Logo

pancake · 06-28-2012, 09:50 PM

Soon this thread will have to be locked due to it's size so I'm getting my vote in early for the second one.

Part Two - Raptured Cookaloo

No wait! I have another one.

Return of the Fundie Font... in BOLD.

Jopsy Pendragon · 06-28-2012, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

The same could be said for atheists and evolutionists about their beliefs.

Doubt is not a belief. It is a LACK of belief.

Science is BUILT upon the slow systematic elimination of DOUBT through study, testing, analysis, peer review and proof. The goal is to create a body of knowledge that can not be doubted because every piece is built upon independently repeatable observations of reality.

Belief is BUILT upon the suppression/repression of doubt through repetitive affirmation of unverifiable statements arbitrarily made by certain charismatic people in history. The statements are accepted as 'true' only because of WHO said them.

Jopsy Pendragon · 06-28-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

Sure I do. It's those here who don't. Otherwise they would actually look at the evidence that I present and question or point out what they disagree with, instead of saying "That's not true"

No offense intended, but that's *EXACTLY* how you come across to us. We say something, you wave your hand and say "That's False... here's a 2 hour Hovind video that proves it"

Our problem is that that we simply do not trust the information sources you trust. I can't/won't surrender myself to your messiah any more than you could/would surrender yourself to Mohammed. Because it FEELS WRONG to you, first, and second, it would require you to entirely restructure everything you think you know about the world.

And once we reach a certain age, our brains get very VERY set in how we see the world.

And I don't think you understand what 'Conservatism' stands for very well. It's a philosophy of: "What's mine is MINE. What's ours is MINE. What's yours is OURS."

Jopsy Pendragon · 06-28-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

You're one of the few people here that, although I disagree with you, I also enjoy chatting with you. You have been respectful and logical and down to earth.

Thank you.. and while I may be coarse at times... I do enjoy sparing with you.

(though I wish you could keep up a little faster, patience isn't one of my better virtues.

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

God isn't using us in some sort of sick way to get evil pleasure. The problem with non Christians is that their perception of God is warped because they need the Spirit to set thier perception right. The problem is that this doesn't happen until you surrender your life to Christ and believe in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead.

Of course not, "God is good". So when he wipes out a fishing village with a tsunami, it's "Good". When he unleases an epidemic that ravages countries... it must be 'Good'.

Thank you, but no. It's easier to believe in a godless universe where things happen due to complex but ultimately understandable natural forces.

See, the universe is my bible. I look at what works, and what doesn't work and infer from that what is 'good' or 'evil' based on the long term consequences.

If you're wrathful, people will fear for their safety and exclude you.
If you're gluttonous, people will avoid sharing with you.
If you're greedy, people will not trust you to be fair.
If you're proud, people will resent you for treating them as inferior.
If you're lustful, people will tire of your superficiality
If you're envious, people will be uncomfortable around you.
If you're slothful, people will dismiss you as useless and unreliable.

There are real life consequences for things the bible refers to as 'sins'. But SOME people don't have the wherewithal to think it through and act upon their higher thinking. Which, imho, is where Religion came in. Smart people figured out guidelines that help us get along and then had the brilliant idea of "Hey, there's an invisible god making sure you follow these guidelines... and if you screw up... you're gonna be in SOOO much trouble!!"

**Ann Launay** · 06-28-2012, 10:30 PM

110125

Tracer Graves · 06-28-2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

Much of it is not science due to the fact that it is lacking the evidence to support it's claims.

Says the guy who believes it didn't rain until a worldwide flood happened which there is no evidence of.

Quote:

You have been duped into believing in a false religion. It's not really your fault. You've been taught it since you were a child and don't see the gaps in the evidence.

Take a look in a damn mirror.

Quote:

You are conditioned to just accept the gaps.

The irony, it burns...

Anyway, you wanna say this crap? Prove it. Without copy/pastes. Without two hour long videos. Present your arguments an a clear fashion and cite your sources. You say you want a discussion, then why don't you actually try one.

xfrodobagginsx · 06-28-2012, 10:35 PM

The Moral Argument For The Existence of God:

The Moral Argument for God's Existence - Today's Christian Videos

Jopsy Pendragon · 06-28-2012, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

Absolutely false. Creationism and Evolution require a measure of faith, it's just that Evolution requires much More faith.

It's easier to believe that God (if he ever existed) has left the universe to run completely on Auto-Pilot, than it is to believe he's hiding behind atoms making little adjustments every day without a scientist catching him and going "Ah HAH!! I saw that!"

Roxanne Blue · 06-28-2012, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

Sure I do. It's those here who don't. Otherwise they would actually look at the evidence that I present and question or point out what they disagree with, instead of saying "That's not true"

Evidence?????? .................................

Sure, we're just bowled over by the mountain of "evidence", Frodo.
Please keep dancing backwards towards the fires of Mount Doom, would you please?
Gollum? Stand down.

Wrong Weatherwax · 06-28-2012, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

The Moral Argument For The Existence of God:

The Moral Argument for God's Existence - Today's Christian Videos

An easily and ridiculously destroyed notion because Christian's themselves, despite the supposedly overwhelming "objective morals" still regularly commit atrocities. Furthermore, the Bible itself, the supposed guidebook is full of atrocities that cannot morally be washed away, namely the slaughter of children, the keeping of slaves, justified rape, etc etc.

Furthermore, Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma notes,

"Is the pious good because it is loved by the gods, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”

Or simply,

If what is morally good commanded by god because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?

This question alone (and a rather ancient point) precludes the idea of objectivity in morals and therefore, the absolute connectedness of morality to "God."

And my favorite turn on this is the Babel Fish argument...

Quote:

I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing"."But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED.""Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

**Sredni Eel** · 06-28-2012, 10:51 PM

Amelia E · 06-28-2012, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

The Moral Argument For The Existence of God:

The Moral Argument for God's Existence - Today's Christian Videos

None of your "arguments" add up to one single shred of evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Or STFU.

**Cindy Claveau** · 06-28-2012, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

I do understand, but you seem to ignore what I post, so it's hard to respond to you sometimes.

Oh I don't ignore it. I read it until my eyeballs are about to float from the hogwash and lies you post, and then I turn red and tell you what I really think of you.

Quote:

I already knew that. I learned it from the creationists about what you believe to be true. They can be demonstrated to be very inacurate.

Now you're using double-speak. You already knew that C14 is only good back to about 50,000 years? Or you knew that geology and paleontology actually use methods such as uranium-lead dating which is accurate all the way back to the origin of the Earth some 4.5 billion years ago?

Debate: Radiometric Dating is Accurate | Debate.org

Quote:

There are three reasons why radiometric data is known to be accurate:

1. It depends upon radioactive decay, which is known to be extremely stable, not influenced my chemical processes, and which can be measured quite accurately. Thus the physical principle of the method is well established.

2. The dates obtained by radiometric dating are verified by independent methods, including dendrochronology (tree rings), varve chronology (sediment layers), ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms (cave formations), fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating. The multiple checks verify that the rate of isotope decay does not change over time, and it verifies the accuracies of the methods.

...

3. The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other.

So it would appear that you don't know nearly as much about this science-y stuff as you think you do, huh? Color us SOOOOOO surprised!

Quote:

No. Not that many. But any that decent are black balled because liberals and evolutionists don't allow dissenting views.

Yes, that many. I provided you one link. Let's look at some more:

CA111: Scientists reject evolution?

Quote:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

OH SNAP! It's even MORE than the 99% I mentioned!

As for your canard about "liberals and evolutionists" (a confusing grouping since not all evolutionary biologists are liberals, and not all liberals are biologists), let's look at this from the standpoint of the scientific method. In order to be considered as a viable theory, Creationism MUST withstand the exact same debate, testing and falsification as Evolution. A Creationist must submit the theory to a peer-reviewed scientific journal where, just like Evolution, it would be subjected to critique and analysis before being accepted as the equivalent of Evolution. Creationism is a religious ideology, not a scientific theory, therefore it has no place in scientific peer-reviewed journals.

In answer to your mythical conspiracy, I offer this, taken from Talk Origins again - a real science site with real science on it:

CA325: Creationists publishing

Quote:

Claim CA325:
Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). Bigotry in Science

Response:

The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.

Quote:

Not true, but supposing it were, isn't it funny how hovind destroys 3 or more evolutionists in a debate at once? It's because he actually has the truth on his side.

More lies from you. Hovind picks and chooses who he "debates" *cough* to set himself up to appear to win. To my knowledge, even before he was sent to prison he stopped debating real scientists when they kept embarrassing him in public.

Quote:

No, they are going to be blackballed, discredited and ignored like they are in the real world.

How would we expect a Flat-Earther to be treated if he tried to submit an article to a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Or a Holocaust Denier? Or a Geocentricist? EXACTLY LIKE A CREATIONIST is treated. With scorn and derision because Creationism is not science, it is religion. It has no proof, no genuine "theory", just "it's in the Bible, so it's true". That's not good enough for science. Science demands proof.

Quote:

The Bible gives you all of this information if you'll read it.

I've mentioned this before to you, but I think you have the shittiest memory in history so I'll repeat it: I've read the Bible from cover to cover in several versions. I've read extensively on Biblical scholarship and realize that there is no such thing as a consensus on the books except that they were written thousands of years ago by superstitious people who didn't know a quark from a virus and who believed that schizophrenics were possessed by demons.

Their time is gone, and good riddance. If you choose to base your world view on that kind of antiquated slop, be my guest, but don't tell everyone else to follow your lead. Even those among us who are Christian think you're a ridiculous joke.

**Bard Jameson** · 06-28-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

The problem with non Christians is that their perception of God is warped because they need the Spirit to set thier perception right. The problem is that this doesn't happen until you surrender your life to Christ and believe in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead.

Once again I challenge - you gotta believe before you understand. That's your position.

So, I have to buy your product before I can believe it will be useful.

If you were a better salesman, you'd succeed in this. Or maybe you HAVE succeeded with people who are so gullible as to be easy marks.

But here - oh Lord - here, even with our resident Christians, nobody is buying what you are selling.

If this was your bread-and-butter, you'd be begging soup at the local kitchen.

And, being a Christian organization, they'd serve you a big bowl and a side of hearty bread. Whether you deserved it or not.

Making that soup kitchen and it's people WAY superior to your asshole god.

Irony, much?

**Cindy Claveau** · 06-28-2012, 11:21 PM

Jopsy Pendragon · 06-28-2012, 11:26 PM

Yay Semantics:

He means 'testimony' when he says 'evidence'.

We mean 'independently verifiable scientific observations'.

(and no, reading a book is not a 'scientific observation')

Maggie · 06-28-2012, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darnk Yun

I must not be cool enough to get a reply from the hobbit! :\

not very surprising tho, he is all full of that satan.

You not the only one. He has totally ignored my attempt to save his soul for him. Oh well. fuck'em ... more lolcats please

Amelia E · 06-28-2012, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggie

You not the only one. He has totally ignored my attempt to save his soul for him. Oh well. fuck'em ... more lolcats please

LOLBunneh?

**Sredni Eel** · 06-28-2012, 11:42 PM

Roxanne Blue · 06-28-2012, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggie

Oh well. fuck'em ... more lolcats please

your wish = My command.

Also we have this PSA from Canada:

Will Frodo get to Mordor?

Will Jesus get His Second Coming?

Is Gandalf a metaphorical representation of Jesus, and why did the Fellowship not number twelve? (discuss)

More evidence soon.

Amelia E · 06-28-2012, 11:55 PM

Okay, okay, LOLCat.

**Sredni Eel** · 06-29-2012, 12:05 AM

Amelia E · 06-29-2012, 12:13 AM

**Sredni Eel** · 06-29-2012, 12:19 AM

Surreal · 06-29-2012, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx

What you are really saying is that you would shut up anyone who disagrees with you and anyone who does is sick, but you're wrong. God exists.

What does the voice tell you to do Mr. Baggins.

View Poll Results: DO YOU PLACE YOUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, BELIEVING THAT HE DIED AND ROSE AGAIN?
YES	13	8.50%
NO	89	58.17%
I ALREADY PRAYED/ACCETED JESUS IN MY HEART BEFORE	11	7.19%
OTHER	40	26.14%
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll

06-28-2012, 09:50 PM	#2801 (permalink)
pancake SLU Fluffer Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The True North Posts: 3,543 My Mood: SL Join Date: 2007 Client: Usually Catznip but I dabble a lot in others Awards: 1	Soon this thread will have to be locked due to it's size so I'm getting my vote in early for the second one. Part Two - Raptured Cookaloo No wait! I have another one. Return of the Fundie Font... in BOLD. __________________ My blog and my pictures "It's one thing to have a difference of opinion, it is quite another to be a consistently toxic ass" ~ Cristiano

06-28-2012, 10:51 PM	#2811 (permalink)
Sredni Eel Lizard of Speed and Time *SLU Supporter* All Goffick and Stuff. Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nobuddy cumz in here. Sekrit. Posts: 6,471 My Mood: SL Join Date: Sept. 2007 Business: Avatar Bizarre Client: Crash-o-Matic 2.0 Blog Entries: 25	__________________ http://avatarbizarre.wordpress.com

06-29-2012, 12:05 AM	#2822 (permalink)
Sredni Eel Lizard of Speed and Time *SLU Supporter* All Goffick and Stuff. Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nobuddy cumz in here. Sekrit. Posts: 6,471 My Mood: SL Join Date: Sept. 2007 Business: Avatar Bizarre Client: Crash-o-Matic 2.0 Blog Entries: 25	Last edited by Sredni Eel; 06-29-2012 at 12:11 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-28-2012, 10:35 PM	#2807 (permalink)
xfrodobagginsx Banned Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 866 My Mood:	The Moral Argument For The Existence of God: The Moral Argument for God's Existence - Today's Christian Videos

06-28-2012, 11:21 PM	#2815 (permalink)
Cindy Claveau E=mc^(OMG)/wtf *SLU Supporter* Free's Sister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Brownbackistan Posts: 27,706 My Mood: SL Join Date: May, 2005 Client: Firestorm Blog Entries: 16 Awards: 2

06-28-2012, 11:26 PM	#2816 (permalink)
Jopsy Pendragon Particle Laboratory Elf Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Hillcrest, San Diego, USA Posts: 5,609 My Mood: SL Join Date: Jan 15 2004 Business: Light Sorcery	Yay Semantics: He means 'testimony' when he says 'evidence'. We mean 'independently verifiable scientific observations'. (and no, reading a book is not a 'scientific observation')

06-28-2012, 11:42 PM	#2819 (permalink)
Sredni Eel Lizard of Speed and Time *SLU Supporter* All Goffick and Stuff. Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nobuddy cumz in here. Sekrit. Posts: 6,471 My Mood: SL Join Date: Sept. 2007 Business: Avatar Bizarre Client: Crash-o-Matic 2.0 Blog Entries: 25

06-28-2012, 11:55 PM	#2821 (permalink)
Amelia E Loves Silly Sauce Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 502	Okay, okay, LOLCat.

06-29-2012, 12:13 AM	#2823 (permalink)
Amelia E Loves Silly Sauce Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 502

06-29-2012, 12:19 AM	#2824 (permalink)
Sredni Eel Lizard of Speed and Time *SLU Supporter* All Goffick and Stuff. Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nobuddy cumz in here. Sekrit. Posts: 6,471 My Mood: SL Join Date: Sept. 2007 Business: Avatar Bizarre Client: Crash-o-Matic 2.0 Blog Entries: 25

Logo

Site Navigation