal to authority than my own, with a cheesy bow to the ancients thrown in for good measure. Bravo!

and lastly, you automatically assume anyone who holds this position must have been convinced in this thread.Strawman. As usual, there's nothing textually specific to back this up, nothing at all, just bare assertion.

Do you realize how many millions of people do not believe? It's around the 3rd or 4th largest population, after Islam, Christianity, etc.Completely believable. There is a very large number of thoughtful, reasonable,courteous atheists outside this thread. I wish I were talking to them now.

Maybe I will.

Yeah, with your overall asshole behavior and lack of logic, I don't think you are very important. Move along now, winehole23, I have -0- interest to interact with you.Pots jeering at kettles. You would be the expert.

Later.

Winehole23

12-30-2008, 11:08 PM

I fell like I've proven that Jesus was a load of horseshit. Christianity is the root of all evil.

You will never change my faith of that. NEVER. NEVER I TELL YOU. My religion says the burden of proof is on you. You have provided nothing. NOTHING.

/yelling/NOTHING/yelling/

meltingcheese/NOTHING/meltingjesus/I know you meant it as sarcasm, but it's funny to me that your atheist turn comes down in the end to dogma pure and simple.

Atheism as reverse fideism has been very much evidence in these pages IMHO. The arguments on your side, such as they are, are some of the weakest I've ever seen.

And after a long travail, you arrive at threadbare belief. And still you say you can't understand the other side. Hilarious.

dirk4mvp

12-31-2008, 12:38 AM

I personally believe in God, but I'm not a religious nut.

also, 4chan provides lulz when it comes to this topic.

http://img.4chan.org/b/src/1230696000119.jpg

smeagol

12-31-2008, 06:36 AM

I'm not even close. In fact I'm coming over to the other side. Its fool proof. Just like MBS and credit default swaps.

You are such a pompous idiot.

You think you've proven something with your lose connections between Christianity and other religions through calendars and dates. :lmao

And you still think CDSes and MBSes as a bad thing.

What a moron . . .

Homeland Security

12-31-2008, 08:48 AM

I wish Bush could have had a third term; we were just broaching the subject of torturing atheists for sedition. *sigh* The good times are almost over.

BacktoBasics

12-31-2008, 11:03 AM

lol at you thumpers getting mad at me. I'm not making loose connections. I even posted a fucking math equation in relation to important events. A math equation that is solvable from the earliest pagan calendars long before Jesus walked. I know mathematically calculating his every move from something that predated his existence has no significant value. As a matter of fact not one of you bothered to even comment on it.

You guys can get as mad as you want. I get it.

I know that no matter what proof I provide it will be considered "loose relation" or "opinion".

Lets face it. A tablet from the year 25 could be found. It could explain in great detail how the legend of Jesus was to be founded and how the birth of Christianity was to be ushered in. You guys would call it fake, misinformation, loose correlations, its another Jesus there were lots of them......

Nothing regardless of how concrete will ever matter.

....but you will never sway my beliefs either. My faith in the lack of existence won't waver until definative proof exists. First hand originally documented proof. My faith is strong.

manufor3

12-31-2008, 11:05 AM

B2B, stop posting in this thread before you embarrass yourself

BacktoBasics

12-31-2008, 11:08 AM

I actually laughed more just now in the irony of being accused of making loose connections when the very basis for the mans existence is rooted in 5th and 6th party connections. lol not one original document not one artifact.

Lots of black pots and kettles here.

BacktoBasics

12-31-2008, 11:11 AM

B2B, stop posting in this thread before you embarrass yourself:lmao how about you attach your lips to my shithole and breath in.

Embarrass myself :lmao. I don't even think its possible for me to be embarrassed here. Obviously if loosing a penis contest doesn't embarrass me nothing will.

JoeChalupa

12-31-2008, 11:11 AM

I'm with B2B. My faith is strong and will not be swayed. No need to get mad.

JoeChalupa

12-31-2008, 11:14 AM

:lmao how about you attach your lips to my shithole and breath in.

Embarrass myself :lmao. I don't even think its possible for me to be embarrassed here. Obviously if loosing a penis contest doesn't embarrass me nothing will.

Getting the short end of the dick is embarrassing and you are still here. :tu

Winehole23

12-31-2008, 11:27 AM

lol at you thumpers getting mad at me. I'm not making loose connections. I even posted a fucking math equation in relation to important events. A math equation that is solvable from the earliest pagan calendars long before Jesus walked. It was funnier than 9/11 numerology. Thanks for the chuckles.

I know that no matter what proof I provide it will be considered "loose relation" or "opinion".That you think your demonstrations rise to the level of logical proof is hysterical and pretentious. We all trade in opinion here.

Nothing regardless of how concrete will ever matter.

....but you will never sway my beliefs either. My faith in the lack of existence won't waver until definative proof exists. First hand originally documented proof. My faith is strong.So then, you're just as stubborn in your prejudice as those you criticize.

Bravo, B2B!

BacktoBasics

12-31-2008, 12:01 PM

It was funnier than 9/11 numerology. Thanks for the chuckles.

That you think your demonstrations rise to the level of logical proof is hysterical and pretentious. We all trade in opinion here.

So then, you're just as stubborn in your prejudice as those you criticize.

Bravo, B2B!I don't believe I trade in opinion when the math of his entire life was in place before he existed. To me thats proof. You can calculate every significant moment from a tangible item that existed before he did. How is a mathematical calculation an opinion?

I don't care if you answer that or not. I'm just glad you recognize how stubborn I am about it becaue I'm only doing that to spite the thumpers. I'm actually willing to believe. There just happens to be zero proof.

If you wanted to truely lend credence to my bitterness it would be more along the lines of being bitter that I feel its factually provable that Jesus was horseshit and so is organized religion. Thankfully I hang by a thread of the belief in a potential higher power.

BacktoBasics

12-31-2008, 12:03 PM

More importantly I want Winehole23 to like me. I respect his as a poster outside of this thread. I can bear the thought of having another enemy on these boards.

Winehole23

12-31-2008, 12:33 PM

I don't believe I trade in opinion when the math of his entire life was in place before he existed. To me thats proof. You can calculate every significant moment from a tangible item that existed before he did. How is a mathematical calculation an opinion?It's not. But the significance you attach to it is an interpretation. The correlation could be mere coincidence.

I'm actually willing to believe. There just happens to be zero proof.None will be forthcoming, unless you want to dip into scholasticism. And even scholasticism considered ontological proof to be somewhat post hoc. Only those who cannot believe by simple faith alone need the proofs. (N.B., Aquinas put it somewhat differently: only those who are unamenable to reason are required to hold Christ by simple faith.)

If you wanted to truely lend credence to my bitterness it would be more along the lines of being bitter that I feel its factually provable that Jesus was horseshit and so is organized religion. Thankfully I hang by a thread of the belief in a potential higher power.At least this is candid. I would put the problem somewhat differently for myself. I believe, but I am skeptical of believers. Unlike you, I don't require that the supernatural conform with my own versions of empiricism and rationalism. I can see how that would be a big stumbling block.

smeagol

12-31-2008, 12:35 PM

Maths has disproven Christianity.

And CDS are the root of all evils.

:tu

BacktoBasics

12-31-2008, 12:50 PM

Maths has disproven Christianity.

And CDS are the root of all evils.

:tu
At least we can agree

BacktoBasics

12-31-2008, 12:50 PM

I totally forgot to add this to the thread

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee96/haywoodgiablomi/rollbarf.gif

Winehole23

12-31-2008, 12:53 PM

^^^:rollin

mouse

12-31-2008, 01:37 PM

The Evolutionist have to create stuff like the "Oort cloud" to justify how Comets can still be burning after Billions of years. And yet they have the nerve to get on people who believe in Noah's ark?

I give you the Mysteries Oort cloud!

http://www.cosmographica.com/gallery/portfolio2007/content/bin/images/large/328_OortCloud.jpg

Fact: Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

Another example of this fairy tale.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/nov/cover/outer-oort.jpg

More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’

First published:
TJ 15(2):11
August 2001

by Danny Faulkner

Comets are continually being lost through decay, collisions with planets, and ejections from the solar system. If the solar system were billions of years old, then all comets would have long ago ceased to exist if they were not continually being replaced. Thus to sustain long-age thinking, a way is needed to ‘resupply’ the solar system with comets from time to time.

For years, evolutionary astronomers have believed that long-period comets (those with orbital periods of more than 200 years) come from the so-called ‘Oort cloud’. The Oort cloud supposedly contains billions of comet nuclei orbiting the sun thousands of times further from it than the Earth. Astronomers think that the gravity of an occasional passing star or other object, or possibly a galactic tide, causes comets from the Oort cloud to fall into the inner solar system. This mechanism supposedly supplies the influx of comets needed to overcome the conclusion that the solar system is young.

There are problems with the Oort cloud, the greatest being that there is absolutely no evidence that it even exists! However, a recent study has revealed a new problem.Evolutionary theories of the origin of the solar system state that comet nuclei came from material left over from the formation of the planets. According to the theory, this icy material was sent out to the Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the solar system by the gravity of the newly formed planets. All of the earlier studies ignored collisions between the comet nuclei during this process.

This new study has considered these collisions and has found that most of the comets would have been destroyed by the collisions. Thus, instead of having a combined mass of perhaps 40 Earths, the Oort cloud should have at most the mass of about a single Earth. It is doubtful that this is enough mass to account for the comets that we see. The researchers postulate ‘escape valves’3 that could supply up to 3.5 Earth masses, but this is still ‘low compared to recent estimates of the mass of the Oort cloud’. They go on to ‘speculate that a distant source region for Oort cloud comets’ could resolve some other problems [emphasis added].

Of course, if the solar system is much younger than most astronomers think, then there is no need for the Oort comet cloud. Since it cannot be detected, the Oort cloud is not a scientific concept. This is not bad science, but non-science masquerading as science. The existence of comets is good evidence that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, just as the recent-creation model suggests.

TDMVPDPOY

12-31-2008, 01:39 PM

so whoever can solve the israels/palestine conflict is going to be greater than JESUS, cause he didnt solve it in his time.

Winehole23

12-31-2008, 02:08 PM

Doesn't the bible say you shouldn't have other gods than Jehovah, or risk being put to death? Shouldn't worshiping Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary be a big no-no if you're going to believe the old testament?The Catholic resolution of this problem is the Nicene union of three hypostases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_%28religion%29) (personae) in one homoousion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm) (shared essence). But you probably knew that already. The controversy at the time was considerable and also prolonged, so it's not so surprising that it still comes up. Whoever isn't a trinitarian won't be much swayed, but it's funny to me that you argue like a lumpen Protestant, coming as you do from an RC background.

As to 'worshipping' Mary, short of out and out Marionism it would seem to be of a piece with the routine veneration of saints in RC. They are not worshipped as gods, but appealed to as intercessors. You probably knew this too, didn't you?

Also, your ignorance of the trope of Christ as the new Adam and the gospels as a new covenant, is showing. For minimally conversant believers, the contradiction you pose b/w Mosaic law and the New Testament doesn't withstand even momentary scrutiny, and for someone who claims to have read the bible, your apparent unfamiliarity with OT prophecy is curious to say the least. For believers, the NT is the culmination and fulfillment OT law, not a contradiction.

A tip of my hat to the atheists like BB posing as holy doctors and teaching us all doctrine.

Bold! :lol

Borosai

12-31-2008, 02:16 PM

God sent me an e-mail today. He said you guys are all going to Hell whether you like it or not. That includes the true believers and the infidels. God is an equal-opportunity-banisher.

Sorry, he didn't use his real address, so you can't reply.

TimothyLeary

12-31-2008, 02:18 PM

Why is everyone tripping about religion? If ain't your bag why bother?

BacktoBasics

12-31-2008, 02:19 PM

What?
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee96/haywoodgiablomi/rollbarf.gif

Homeland Security

12-31-2008, 04:34 PM

Virtual tour of B2B's retirement home (web.eku.edu/flash/inferno/)

Re-Animator

12-31-2008, 04:39 PM

After a few drinks tonight I may join the debate.

DoubtingThomas

12-31-2008, 04:41 PM

Virtual tour of B2B's retirement home (web.eku.edu/flash/inferno/)

:lmao

MiamiHeat

12-31-2008, 04:47 PM

After a few drinks tonight I may join the debate.

There is no debate

There is one side showing facts and the other side saying "so what"

smeagol

12-31-2008, 04:48 PM

The Catholic resolution of this problem is the Nicene union of three hypostases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_%28religion%29) (personae) in one homoousion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm) (shared essence). But you probably knew that already. The controversy at the time was considerable and also prolonged, so it's not so surprising that it still comes up. Whoever isn't a trinitarian won't be much swayed, but it's funny to me that you argue like a lumpen Protestant, coming as you do from an RC background.

As to 'worshipping' Mary, short of out and out Marionism it would seem to be of a piece with the routine veneration of saints in RC. They are not worshipped as gods, but as intercessors. You probably knew this too, didn't you?

Also, your ignorance of the trope of Christ as the new Adam and the gospels as a new covenant, is showing. For minimally conversant believers the contradiction b/w Mosaic law and the New Testament you pose doesn't withstand even momentary scrutiny, and for someone who claims to have read the bible, your apparent unfamiliarity with OT prophecy is curious to say the least. For believers, the NT is the culmination and fulfillment of the OT, not a contradiction.

A tip of my hat to the atheists like BB posing as holy doctors and teaching us all doctrine.

Bold! :lol

I've had more than one discussion thread about this, and many other Catholic-Protestant controversies, but always with friendly Protestant posters.

Interesting to see an atheist picking up their side of the argument.

smeagol

12-31-2008, 04:52 PM

There is no debate

There is one side showing facts and the other side saying "so what"

Don't get offended buddy but you facts suck.

Simply tell me why so many Christians have been willing to die for their faith.

Then tell me how many Egyptians, Assirians and all those other people from the different faiths you bring as proof, were also willing to die for their Gods.

I'm not saying this is conclusive proof of anything, but it certainly has to cause inquisitive minds to think about it . . .

MiamiHeat

12-31-2008, 04:54 PM

Don't get offended buddy but you facts suck.

Simply tell me why so many Christians have been willing to die for their faith.

Then tell me how many Egyptians, Assirians and all those other people from the different faiths you bring as proof, were also willing to die for their Gods.

I'm not saying this is conclusive proof of anything, but it certainly has to cause inquisitive minds to think about it . . .

:bang:bang

ididnotnothat

12-31-2008, 05:09 PM

There is no debate

There is one side showing facts and the other side saying "so what"

Problem is those so called "facts" don't prove anything at all and when that is pointed out you keep saying "so what".

Homeland Security

12-31-2008, 05:10 PM

There is no debate

There is one side showing facts and the other side saying "so what"

The religion chip we implant in people's brains at birth has been less effective since we outsourced production. Sometimes taking the low bid is a mistake...

Wilson

12-31-2008, 05:14 PM

smeagol

12-31-2008, 05:15 PM

:bang:bang

:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

Bigzax

12-31-2008, 05:16 PM

You see...even Wilson believes.

Winehole23

12-31-2008, 06:05 PM

Apparently, now he doesn't.

Tonto

12-31-2008, 11:24 PM

tonto have air to breath

food to eat

tonto not bileive in monkey

tonto know pale face GOD is above us all

him lol at non believers

tonto not proud

smeagol

01-01-2009, 09:17 AM

So, MH, any new arguments why you can prove the unprovable?

Extra Stout

01-01-2009, 12:38 PM

So, MH, any new arguments why you can prove the unprovable?
He's going to have to go in a different direction, away from trying to deny the historicity of Jesus. That may have been a hypothesis that some scholars held 50-100 years ago, but really only Robert Price is keeping that candle burning today. Everyone else is a crank. G.A. Wells even dropped the point.

To update everybody on what the thinking has been since, um, 1922, the hypothesis of pagan influences leading a splinter group of Jews into a different kind of religion without needing Jesus to exist works if evidence supports a late second- to early third-century date for most of the New Testament. This is consistent with other evidence of how long it takes for syncretic material to accrete to a religious tradition, or for a composite character to develop, or for the view of a religious "community" to be personified as a single mythical figurehead.

The hypothesis back then was at least minimally feasible since the documentary evidence to refute it was not available. It was certainly still a minority position, but a position nonetheless. However, today we have multiple New Testament papyri fragments from the mid-third century, and a handful dating as far back as A.D. 125-150. One of these fragments is from the Gospel of John, which according to biblical criticism has to be the last gospel written -- so we have documentary evidence dating back to within two generations of its traditional authorship date. So the scholarly consensus has been to push all the dates of NT authorship back close to the traditional dates of authorship, in the mid-to-late first century, with some of Paul's epistles being especially early, in the 50's and 60's.

This creates a real problem for one who wants to deny the historicity of Jesus, because now he must explain how this new religion based upon a single person pops up within 30 years of when this person supposedly lived, if that person is in fact fictitious. This goes against all other evidence of how legends and myths develop over time. To borrow from N.T. Wright, I suppose historically anything is possible, but to believe that, one must more or less believe in miracles, in which case one is on the same footing as the orthodox!

So, not only can we put aside doubts of the historicity of Jesus based on the supposed similarities of the Gospels to pagan legends on the grounds of their being specious (in the case of late 19th-/early-to-mid 20th-century obsolete scholarship) if not fraudulent (as in what one finds on the internet these days) upon close inspection, we can also dismiss these doubts based on the very early evidence of New Testament manuscripts relative to the time Jesus is supposed to have lived.

The next hypothesis to consider is whether perhaps a proto-Christianity existed much earlier than the supposed time of Jesus' life. This hypothesis presumes that the legend of Jesus was culled together from earlier Jewish, rather than pagan, material allegorically according to a Hebrew literary device called midrash. Some have guessed that some faction of the Essenes might had changed over time into something proto-Christian. This is more along the lines of what Robert Price proposes. It is not generally accepted in the academy because the differences between what is known of the Essenes and first-century Christianity are still seen as too great.

(This line of thinking is also useless for neo-atheist apologetic, since it assumes that Jesus material is drawn from the Old Testament, and orthodox Christianity itself holds that Jesus is clearly prefigured in the Old Testament. This is also why B2B's argument about the precise dating in Daniel went nowhere -- all pointing that out does to a believer is validate his belief!)

So then the conclusion of the academic consensus -- whether its members are Christians or not -- is that some kind of person named Jesus existed in Galilee in the early first century, from a humble family, taught, had followers, and was executed. His followers worshipped him after his death.

--------------------------------------

Since I understand what the state of scholarship is, this is why I refuted MiamiHeat's argument about Jesus parallels to Horus, etc., and not his point about the pillar of cloud/fire or baseline bum's arguments. baseline bum argues against belief based upon things like theodicy and the accounts of God's behavior in the Old Testament. The question of the pillar of fire and how that impacts Old Testament hermeneutics is legitimate. The philosophical question of how a loving God can allow evil in the world, or can do things like order genocide against the Amalekites and then even get angry with Saul when he does not in fact kill everyone and everything, needs to be considered by people who claim to believe.

Mendacious bullshit masquerading as facts does not need to be considered.

Rapper

01-01-2009, 01:07 PM

If there is a God

Why does the God let part of americans discriminate against Asian?

tlongII

01-01-2009, 01:36 PM

You may as well believe that martians created the Earth. You can't disprove that either. In fact, martians being the genesis of life on earth is much more likely than anything the Bible promotes. I look at facts and evidence and make logical deductions based upon them.

mouse

01-01-2009, 03:31 PM

There is no debate

There is one side showing facts and the other side saying "so what"

Watching a movie or reading a book or website doesn't always count as facts.
After all they have JFK on film getting shot in the head but has it proved anything? People to this day are still debating on who wanted him dead and why it took place.

How old are you? The reason I ask I remember when I was around 20ish I went through a period in my life where nothing made sense and i was doubting everything. I did not believe in any religion and I questioned everything.

I would wait until your around 30 something and see how you feel then. I have no problem with people who don't believe in any GOD.

I do have a problem when someone who claims to be a scientist tells me the earth is Billions of years old. And that we evolved from molecules and gasses that were floating around in space. Like anyone on this planet has the right to say what was going on 10,000 years ago, and yet they want to say what took place Billions of years ago? just because they tested a bone they found, or a fossil? it's all speculation. And therefore is no different then people who believe in a GOD.

What I can believe in is the complicated designs I see in the plant and animal life. Not to mention the Human eye.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=image%2Fgif&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1137941788776&ssbinary=true

Even the most advanced artificial imaging system in the world remains extremely simple and primitive compared to the eye.

When we think of the effort and knowledge that has been put into developing these artificial imaging systems, we can get a grasp on the superior creation that has gone into designing the eye.

Richard Dawkins, the hero of atheists, and author of The God Delusion, readily admitted in his 2004 PBS interview that evolution hasn’t been observed and all the evidence supporting evolution is circumstantial evidence. Dawkins emphasizes that there is Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence.

Below is a complete unedited transcript of what professor Dawkins said about this:

BILL MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean It’s been observed?

DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…

MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.

DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence…………

There you have it – professor Richard Dawkins, the atheists' number one hero, admits that evolution has never been observed and is supported only by circumstantial evidence.

mouse

01-01-2009, 03:46 PM

If there is a God

Why does the God let part of americans discriminate against Asian?

I suppose GOD created the guns and the bullets?
Your the typical cop out! You want to blame GOD for everything.
Your worthless and lazy if you need a baby sitter to make sure you have a good life. I can't stand people who can't grow a back bone and take responsibility for there own actions.
So you really just want to be a puppet? You want GOD to pull all the strings?

Have him find your keys when your late for work? Have him rescue trapped miners in a cave. There is a baby missing in NY, not to mention the coach of a softball team praying for a win? Hell I need him to pay my rent.

where does it end?

The earth wasn't always this way. At one time there was no Cancer,wars,hate, and sin. It wasn't until man let temptation get the best of him and now we are paying the price.

Kinda like when your friends come over and they can't surf the www for porn because your parents put some sort of Nanny software on your PC.

At first they let you surf anywhere you wanted but you took advantage of it and now you pay the price.

The creator did his part, gave us the earth the air water and food. It's up to our ignorant ass to make something of it or destroy it.

Homeland Security

01-01-2009, 03:48 PM

Even the most advanced artificial imaging system in the world remains extremely simple and primitive compared to the eye.

When we think of the effort and knowledge that has been put into developing these artificial imaging systems, we can get a grasp on the superior creation that has gone into designing the eye.

Pffaw. The design of the human eye is pathetic. Needlessly complex, needlessly large, fragile, requires multiple other systems to support it which add weight, requiring then other systems to deal with the extra weight in the head...

The only way the eye would have gotten DoD approval is as a political favor...

jack sommerset

01-01-2009, 04:28 PM

:lol grown adults that believe a man was living in the belly of a WHALE! Silly rabbits, trips are for kids.

Homeland Security

01-01-2009, 04:42 PM

:lol grown adults that believe a man was living in the belly of a WHALE! Silly rabbits, trips are for kids.
Think about it. If you can get people to believe that, getting them to believe that Iraq had WMD's was a breeze.

jack sommerset

01-01-2009, 06:53 PM

The Christian bible says the world was flat. You know the bible God wrote. Or maybe just maybe MAN wrote this because he believed at the time the world was flat or perhaps it was 6,000 years ago. Is that called faith?

baseline bum

01-01-2009, 09:46 PM

The earth wasn't always this way. At one time there was no Cancer,wars,hate, and sin. It wasn't until man let temptation get the best of him and now we are paying the price.

This has to be the most ridiculous thing you've ever posted on this forum.

baseline bum

01-01-2009, 09:50 PM

I do have a problem when someone who claims to be a scientist tells me the earth is Billions of years old. And that we evolved from molecules and gasses that were floating around in space. Like anyone on this planet has the right to say what was going on 10,000 years ago, and yet they want to say what took place Billions of years ago? just because they tested a bone they found, or a fossil? it's all speculation. And therefore is no different then people who believe in a GOD.

This is ridiculously stupid to act like all knowledge is speculation, on par with your 9/11 conspiracy theories. Is the doppler effect and relativity a bunch of speculation in that head of yours too?

What I can believe in is the complicated designs I see in the plant and animal life. Not to mention the Human eye.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=image%2Fgif&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1137941788776&ssbinary=true

Even the most advanced artificial imaging system in the world remains extremely simple and primitive compared to the eye.

When we think of the effort and knowledge that has been put into developing these artificial imaging systems, we can get a grasp on the superior creation that has gone into designing the eye.

Natural selection is so much simpler and explanation for the creation of the eye than is inventing the most complex thing imaginable, having it come from absolutely nothing, and having it design everything all at once.

MiamiHeat

01-01-2009, 10:21 PM

mouse despises all human knowledge and science, but uses a computer, the internet, probably drives a car and uses a telephone.

Quite laughably hypocritical.

If we were to go around saying crazy things, we would be thrown in the loony bin, but if you say the earth is 6,000 years old, you get labeled 'crazy' but you don't go in the loony bin because you are 'religious'

The evidence that the Jesus myth is just another incarnation of the very old and popular Sun God myth has been proven already.

Of course, the Churches will still have butts in the seats on Sun-Day.

mouse

01-02-2009, 12:04 AM

This has to be the most ridiculous thing you've ever posted on this forum.

Don't kill the messenger I was just quoting another book I read.

God created man with a free will and gave him a choice. God placed one limitation on mans freedom and told him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For God knew that in the day Adam ate it he would die spiritually and be separated from God eternally.

But Adam also began to die physically. Adams sin caused his body to slowly break down and eventually result in the death of his physical body.

Romans 5:12

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

You guys keep quoting the text books when you make your points but I can't use any books?

Is it just me or do you notice all the posters that defend Darwin seem to be very bitter and uptight. Why is that?

:wakeup

http://gprime.net/video.php/proofofcreationism

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 12:24 AM

Don't kill the messenger I was just quoting another book I read.

You guys keep quoting the text books when you make your points but I can't use any books?

Is it just me or do you notice all the posters that defend Darwin seem to be very bitter and uptight. Why is that?

:wakeup

http://gprime.net/video.php/proofofcreationism

You don't literally believe this, do you? This has to be a troll act.

mouse

01-02-2009, 12:25 AM

Evolution Vs. Creation
June 21, 2006 by
Eric Lund
The Co-existence of the Theories of Evolution and Creation
One of the most controversial topics of today is the question of our existence and how it came to be. Until recently, many thought that a supreme being had created the universe. Within the last few hundred years, however, overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates our existence is that of adapted species through evolutionary processes has challenged the suggestion of creationism. Evolutionists claim that their ideas contradict the teachings of the popular creation stories like that of the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. Because of the scientific evidence to support evolution, and the lack thereof for the idea of creationism, it is more commonly believed in modern times that the theory of evolution has proven the Holy Bible creation story wrong. Despite the controversy between the two views, extensive research shows that it is evident that the two ideas do not contradict, but rather coincide with one another, and that we cannot have one without the other. Science and the theory of evolution can explain how God created the earth, and the Bible explains why He created the earth.

QX12lzoATlI

mouse

01-02-2009, 12:38 AM

You don't literally believe this, do you? This has to be a troll act.

Now maybe you know how you all look when you quote, copy and paste your findings. The topic was asking is there a God. A simple yes or no would do but many of your uptight Atheists friends started pasting all kinds of text books and now that I paste a page or two you get upset?

vPaOMSiwt50

mouse

01-02-2009, 12:48 AM

U-LIVqjSvRk

Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!
10 Reasons Evolution Is A Lie- Richard Dawkins Extending a Lie: Charles Darwin Started The Theory Of Evolution

Richard Dawkins has been at it yet again, he has been given a huge platform yet again by the controllers of channel four to make a three part series on the Genius Of Charles Darwin. He is extending that he lie that the theory of evolution was begun by Charles Darwin.

Why would they want to lie about the origins of the theory? We have noted that the theory of Evolution has always existed in the mystery religions. As proof take Erasmus Darwin the grandfather of Charles who outlined the theory of Evolution in his tome Zoonomia. But there was something a little bit dark in his background, something that gave the plot away, he was a founder of a secret society called the Lunar society.

In case you are still in doubt of the origins of the the theory of evolution in the mysteries, take Alfred Russel Wallace when the reinvention of the idea was first conceived, it was called the christened the Wallace Darwin Theory. It was decided to drop Wallace from the theory’s name when he became interested in Society of Psychichal Research and in 1875 published a book called Miracles and Modern Spiritism. He also became a extreme socialists and anyone who knows any thing about the Fabian Socialists knows their involvement with Society Of Psychical Research.

Alfred Russel Wallace

http://dawkinswatch.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/russel-wallace1.jpg?w=238&h=300

Today the Fabian Socialist and Round table groups dominate Oxford University through the Rhodes Foundation and other Anglo Saxon supremacist institutes and research groups, that is the

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 02:08 AM

who knew mouse belonged in the nut house?

Again, why is mouse using a computer, the internet, telephones, etc if mouse doesn't believe in science?

Hypocritical behavior, nothing new

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 02:17 AM

Now maybe you know how you all look when you quote, copy and paste your findings. The topic was asking is there a God. A simple yes or no would do but many of your uptight Atheists friends started pasting all kinds of text books and now that I paste a page or two you get upset?

vPaOMSiwt50

Life from non-life had to happen exactly once, and then natural selection takes over from there. Natural selection is always painted as a random process over long periods of time by creationists, but that's either a complete misunderstanding or an outright lie. It's true that random mutations are the catalyst for change, but if that mutation conveys a tangible benefit, those with the mutation usually live longer, breed faster and more often, and have a population that will eventually dwarf those who do not have the beneficial mutation. This is because population growth is exponential, i.e., roughly Population = e^{rt} (2.7128.... to the rt th power), and is extremely sensitive to the value of r, which is the rate at which a population breeds.

If you want a reason why population growth is exponential, look at this example discussing ant populations (in you can view the emigration term a as the death rate, and always set it greater than or equal to zero since it's not possible for a negative number of ants to die).

quick explanation of population modeling (see the section called Class work on a project)
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/DA05D4B6-21BC-4C71-A082-92BF6DA4104E/0/r01.pdf

solution showing pop growth as exponential
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/AA679EBE-E537-48D4-A03B-046598927A83/0/r01sol.pdf

Check the graph I posted below of two functions e^2.0t and e^1.9t. r=2.0 is the breeding rate of something with a beneficial mutation, and r=1.9 the rate of that species without the mutation [so we can say the mutation provides about a 5% = ((2.0-1.9)/2.0) * (100%/1) benefit ion breeding rate]. I know the numbers 2.0 and 1.9 for the growth rates may seem a bit artificial, but every set of two exponential functions e^rt, e^st with 0<r<s behave exactly in the same way very quickly.

Anyways, in the image below, the black lines are the graphs of e^2.0t and e^1.9t, with e^2.0t (the graph of the population with the beneficial mutation) as the graph on the left, and e^1.9t on the right. The blue lines represent the difference between the two populations at a time of say 32.2 units of time (could be years, or roughly generations... whichever time scale one uses, the rate will have to be adjusted accordingly, since of course more will be born in a year at the same birth rate than in a month). Notice it's pretty substantially favoring the population with the beneficial mutation. However, if you go just about 0.2 time units longer (to 32.4 time units), you can see the difference in population between those with the mutation and without is much larger than before (it is shown by the green lines), and that e^2.0t continues to become way larger than e^1.9t. In fact, the ratio e^2.0t/e^1.9t (=e^0.1t) will grow very quickly to infinity as t grows, which is the same as saying the population with the beneficial mutation will reasonably quickly dwarf the population without the mutation.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/337/expqg7.png

As an example, a primitive wing might help an animal that lives in trees to slow his fall when he jumps down to grab prey on the ground, whereas one without that proto wing might be injured or killed by the fall. The animal with the proto-wing therefore has a huge advantage in that he can watch his prey from above where he has a much broader view of his hunting grounds and he can jump down to quickly pursue any prey he finds. His competitor without the mutation must either hunt from ground level (and thus not see as many opportunities) or climb down the tree before he can begin his pursuit of what he does see (thus giving extra time for the prey to escape). It's pretty easy to see the animal with the proto-wing is going to be far more successful a hunter, and thus will spend less time, less energy, and will have a lower opportunity cost for his hunt (leaving him more time to go out and get laid and pass his genes on). He's also much more likely to live longer, since he can be a much more successful hunter.

The proto-wing doesn't allow him to fly or to even glide, but it clearly provides benefit that will almost certainly become selected for his species (by the argument above about population growth being exponential). In this way we see that an animal can quickly derive great benefit from a wing-like appendage even if it doesn't provide the ability to fly, and that having a wing doesn't have to be an all or nothing state. Clearly, a wing is not an example of irreducible complexity.

Same with the eye. No one thinks an eye was just mutated all at once. You don't need cones to tell there's a light source (only rods). An extremely primitive eye may not let one see colors or long distances, but it can still be useful for telling if something runs across your path or if one is about to walk off the side of a cliff the same way that someone with cataracts is still better off than Stevie Wonder. The eye as we know it today is clearly not an example of irreducible complexity.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 02:19 AM

you are actually going to take mouse seriously?

I thought it was obvious mouse was trolling. well, cookie for you baseline for putting in your time

though I do think mouse should create mouse's OWN THREAD for this and not pollute the God thread

I suspect mouse's new thread about the Earth being 6,000 years old and all this other nonsense will be sparsely populated

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 02:30 AM

you are actually going to take mouse seriously?

I thought it was obvious mouse was trolling. well, cookie for you baseline for putting in your time

Maybe mouse won't take me seriously, but hopefully at least one person will see how simple and elegant the explanation of diversity of our planet through natural selection is. It really angers me when the religious right and Bush/Palin/etc lovers want to take science out of science classes. Intelligent design is not science because it's not testable, there's no physical evidence, and it does nothing to advance our knowledge of the universe we live in. Students should be learning skepticism; not blind faith in science classes. The physical evidence is all over the place for natural selection, so it's plain ignorant to drag evolution down to the level of the blind faith of creationism. It kind of reminds me of Bush's strategy of trying to bring his opponents down to his level, and obviously people fell for it the same way they do for intelligent design.

I cannot believe the disregard some people hold for biology, physics, and the like. We live in such an amazing time right now. For example, today mouse benefits from having the equivalent of 100 slaves working like dogs for 12 hours a day for what, a couple hundreds bucks a month on his power bill? (source: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed14.htm)

That's not because of God, since we've had him for at least 6000 years. That's a direct consequence of the incredible growth in human knowledge that owes itself entirely to the scientific method. If we tell our kids the scientific method is garbage and replace it with superstition, we're not going to make those kind of breakthroughs that are going to be needed to sustain our way of life into the future once the oil is gone.

Heat Miser

01-02-2009, 02:40 AM

though I do think mouse should create mouse's OWN THREAD for this and not pollute the God thread

I read most of your posts and they have nothing to do with topic.

Wow. Apparently I must LIVE on SpursTalk and not have a real life.

If I am missing from the thread , it MUST be because I have nothing more to say, right?

can't be that I have real life to go back to. it's 2:21 AM and i came to check what happened here. ridiculous, i'll be back tomorrow

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 02:42 AM

that is on-topic. :bang

Heat Miser

01-02-2009, 02:47 AM

I can see how you stay on topic.

LOL, troll. You almost had me for a second there :)

You are busted :P No trolling here today buddy! I'm on to you

Mm. these seasoned fries are delicious.

Uh-huh

Looks like you are busted. Look what I wrote in a previous post right above yours. vvvvvvvv

1. You can't even read my previous post

2. You are acting like a general a-hole

3. You are avoiding my question

Bodes poorly upon you. What a horrible first impression you give off. How old are you?

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 02:49 AM

All of that is on-topic.
and that last quote you posted is part of a larger post that is also on topic.

This thread is about God and his existence. I have said over and over, the Christian Jesus is a sun god mth.

Now compare that to someone talking about the age of the Earth or evolution.

Can you even compare anything? Your track record is flimsy as I see it because you can't tell what's on topic and what isn't.

mouse

01-02-2009, 02:50 AM

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 02:52 AM

How can you even remotely say you want the truth when you believe a book that says a man can walk on water and all other sorts of stuff yet provide NO EVIDENCE?

You aren't searching for any truth.

mouse

01-02-2009, 02:52 AM

Life from non-life had to happen exactly once, and then natural selection takes over from there. Natural selection is always painted as a random process over long periods of time by creationists, but that's either a complete misunderstanding or an outright lie. It's true that random mutations are the catalyst for change, but if that mutation conveys a tangible benefit, those with the mutation usually live longer, breed faster and more often, and have a population that will eventually dwarf those who do not have the beneficial mutation. This is because population growth is exponential, i.e., roughly Population = e^{rt} (2.7128.... to the rt th power), and is extremely sensitive to the value of r, which is the rate at which a population breeds.

If you want a reason why population growth is exponential, look at this example discussing ant populations (in you can view the emigration term a as the death rate, and always set it greater than or equal to zero since it's not possible for a negative number of ants to die).

quick explanation of population modeling (see the section called Class work on a project)
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/DA05D4B6-21BC-4C71-A082-92BF6DA4104E/0/r01.pdf

solution showing pop growth as exponential
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/AA679EBE-E537-48D4-A03B-046598927A83/0/r01sol.pdf

Check the graph I posted below of two functions e^2.0t and e^1.9t. r=2.0 is the breeding rate of something with a beneficial mutation, and r=1.9 the rate of that species without the mutation [so we can say the mutation provides about a 5% = ((2.0-1.9)/2.0) * (100%/1) benefit ion breeding rate]. I know the numbers 2.0 and 1.9 for the growth rates may seem a bit artificial, but every set of two exponential functions e^rt, e^st with 0<r<s behave exactly in the same way very quickly.

Anyways, in the image below, the black lines are the graphs of e^2.0t and e^1.9t, with e^2.0t (the graph of the population with the beneficial mutation) as the graph on the left, and e^1.9t on the right. The blue lines represent the difference between the two populations at a time of say 32.2 units of time (could be years, or roughly generations... whichever time scale one uses, the rate will have to be adjusted accordingly, since of course more will be born in a year at the same birth rate than in a month). Notice it's pretty substantially favoring the population with the beneficial mutation. However, if you go just about 0.2 time units longer (to 32.4 time units), you can see the difference in population between those with the mutation and without is much larger than before (it is shown by the green lines), and that e^2.0t continues to become way larger than e^1.9t. In fact, the ratio e^2.0t/e^1.9t (=e^0.1t) will grow very quickly to infinity as t grows, which is the same as saying the population with the beneficial mutation will reasonably quickly dwarf the population without the mutation.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/337/expqg7.png

As an example, a primitive wing might help an animal that lives in trees to slow his fall when he jumps down to grab prey on the ground, whereas one without that proto wing might be injured or killed by the fall. The animal with the proto-wing therefore has a huge advantage in that he can watch his prey from above where he has a much broader view of his hunting grounds and he can jump down to quickly pursue any prey he finds. His competitor without the mutation must either hunt from ground level (and thus not see as many opportunities) or climb down the tree before he can begin his pursuit of what he does see (thus giving extra time for the prey to escape). It's pretty easy to see the animal with the proto-wing is going to be far more successful a hunter, and thus will spend less time, less energy, and will have a lower opportunity cost for his hunt (leaving him more time to go out and get laid and pass his genes on). He's also much more likely to live longer, since he can be a much more successful hunter.

The proto-wing doesn't allow him to fly or to even glide, but it clearly provides benefit that will almost certainly become selected for his species (by the argument above about population growth being exponential). In this way we see that an animal can quickly derive great benefit from a wing-like appendage even if it doesn't provide the ability to fly, and that having a wing doesn't have to be an all or nothing state. Clearly, a wing is not an example of irreducible complexity.

Same with the eye. No one thinks an eye was just mutated all at once. You don't need cones to tell there's a light source (only rods). An extremely primitive eye may not let one see colors or long distances, but it can still be useful for telling if something runs across your path or if one is about to walk off the side of a cliff the same way that someone with cataracts is still better off than Stevie Wonder. The eye as we know it today is clearly not an example of irreducible complexity.

That was some good info It will take me awhile to read it but I am sure if I find a flaw or two I will have to call you out on it.
:toast

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 02:54 AM

You shouldn't even waste your time. You believe in a book with no facts, no evidence, nothing. It's one of many religions, but then you turn around and criticize SCIENCE?

laugh out loud.

tlongII

01-02-2009, 02:54 AM

What's wrong with believing we came from monkeys?

tlongII

01-02-2009, 02:55 AM

You don't like monkeys or somethin'?

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 02:58 AM

baseline bum you don't get it. I don't care who is right or wrong I just don't like scientist to say in a school text book that man came from a monkey and the earth is 250 Billion years old if they are not sure or they can't prove it.

What's wrong with wanting the truth?

No, you don't get it. There is extremely compelling evidence that man came from monkey, that the universe is 14.5 billion years old, and so on. Fossils, carbon-dating, the expansion of the universe clearly shown by doppler shifts in spectrums of light emitted by celestial bodies, the theory of relativity that shows these bodies had/have a finite speed, etc. are all authoritative clues that point us in the direction you are in such violent opposition to (why, because they don't have the whole story?). Your line of reasoning is like saying you're not going out on a date unless the woman tells you she'll suck your cock beforehand or no one should go out and play ball unless they can already shoot like Larry Bird.

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:03 AM

How can you even remotely say you want the truth when you believe a book that says a man can walk on water and all other sorts of stuff yet provide NO EVIDENCE?
You aren't searching for any truth.

Where did I post I believe a man can walk on water?
It might surprise you but I question all theories and religions and cults etc...

But if i can't get you Jesus bashers to agree with me on how science should be facts and not theory, then how can I begin to prove there is a God?

You guys won't even admit I am right on any post so your to bias to have a debate with.

Great Barrier Reef
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/09/22/great_barrier200.jpg

Here is a picture of a coral reef growing under water. You know the largest reef in the world is in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef. ..... You know during World War II, some of the reef was damaged and destroyed by ships and anchors and bombs and stuff like that, so the environmentalist wackos went out there to see how fast it grows back. They watched it grow for 20 years. It was a government project! After watching the reef grow for 20 years, they decided the Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old. That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why don’t we have a bigger reef someplace? Why is the oldest reef less than 4,200 years old?