Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 14 of 22 FirstFirst ... 910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 214

Thread: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

  1. -131
    Bumpus's Avatar
    Are you gonna drink that?

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2003
    Posts:
    20,373
    vCash:
    17465
    Loc:
    West-by-god-Virginny
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Trophies
    2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Damn Heretics!

    Repent, and follow the tenets of Bumpusism. Only then shall ye be saved.
    2014 Goals:
    1) Win the next game.
    2) See goal #1





    "The problem with internet quotes lies in verifying their authenticity."
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Quote Quote  

  2. -132
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,158
    vCash:
    1221
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

    Quote Originally Posted by JackFinfan View Post
    Waldorf's post summarized..."I know you are but what am I"
    I'll answer for him. Completely insane. He has thought me one thing, that we are not all the same, some of us need to be locked up. The guy is spilling out junk. Like Locke said he doesn't realize the utter bull**** he is coming out with, picking what he wants and ignoring all the test. Floods explaining the layers, certifiable insane.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -133
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Waldorf's post summarized..."I know you are but what am I"


    No, summarized it’s more like you don’t have any reason to believe that I am actually the delusional one rather than you being the delusional one. So again, all you have done is paint yourself into a corner with your inconsistent and often just factually errant statements.

    I'll answer for him. Completely insane. He has thought me one thing, that we are not all the same, some of us need to be locked up.


    Thought or taught? Education matters.

    The guy is spilling out junk.


    Assertion without proof, do you actually have any evidence that anything I have said is incorrect? I am beginning to suspect you don’t.

    Like Locke said he doesn't realize the utter bull**** he is coming out with, picking what he wants and ignoring all the test.


    How do you know that you’re not actually the one who doesn’t realize that what you believe is utter garbage? Where’s your proof? You choose the one dating method that suggests the earth is billions of years old (even though apparently it can’t date a rock of known age) and toss out the nearly two dozen dating methods that suggest the earth is younger? Maybe you should examine your own position a bit more closely before you attack mine.

    Floods explaining the layers, certifiable insane.


    Yeah because everyone knows that sedimentary rock isn’t a result of water or anything like that…wait lol.
    Why would it be insane to believe the flood laid down those layers? You haven’t provided anything besides your own misinformed opinion, I want proof and evidence demonstrating that my position is indeed as “crazy” as you assert it is because right now you appear to be the one believing things simply upon blind faith.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  4. -134
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,158
    vCash:
    1221
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    No, summarized it’s more like you don’t have any reason to believe that I am actually the delusional one rather than you being the delusional one. So again, all you have done is paint yourself into a corner with your inconsistent and often just factually errant statements.



    Thought or taught? Education matters.



    Assertion without proof, do you actually have any evidence that anything I have said is incorrect? I am beginning to suspect you don’t.



    How do you know that you’re not actually the one who doesn’t realize that what you believe is utter garbage? Where’s your proof? You choose the one dating method that suggests the earth is billions of years old (even though apparently it can’t date a rock of known age) and toss out the nearly two dozen dating methods that suggest the earth is younger? Maybe you should examine your own position a bit more closely before you attack mine.



    Yeah because everyone knows that sedimentary rock isn’t a result of water or anything like that…wait lol.
    Why would it be insane to believe the flood laid down those layers? You haven’t provided anything besides your own misinformed opinion, I want proof and evidence demonstrating that my position is indeed as “crazy” as you assert it is because right now you appear to be the one believing things simply upon blind faith.
    It's hard to describe the color blue to a person who has been blind their whole life. The same applies to logic with you. Prove there was a flood. There are mountains of scientific evidence and scientists to support what the sane posters have stated previously. You come along and state someone in Africa stated that they saw something that looked like a dinasour or whatever rubbish you read and that's it, that's what you call proof. Take a book, the bible, and whatever is written in that book, that's it, that's what you consider proof.

    Give me the task blind man task as stated in the beginning, it would be infinitely easier than having a conversation with someone insane.
    Last edited by irish fin fan; 09-18-2012 at 10:12 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -135
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,856
    vCash:
    19335
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    You gave up because you were getting destroyed, it was obvious. You’re just hopelessly inconsistent, and it’s impossible to win a debate if you’re not consistent in your view of reality. You even provided a classic example in this very post, you claimed you couldn’t debate with me because I am “narrow-minded”, and yet you are the one who called me crazy and delusional for believing something different than you do. You see? You’re just not consistent in what you believe and say.



    I already refuted the rape point, the Ten Commandments forbid murder and incest was forbidden in Leviticus, you just can’t win can you? Can you provide me with a reason as to why incest would be wrong under your atheistic view of morality? I bet you can’t, and that is why you’ll just ignore this question.
    Oh Statler. Is that why you post in such tunnel vision? Trying to 'destroy' people on a message board?


    I got news for you: you didn't destroy me nor anybody else. And I certainly wasn't inconsistent. I have hardly responded to any of your crap.

    Let me explain how Statler works: Statler states an opinion without facts "knowledge is only possible if God exists. Because God exists knowledge is possible". That is an opinion because you neither can prove that God exists or existed nor can you prove that the Bible is an accurate description of past events. Why can't you prove it? Because there is no physical evidence that the Bible is an accurate description of past events as no eye witnesses have contributed to the writing of the Bible. Same with God. He is at this point an imaginary figure because nobody can or could prove that he ever existed.
    So your facts are merely an opinion.

    Yet you toss out any evidence found through archeology, biology, geology and anthropology as blunders and opinions.

    It is one thing to be steady in your believes but it is a totally different ball game when it comes to violating any rule of debates and opinion exchange by disregarding facts. Religious people will always have a tough stand arguing against science and scientific evidence because they can only counter with their believes because of their lack of evidence. But you have taken it to a whole new level. The reason why you are being called insane and delusional is because of your incompetence to debate a subject with the inclusion of fact-based opinion. I stepped out of this discussion not because you 'destroyed' me but because I am a mature adult who simply knows when enough is enough. 'Debating' with you reminds me of when my children were like 3 or 4.

    You also never answered my question about if you are a reborn Christian. Since you profoundly refused to answer that we all can assume the answer. Why did you refuse though I can only speculate. Most reborn Christian are the least faithful of the religious people. They are all were sinners (to use a biblical word) to some extend and instead of taking responsibility they are hiding behind religion. Which would be OK. But most of them continue their previous sinning ways and use religion as their way out. Just say "Jesus is my savior" and you will be forgiven right?
    And those who continue to sin the most are also the loudest screamers and most fanatical. Religion did not become a believe but a life style to continue to lie, cheat, steal and whatever (sometimes not all of them at once) and in this life style religion becomes the 'I clean myself of all sins'. You are falling into that category.

    I know a lot of Christians and Muslims. I would say 90% of them are good people with who you can have really fun discussions. But they live their religions in their heart. They believe yet they know how faulty religion can be and they know that they can not bring proof. They still believe but are open to listen.

    I am the opposite. I am a non-believer and stick with facts and evidence yet I am always open to listen to the other side. When it becomes one-sided with a fanatic like yourself I simply withdraw because I have better things to do than arguing with the David Koresh of Finheaven.

    In regards to you being called 'narrow minded'. Here is the definition of 'narrow minded':
    nar·row-mind·ed (nr-mndd)adj. Lacking tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy; petty.

    That definitely sounds like Statler.

    Funny you mention Leviticus. Do you actually know the Bible? Or is that another goof up like the 65 Million year link. Leviticus 18 and 20 did disallow certain 'family relationships' but not all of them. Ironically Leviticus 20 has less exclusions than 18. But one thing do they have in common: a sexual relationship between father and daughter are not excluded.

    And how can I justify morality as an atheist? Morality is a subjective code of living. Morality is beyond religion. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. My morals may not be the same as my neighbors but maybe the same as the person living three houses down the street and some of my morals may be identical with the person living across from me but other may not.

    I don't need to cherry pick the Bible to find and establish my morals. I don't need the bible at all. I know that incest, rape, steeling, murder etc is wrong - even as an atheist.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -136
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,158
    vCash:
    1221
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Oh Statler. Is that why you post in such tunnel vision? Trying to 'destroy' people on a message board?


    I got news for you: you didn't destroy me nor anybody else. And I certainly wasn't inconsistent. I have hardly responded to any of your crap.

    Let me explain how Statler works: Statler states an opinion without facts "knowledge is only possible if God exists. Because God exists knowledge is possible". That is an opinion because you neither can prove that God exists or existed nor can you prove that the Bible is an accurate description of past events. Why can't you prove it? Because there is no physical evidence that the Bible is an accurate description of past events as no eye witnesses have contributed to the writing of the Bible. Same with God. He is at this point an imaginary figure because nobody can or could prove that he ever existed.
    So your facts are merely an opinion.

    Yet you toss out any evidence found through archeology, biology, geology and anthropology as blunders and opinions.

    It is one thing to be steady in your believes but it is a totally different ball game when it comes to violating any rule of debates and opinion exchange by disregarding facts. Religious people will always have a tough stand arguing against science and scientific evidence because they can only counter with their believes because of their lack of evidence. But you have taken it to a whole new level. The reason why you are being called insane and delusional is because of your incompetence to debate a subject with the inclusion of fact-based opinion. I stepped out of this discussion not because you 'destroyed' me but because I am a mature adult who simply knows when enough is enough. 'Debating' with you reminds me of when my children were like 3 or 4.

    You also never answered my question about if you are a reborn Christian. Since you profoundly refused to answer that we all can assume the answer. Why did you refuse though I can only speculate. Most reborn Christian are the least faithful of the religious people. They are all were sinners (to use a biblical word) to some extend and instead of taking responsibility they are hiding behind religion. Which would be OK. But most of them continue their previous sinning ways and use religion as their way out. Just say "Jesus is my savior" and you will be forgiven right?
    And those who continue to sin the most are also the loudest screamers and most fanatical. Religion did not become a believe but a life style to continue to lie, cheat, steal and whatever (sometimes not all of them at once) and in this life style religion becomes the 'I clean myself of all sins'. You are falling into that category.

    I know a lot of Christians and Muslims. I would say 90% of them are good people with who you can have really fun discussions. But they live their religions in their heart. They believe yet they know how faulty religion can be and they know that they can not bring proof. They still believe but are open to listen.

    I am the opposite. I am a non-believer and stick with facts and evidence yet I am always open to listen to the other side. When it becomes one-sided with a fanatic like yourself I simply withdraw because I have better things to do than arguing with the David Koresh of Finheaven.

    In regards to you being called 'narrow minded'. Here is the definition of 'narrow minded':


    That definitely sounds like Statler.

    Funny you mention Leviticus. Do you actually know the Bible? Or is that another goof up like the 65 Million year link. Leviticus 18 and 20 did disallow certain 'family relationships' but not all of them. Ironically Leviticus 20 has less exclusions than 18. But one thing do they have in common: a sexual relationship between father and daughter are not excluded.

    And how can I justify morality as an atheist? Morality is a subjective code of living. Morality is beyond religion. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. My morals may not be the same as my neighbors but maybe the same as the person living three houses down the street and some of my morals may be identical with the person living across from me but other may not.

    I don't need to cherry pick the Bible to find and establish my morals. I don't need the bible at all. I know that incest, rape, steeling, murder etc is wrong - even as an atheist.
    Well said. I need to go back using laptops instead of iPads. They are a pain in the ass for typing.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -137
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,792
    vCash:
    4788
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Oh Statler. Is that why you post in such tunnel vision? Trying to 'destroy' people on a message board?


    I got news for you: you didn't destroy me nor anybody else. And I certainly wasn't inconsistent. I have hardly responded to any of your crap.

    Let me explain how Statler works: Statler states an opinion without facts "knowledge is only possible if God exists. Because God exists knowledge is possible". That is an opinion because you neither can prove that God exists or existed nor can you prove that the Bible is an accurate description of past events. Why can't you prove it? Because there is no physical evidence that the Bible is an accurate description of past events as no eye witnesses have contributed to the writing of the Bible. Same with God. He is at this point an imaginary figure because nobody can or could prove that he ever existed.
    So your facts are merely an opinion.

    Yet you toss out any evidence found through archeology, biology, geology and anthropology as blunders and opinions.

    It is one thing to be steady in your believes but it is a totally different ball game when it comes to violating any rule of debates and opinion exchange by disregarding facts. Religious people will always have a tough stand arguing against science and scientific evidence because they can only counter with their believes because of their lack of evidence. But you have taken it to a whole new level. The reason why you are being called insane and delusional is because of your incompetence to debate a subject with the inclusion of fact-based opinion. I stepped out of this discussion not because you 'destroyed' me but because I am a mature adult who simply knows when enough is enough. 'Debating' with you reminds me of when my children were like 3 or 4.

    You also never answered my question about if you are a reborn Christian. Since you profoundly refused to answer that we all can assume the answer. Why did you refuse though I can only speculate. Most reborn Christian are the least faithful of the religious people. They are all were sinners (to use a biblical word) to some extend and instead of taking responsibility they are hiding behind religion. Which would be OK. But most of them continue their previous sinning ways and use religion as their way out. Just say "Jesus is my savior" and you will be forgiven right?
    And those who continue to sin the most are also the loudest screamers and most fanatical. Religion did not become a believe but a life style to continue to lie, cheat, steal and whatever (sometimes not all of them at once) and in this life style religion becomes the 'I clean myself of all sins'. You are falling into that category.

    I know a lot of Christians and Muslims. I would say 90% of them are good people with who you can have really fun discussions. But they live their religions in their heart. They believe yet they know how faulty religion can be and they know that they can not bring proof. They still believe but are open to listen.

    I am the opposite. I am a non-believer and stick with facts and evidence yet I am always open to listen to the other side. When it becomes one-sided with a fanatic like yourself I simply withdraw because I have better things to do than arguing with the David Koresh of Finheaven.

    In regards to you being called 'narrow minded'. Here is the definition of 'narrow minded':


    That definitely sounds like Statler.

    Funny you mention Leviticus. Do you actually know the Bible? Or is that another goof up like the 65 Million year link. Leviticus 18 and 20 did disallow certain 'family relationships' but not all of them. Ironically Leviticus 20 has less exclusions than 18. But one thing do they have in common: a sexual relationship between father and daughter are not excluded.

    And how can I justify morality as an atheist? Morality is a subjective code of living. Morality is beyond religion. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. My morals may not be the same as my neighbors but maybe the same as the person living three houses down the street and some of my morals may be identical with the person living across from me but other may not.

    I don't need to cherry pick the Bible to find and establish my morals. I don't need the bible at all. I know that incest, rape, steeling, murder etc is wrong - even as an atheist.
    Boom. Roasted...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  8. -138
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,246
    vCash:
    7026
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    The very notion that Rob could take anyone “to school” is absurd, all he did was post outdated youtube videos on Hinduism that completely re-affirmed my statement that Hindus believe all distinctions are illusory. This of course is why he never responded when I pointed out how the Hindu concept of god cannot account for knowledge, he knew I was right. You really can try and spin any overwhelming defeat into a victory can’t you? :- ) Someone needs to hire you as a PR person for their political campaign.
    A Christian calling something outdated is really funny, but I’ll play your game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    how does the Hindu concept of God give us assurance that future trials under identical conditions will resemble past trials?
    Here ya go.

    Dharma as Cosmic Order

    The earliest import of the word Dharma, arises from the ancient Vedic idea of Ritam (or Cosmic Order)[11]. The entire universe is sustained by a cosmic order, which are physical laws that govern the motion of stars, suns, planets, satellites, asteroids and other physical bodies. For example, the law of gravity sustains life on the earth – since without it everything would fly away, never to come back. Similarly there are other natural laws that are responsible for sustaining and upholding various natural phenomenon. For example, why electrons keep revolving around the nucleus of an atom, why atoms combine in ways to form molecules, why the earth goes around the sun, and why human beings breathe out carbon-dioxide while plants breathe out oxygen. There are thus physical laws, chemical laws, biological laws, even psychological laws that both underlie the behavior and also sustain and maintain various natural phenomena.

    There are geophysical laws that govern the occurrence of mountains, forests, climates, seas and rivers, and the numerous phenomena we see on this planet. There are climatic laws that govern the seasons: summer follows spring, spring follows winter, and winter follows autumn and so on. The winds blow as though by an internal law – gently in normal times, and as hurricanes and gales, in abnormal times. And even the hurricanes and gales come only during their appointed season. The snows melt in the high mountains during summer, and the rivers flow in full spate, and thus the whole cycle of life is sustained.

    There are biological laws that govern the birth, growth, sustenance and death of all things living, from the single-celled amoeba to the complex human being. There is a digestive system that digests food, and a respiratory system that transforms oxygen into energy, a nervous system that carries impulses, a brain that initiates thought and co-ordinates movement, and so on. The Laws of Evolution have governed the progressive differentiation of species, and Laws of Destruction have destroyed numerous species in their time. There are laws that govern how the heart works, how the breath works, how hunger works and how food works, how speech works, how the mind works, how emotions work and how imagination works.

    It could be said that it is the Dharma of the Wind to blow, the Dharma of the Sun to heat up the world, the Dharma of the Ice to freeze and melt, the Dharma of Fire to burn. It is the Dharma of the Plants to give out oxygen, and the Dharma of the Animals to give out carbon dioxide. And behind the delicate workings and inter-relations between the various cosmic phenomena, there is an order, an intelligently engineered and organized system, a set of laws that seem to be at work governing the great forces and powers (Shakti) at play behind these laws.

    This is Dharma as the cosmic order, that includes many dynamic sub-orders, each represented by powers and forces of great intensity and magnitude, each governed by their own dharma or internal law of being and working – each interacting upon one another, within the boundaries of that law, sustaining, maintaining and upholding all things material and phenomenal in this Universe.”

    You can read more here:
    http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Dharma

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Ok, and where did the Vadas come from? How was it revealed to mankind and which god revealed it to mankind?
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    We know about God through His revealed word and the things that He has made. Do Hindus have direct revelation from their god(s)?
    “The four Vedas – Rig, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva – are not the work of any single author. In ancient India, there were many rishis (sages) living simple, contemplative lives in hermitages high in the Himalayas and along the banks of sacred rivers. The rishis had names like Angiras, Bhrigu, Yajnavalkya, and Gargi (Gargi was a woman). They sought to understand the fundamental truths of life – Why are we born? How did the world come into existence? How can we live a good life? Because of their intense inquiry and deep meditation, they received God’s blessings and were able to discover the answers to their profound questions.

    God revealed these sacred truths to the ancient sages, and the sages composed hymns and texts in the Sanskrit language to express these truths. Their hymns and texts were then passed on from generation to generation, from teacher to student, by chanting them aloud; they were not yet written down. Eventually, the great rishi, Vyasa, compiled all of their hymns and texts into four collections which are now known as the Vedas. “

    http://hindustudentscouncil.org/inde...d=301&catid=73

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    What happens if someone doesn’t follow these rules? What happens if they do follow these rules? How do you know that these results actually do happen? Could the God who came up with these rules just being lying or does it have to follow these rules too?
    “Hinduism views mankind as divine. Because Brahma is everything, Hinduism asserts that everyone is divine. Atman, or self, is one with Brahman. All of reality outside of Brahman is considered mere illusion. The spiritual goal of a Hindu is to become one with Brahma, thus ceasing to exist in its illusory form of “individual self.” This freedom is referred to as “moksha.”

    Until moksha is achieved, a Hindu believes that he/she will be repeatedly reincarnated in order that he/she may work towards self-realization of the truth (the truth being that only Brahman exists, nothing else). How a person is reincarnated is determined by karma, which is a principle of cause and effect governed by nature's balance. What one did in the past affects and corresponds with what happens in the future, past and future lives included.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    I’ll give you just one quick example, the uniformity of nature. In a Christian universe we can have complete confidence that trials under identical conditions will yield identical results because God has promised us that He will uphold His creation in a uniform and predictable manner (Genesis 8).
    See, your only claims of proof of God being able to do these things is that the Bible says so. Is that all the evidence you need? A piece of paper claiming to have been written by a guy who claims God to have revealed himself to him? & That the universe is stable because essentially “I say so”?

    Furthermore, how can you even believe that person? Did God directly reveal himself to YOU? Or is it a matter of faith, & belief that God revealed himself to the writers of The Dead Sea Scrolls? I’m fairly certain you don’t want to believe God to have revealed himself to the Vedic sages, so why believe any others?



    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Yeah because everyone knows that sedimentary rock isn’t a result of water or anything like that…wait lol.
    Why would it be insane to believe the flood laid down those layers? You haven’t provided anything besides your own misinformed opinion, I want proof and evidence demonstrating that my position is indeed as “crazy” as you assert it is because right now you appear to be the one believing things simply upon blind faith.
    “Even looking at geology alone, it is evident from the Grand Canyon that you can't produce the rock layers using the Noah's Flood model, and you can't produce ANY chalk layers using a young earth. Stratigraphy alone implies an old earth.”

    http://www.oldearth.org/dating.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Not just my decision at all, Hebrew as a language makes it very easy to determine what books are using historical narrative and which ones are being poetic, Noah’s Ark is in Genesis which is written as historical narrative so unless it’s using a simile (like or as) it’s going to be a historic account.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -139
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,343
    vCash:
    4248
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    So Statler, If I have a divine vision and write down a revelation I received from God that covers those preconditions of intelligibility you mentioned, then that automatically makes my religion true?




    Quote Quote  

  10. -140
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    It's hard to describe the color blue to a person who has been blind their whole life. The same applies to logic with you.


    So the reason why you can’t refute my syllogism proving God exists, and why you seem to habitually commit logical fallacies such as begging the question, appeals to ignorance, appeals to ridicule, ad hominem, and appeals to popularity is because you know more about logic than I do? Good one.

    Prove there was a flood.


    Prove or demonstrate? I don’t understand why you keep asking for proof but then keep talking about science; science doesn’t deal with proof! Proof is only found in mathematics and logical deduction. Of course since you claim you know more about logic than I do I am sure you already knew that though, right? :-P

    There are mountains of scientific evidence and scientists to support what the sane posters have stated previously.


    You mean sane poster not posters right? So you are saying there are mountains of evidence to support my position? I won’t argue with that.

    You come along and state someone in Africa stated that they saw something that looked like a dinasour or whatever rubbish you read and that's it, that's what you call proof.


    Nice misrepresentation, if your position was really so strong then why would you have to misrepresent my position to attack it? Add the straw-man fallacy to your growing list of logical missteps and blunders.

    Take a book, the bible, and whatever is written in that book, that's it, that's what you consider proof.


    You see, you just demonstrated your ignorance when it comes to logic once again. Science by definition can’t prove anything, but if the Bible is the infallible word of God (which my still un-refuted syllogism proves) then it actually can be used as deductive proof; so scripture is infinitely more powerful in logical debate than any amount of scientific “evidence” you can toss out there. So the reality is that my position is far more logical and sound than yours is no matter how much evidence you claim to have (but for some reason seem to be incapable of providing), ironic huh?

    Give me the task blind man task as stated in the beginning, it would be infinitely easier than having a conversation with someone insane.


    Don’t worry my friend, having a conversation with someone in your “condition” isn’t as hard as you claim it is :-P

    Oh Statler. Is that why you post in such tunnel vision? Trying to 'destroy' people on a message board?


    No actually I was hoping to get on here and have a civil, rational, and interesting discussion with atheists who know what they believe and why they believe it, unfortunately that’s not what I found on here. Destroying you in debate was just an added bonus I guess, it was not my initial goal but when I saw how arrogant and yet helpless you were at backing up your position I couldn’t pass up the opportunity, do you blame me?

    I got news for you: you didn't destroy me nor anybody else.


    Well obviously you’re not immune from self-deception, but think whatever makes you feel better about yourself. [/QUOTE]

    And I certainly wasn't inconsistent. I have hardly responded to any of your crap.


    You didn’t have to, the inconsistencies were quite prevalent even in the few times you did respond; such as calling me “narrow-minded” right before you personally attacked me for having different beliefs than you. You’re like the person who says, “I hate two things in life: people who are intolerant of other cultures…and the Dutch.” :-P

    Let me explain how Statler works: Statler states an opinion without facts "knowledge is only possible if God exists. Because God exists knowledge is possible".


    If you’re position were really so strong then why would you have to misrepresent my argument? I did nothing of the sort; I provided a completely valid and so far un-refuted syllogism accompanied by actual demonstration that proves God must exist in order for knowledge to be possible. Since knowledge is possible then the God of scripture must exist and therefore scripture must also be His revealed word- that is proof. Valid and sound syllogisms are not opinions, they are truth.

    That is an opinion because you neither can prove that God exists or existed nor can you prove that the Bible is an accurate description of past events.


    Sure I can, I just did, see above.

    Because there is no physical evidence that the Bible is an accurate description of past events as no eye witnesses have contributed to the writing of the Bible.


    Why would you say I can’t prove something and then start talking about historical evidence? Logic deals with proof, history does not deal with proof. My logical syllogism does prove exactly what you claim cannot be proven (something you haven’t demonstrated is actually the case). My syllogism proves that the God of scripture exists, which means that we can also use scripture as actual logical proof the events described in it did happen.


    He is at this point an imaginary figure because nobody can or could prove that he ever existed.


    Nice non-sequitur, even if we couldn’t prove God exists (which of course we can prove He in fact does) that wouldn’t prove that He is imaginary, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

    Yet you toss out any evidence found through archeology, biology, geology and anthropology as blunders and opinions.


    What “evidence” are you referring to? Naming fields of study and claiming they have loads of evidence doesn’t do anything to support your position; in fact it makes it appear as though you really don’t have that much evidence at all or else you would have provided some.

    It is one thing to be steady in your believes but it is a totally different ball game when it comes to violating any rule of debates and opinion exchange by disregarding facts.


    I think it’s worse to claim you have actually provided “facts” when you have not and then claim the other guy is either crazy or violating the rules by ignoring something you have yet to provide. Provide me with something that is actually “fact” and I will not ignore it. Provide me with conjecture, opinion, or mere rhetoric and yes you will get called on it every time.

    Religious people will always have a tough stand arguing against science and scientific evidence because they can only counter with their believes because of their lack of evidence.

    You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. This entire sentence you provided is nothing more than unsubstantiated rhetoric. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to support scriptures account of history and not only this but only scripture can even account for science itself. So by appealing to scientific inquiry you are appealing to something that could only be true if your position were false since you cannot account for induction; appealing to something that could only be true if your position were false is not a great way to win debates.

    The reason why you are being called insane and delusional is because of your incompetence to debate a subject with the inclusion of fact-based opinion.


    Your sentence makes no grammatical sense. Anyways, the reason I am being called insane is because attacking the arguer instead of the argument is a natural response people have when they know they are beat. It’s pure desperation. I just found it funny how you guys didn’t actually have a valid reason for believing I was insane, it was all just fluff that could just as easily be used to prove you are the crazy ones and not me.


    I stepped out of this discussion not because you 'destroyed' me but because I am a mature adult who simply knows when enough is enough. 'Debating' with you reminds me of when my children were like 3 or 4.
    So right after claiming you’re the adult around here you proceed to personally attack me by likening me to a toddler? More inconsistency I see.

    You also never answered my question about if you are a reborn Christian. Since you profoundly refused to answer that we all can assume the answer. Why did you refuse though I can only speculate. Most reborn Christian are the least faithful of the religious people. They are all were sinners (to use a biblical word) to some extend and instead of taking responsibility they are hiding behind religion. Which would be OK. But most of them continue their previous sinning ways and use religion as their way out. Just say "Jesus is my savior" and you will be forgiven right?


    I didn’t answer your question because it was absurd; it was like asking someone if they are a “human person” or just a “person”. It was completely redundant; all Christians are born again by definition. Answer me this, how can someone sin if there is no God? You acted like that was possible in your above rant and I want to know how that is even possible, thanks.

    And those who continue to sin the most are also the loudest screamers and most fanatical.


    So right after claiming all of my positions are merely opinion without any evidence you proceed to throw out this opinion without any evidence to back it up? More inconsistency.

    I know a lot of Christians and Muslims.


    Completely anecdotal and therefore irrelevant point.
    I am the opposite. I am a non-believer and stick with facts and evidence yet I am always open to listen to the other side. When it becomes one-sided with a fanatic like yourself I simply withdraw because I have better things to do than arguing with the David Koresh of Finheaven.
    Well aren’t you special? So then you should be able to provide me with actual evidence and facts that demonstrate the earth is 4.3 billion years old, if this is the case I would love to see this. Additionally, are you taking the position that there is no scientific dating method that proves the earth is not 4.3 billion years old? All dating methods are in agreement?

    That definitely sounds like Statler.


    Trust me, I have plenty of sympathy for you, so given your definition I am certainly not narrow-minded. Is calling someone delusional without any evidence and simply because they disagree with you narrow-minded? Just curious.

    Funny you mention Leviticus. Do you actually know the Bible? Or is that another goof up like the 65 Million year link. Leviticus 18 and 20 did disallow certain 'family relationships' but not all of them. Ironically Leviticus 20 has less exclusions than 18. But one thing do they have in common: a sexual relationship between father and daughter are not excluded.
    65 Million link? What are you talking about?

    “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.” – Leviticus 18:6

    Are you really trying to suggest that a daughter is not a close relative of her father? Destroyed yet again I see.

    And how can I justify morality as an atheist? Morality is a subjective code of living. Morality is beyond religion. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. My morals may not be the same as my neighbors but maybe the same as the person living three houses down the street and some of my morals may be identical with the person living across from me but other may not.
    Wait, so if your neighbor and his daughter want to sleep together then there is nothing morally wrong about that? So you were bashing on the Bible because you incorrectly thought it didn’t condemn incest but come to find out your own definition of morality actually condones incest? More inconsistency.

    I don't need the bible at all. I know that incest, rape, steeling, murder etc is wrong - even as an atheist.


    …but they are not wrong if the person committing the incest, murder, or rape chooses a code of morality for themselves that says those things are morally right rather than morally wrong, correct?

    Well said. I need to go back using laptops instead of iPads. They are a pain in the ass for typing.


    Well at least we agree on something. : - )

    Boom. Roasted


    The guy refuted himself at least a half a dozen times in one post and you call that roasting someone? That is downright scary.

    The earliest import of the word Dharma...


    None of that even addressed my points…how does a Hindu know about all of this, how do they learn about it? How do you know that those laws will continue as they are now one second into the future? What are the laws of logic and where did they come from? Do they discern truth or are they illusory?

    “The four Vedas – Rig, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva – are not the work of any single author. In ancient India, there were many rishis (sages) living simple, contemplative lives in hermitages high in the Himalayas and along the banks of sacred rivers. The rishis had names like Angiras, Bhrigu, Yajnavalkya, and Gargi (Gargi was a woman). They sought to understand the fundamental truths of life – Why are we born? How did the world come into existence? How can we live a good life? Because of their intense inquiry and deep meditation, they received God’s blessings and were able to discover the answers to their profound questions.
    God revealed these sacred truths to the ancient sages, and the sages composed hymns and texts in the Sanskrit language to express these truths. Their hymns and texts were then passed on from generation to generation, from teacher to student, by chanting them aloud; they were not yet written down. Eventually, the great rishi, Vyasa, compiled all of their hymns and texts into four collections which are now known as the Vedas. “
    Are the Vades a direct revelation from god or are they a human summary of god’s word? What about the other Hindu gods? Are they subordinate to one god or do they have freedom?

    “Hinduism views mankind as divine. Because Brahma is everything, Hinduism asserts that everyone is divine. Atman, or self, is one with Brahman. All of reality outside of Brahman is considered mere illusion. The spiritual goal of a Hindu is to become one with Brahma, thus ceasing to exist in its illusory form of “individual self.” This freedom is referred to as “moksha.”

    Until moksha is achieved, a Hindu believes that he/she will be repeatedly reincarnated in order that he/she may work towards self-realization of the truth (the truth being that only Brahman exists, nothing else). How a person is reincarnated is determined by karma, which is a principle of cause and effect governed by nature's balance. What one did in the past affects and corresponds with what happens in the future, past and future lives included.”
    Can Brahma lie? Before a person achieves moksha a person is not yet part of Brahma?

    See, your only claims of proof of God being able to do these things is that the Bible says so. Is that all the evidence you need? A piece of paper claiming to have been written by a guy who claims God to have revealed himself to him? & That the universe is stable because essentially “I say so”?


    Not at all, the principle of induction requires that we have confidence in the uniformity of nature. We can only have confidence if something is indeed ensuring that uniformity will continue into the future. Not only this though, this governing force would have to give us assurance that they will indeed continue governing uniformly into the future. Only the Christians have revelation from a God who is capable of governing all of creation and who cannot lie. So only the Christian God can account for induction. My view of reality can account for science and the use of induction, yours cannot; yet you seem to have no issues using it, why?

    Furthermore, how can you even believe that person? Did God directly reveal himself to YOU? Or is it a matter of faith, & belief that God revealed himself to the writers of The Dead Sea Scrolls? I’m fairly certain you don’t want to believe God to have revealed himself to the Vedic sages, so why believe any others?
    Simple, if scripture was not the revealed word of a real God who possessed all the characteristics He says He possesses then we could not know, prove, or learn anything at all. So you questioning whether He exists and revealed Himself to us through scripture actually is proof that He in fact did because it proves we can in fact possess knowledge and use proof.

    I am a bit shocked you would use Allan Watts as a source on the history of scripture considering he was a philosopher not a historian, not only this but a philosopher who died nearly 40 years ago and who specialized in the philosophy of Eastern religion and not the Abrahamic religions. I guess all standards are out the window as long as the guy agrees with you eh?

    “Even looking at geology alone, it is evident from the Grand Canyon that you can't produce the rock layers using the Noah's Flood model, and you can't produce ANY chalk layers using a young earth. Stratigraphy alone implies an old earth.”


    So I ask for evidence and all you provide me with is an assertion made by Old Earth Ministries? Well Creation Ministries International and Answers In Genesis both have articles showing that you can account for the Grand Canyon and Chalk quite easily with the Creation Model (and unlike your OEM they actually site their research and sources), so I see your assertion without evidence and raise you one!

    Not just my decision at all, Hebrew as a language makes it very easy to determine what books are using historical narrative and which ones are being poetic, Noah’s Ark is in Genesis which is written as historical narrative so unless it’s using a simile (like or as) it’s going to be a historic account.


    So we have peer-reviewed studies conducted by numerous Hebrew scholars and experts establishing that the biblical account is written as historical narrative and the best you can do is try to refute it with a drug-using comedian on youtube? You’re so small time.

    So Statler, If I have a divine vision and write down a revelation I received from God that covers those preconditions of intelligibility you mentioned, then that automatically makes my religion true?


    No it would make your religion a fabrication of Christianity because your god would have to possess all of the qualities of Yahweh in order to account for the preconditions, which of course would just be Yahweh. So all you would be doing by trying to prove a point is prove that Yahweh has to exist. Very little of scripture is based on “divine visions” (Revelation is the only one I can think of right now) so your analogy is improper anyways.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Bill to allow women use of deadly force to save unborn children
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 11:54 PM
  2. Calif Bill Would Ban Spanking Young Children
    By Celtkin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-21-2007, 04:15 AM
  3. Creationism (sorry)
    By ABrownLamp in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 05:03 PM
  4. creationism in our schools
    By Alien in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-22-2005, 07:27 PM
  5. Victory for Creationism
    By Wildbill3 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •