Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Vox Day: Alpha Fail.

Pages: (40) < ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... >

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,08:31    Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 28 2011,16:10) False equivalence, there, Heddle...about what one might expect, but still, you're off your game here.  PZ Myers speaks only for PZ Myers, and he'll be the first person to tell you so...as you probably know. Earlier, you say that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Phelps are not representative of the Christian community.  Then you say you didn't say they aren't true Christians. What you mean, obviously, is that three of these people are not clergy and have no official influence with any formally recognized denomination.  Phelps is clergy and does have official influence, but mercifully only holds sway over a tiny flock. Unfortunately, what someone who isn't you sees in your response is "these people aren't really representative of a Christian attitude" even though they claim to be Christians, come from a Christian background, tout their credentials as true believers, slam their opposition as unChristian, et cetera.   Nice try, but no cigar.  Splitting semantic frog hairs?  No True Scotsman, more like. The MadPanda, FCD I 'll assume you simple made a mistake when you wrote that I am saying: Quote these people aren't really representative of a Christian attitude when in fact what I wrote was: they are not representatives--as in nobody has asked them or authorized them to speak on the behalf of Christians. Like when I point out something that I think is a misconception about Christianity and I get the old: Yeah, heddle maybe you think that but why should I believe you rather than the pizza guy--who appointed you as the representative for Christianity? Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative." -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,09:00    so, where are these black swans, again?  certainly not attending the churches i have attended, certainly not writing letters to the editor of my local newspapers, certainly not in my family get togethers. but, hey, leaders in the largest Protestant group in the United States have no problem with publicly yammering about how they are praying for Obama's death. Maybe these clowns don't speak for the oh-so-sophisticated heddles, but they sure as hell seem to speak for the statistically average christianist.  heddle's experiences with which religious figures are influencing smart folks on college campuses is, ultimately, a survey of young folks who are losing their religion.  that is not the 'average' christian either.  too bad. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,09:15    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 29 2011,09:00) so, where are these black swans, again?  certainly not attending the churches i have attended, certainly not writing letters to the editor of my local newspapers, certainly not in my family get togethers. but, hey, leaders in the largest Protestant group in the United States have no problem with publicly yammering about how they are praying for Obama's death. Maybe these clowns don't speak for the oh-so-sophisticated heddles, but they sure as hell seem to speak for the statistically average christianist.  heddle's experiences with which religious figures are influencing smart folks on college campuses is, ultimately, a survey of young folks who are losing their religion.  that is not the 'average' christian either.  too bad. As someone from a somewhat religious upbringing, who still has many friends and family members who are religious, I think this may be a bit of hyperbole.  Most of the religious people who I know are not in the process of losing their religion, nor are they likely to anytime soon.  However, I'm going to say zero (though it may be 1) of them pray for anyone's death. IMO, there are a lot of rubes in the Christian flock, but it is a fallacy to attribute rube-ness to the entire group.  Christianity in this country encompasses an awful lot of groups, many of whom aren't all that stupid--ask Wesley. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,10:01    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 29 2011,09:00) so, where are these black swans, again?  certainly not attending the churches i have attended, certainly not writing letters to the editor of my local newspapers, certainly not in my family get togethers. but, hey, leaders in the largest Protestant group in the United States have no problem with publicly yammering about how they are praying for Obama's death. Maybe these clowns don't speak for the oh-so-sophisticated heddles, but they sure as hell seem to speak for the statistically average christianist.  heddle's experiences with which religious figures are influencing smart folks on college campuses is, ultimately, a survey of young folks who are losing their religion.  that is not the 'average' christian either.  too bad. Really? I routinely seem to see letters to the editor (after one of one of these incidents) denouncing the violence. You really never see them? And the churches you attended-- they applauded the violence? Really? Your family members applaud the violence? Really? And what leaders? You are talking about one man as far as I can tell--Wiley Drake-- (a man with a talk radio show no less--and so there is some self-selection toward lunacy) whose outrageousness peaked after he left office at the SBC*. Furthermore all his tirades, including happiness at the death of Tiller and prayer against Obama were unequivocally denounced by the the SBC press. So who are these leaders or even current leader? Did Al Mohler, president of their flagship seminary** applaud the violence? Let's see how well Wiley Drake does if he runs for election as President of the SBC. Oh--you should write a letter to our faculty--because the concern I have heard expressed is not that the young people at our university are losing their religion--but that they are more religious*** (in the sense of their seriousness) than ever before. You could reassure them, the faculty, that this is just a symptom of the students losing their faith. *Just for clarity, I am a southern Baptist, but not a Southern Baptist. Like I am a Christian scientist but not a Christian Scientist. **FYI our young pastor, who attends Mohler's seminary, prays every week at the start of his sermon for President Obama. ***And more Calvinistic, I might add. Although the faculty doesn't comment on that--it's my observation--borne out by data. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,10:01    blipes college kids are the ones losing their religion the fastest aren't they. i know at least 2 dozen christians who have directly stated to me that they use imprecatory prayer.  not saying those individuals are phylogenetically independent, and maybe hillbillies or working class folks are more inclined [than the effete academic class] to overtly favor violent rhetoric for whatever social historic economic reasons you care to invent, so i agree when heddle says "who made the the spokesmen for christians".   But it is also true that some powerful christians, including Wiley Drake who has been a leader of the southern baptist convention and would be vice-presidential candidate, have declared in public that they are praying for the death of abortion doctors, obama and democrats.  So while we can play games about who is and who ain't a representative, it's clear that some powerful christians do hold this view.   You are all batshit to me. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

rhmc Posts: 340 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,10:51    Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,11:01) Really? I routinely seem to see letters to the editor (after one of one of these incidents) denouncing the violence. You really never see them? i, too, live in the south and for every letter denouncing violence i'll bet i see a dozen or more advocating violence against them damn mooslims and wanting them damn libruls who want sharia brought here to be disenfranchised, stripped of citizenship and sent to the middle east to be killed along with them aforementioned mooslims.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,10:53    Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:04)   Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:51)       Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45) lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion. Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.) Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo. I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due... The MadPanda, FCD You are kidding, right? Ftk is absolutely correct in this theological point--and it is broad-based Christianity 101. That is, Christianity teaches that you go to heaven if you have placed your faith in the power of Christ's death to atone for your sins. And if you don't, then you don't. On that there is nearly universal agreement--so much so that that is as good of a working definition of Christianity that you can find. The consequence of which is: If you have had abortions and have the aforementioned saving faith, you are saved. If you devote your entire life to charity yet lack this faith, then you are lost. The are a lot of details about which have internecine  warfare--such as how the faith is acquired, but on what I just wrote--no disagreement to speak of.   We must associate with different Christians--because I never heard even one say "if you have an abortion you will go to hell." If I did, I'd be tempted to smack him. To my bold. I never understood where people got that idea from when I still considered myself a Christian. In fact, I still don't understand why some Christians think that way. IMO Jesus saying that the way to "Heaven" was through him, combined with the parable of the good Samaritan (amongst other stuff I can't quite remember well enough to cite), was Jesus saying that we would be judged on how well we treated others, not what we believed. Sorry for replying to that so late, I have been away from home and off-line for a while.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,10:54    Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31) Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative." I'm still looking for that part of religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) that's not dumb and easy to attack. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,12:01    Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31) Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative." I do not think it is possible for you to miss the point any more blatantly than this.  So let's try it again, shall we? These people are Christians, yes?  (Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, or aren't acting in an acceptably Christ-like manner by, say, John Kwok's reckoning.) These people use their Christianity as a justification, rationale, and motivation for their heated rhetoric and inflammatory denunciations of the 'other'. They are also popular to varying degrees (Phelps being an exception) whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported).  They are certainly not held up as shameful examples of excess by their crowds of adoring fans, who seem to hold the same shallow, silly, childish view of the world that they publicly espouse.  Quite the opposite. That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it, whether or not anyone's officially asked that they become the public voice.  Your attempt to dodge your (collective) responsibility in this matter is pretty pathetic. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,12:48    Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 29 2011,12:01)     Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31) Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative." I do not think it is possible for you to miss the point any more blatantly than this.  So let's try it again, shall we? These people are Christians, yes?  (Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, or aren't acting in an acceptably Christ-like manner by, say, John Kwok's reckoning.) These people use their Christianity as a justification, rationale, and motivation for their heated rhetoric and inflammatory denunciations of the 'other'. They are also popular to varying degrees (Phelps being an exception) whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported).  They are certainly not held up as shameful examples of excess by their crowds of adoring fans, who seem to hold the same shallow, silly, childish view of the world that they publicly espouse.  Quite the opposite. That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it, whether or not anyone's officially asked that they become the public voice.  Your attempt to dodge your (collective) responsibility in this matter is pretty pathetic. The MadPanda, FCD The MadPanda, FCD     Quote (Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, ) Since I never, ever make a claim regarding who is a True Christian,--you can kiss my ass for implying that I do.     Quote That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it, Are you being disingenuous on purpose, or is this concept too difficult to grasp? Once again: I didn't say they were not a representative sample, I said, they do not represent Christianity. They are not the same. There are an infinite number of groups that are representative of Christianity. They are not (duh) our official representatives.  Even though they are representative samples, they speak only for themselves.     Quote whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported). We are talking about abortion violence. Give me one example of, say, Palin supporting violence against abortion doctors or clinics. And the standard, by the way, asinine. Reporters do not come in to garden variety churches and listen to whether someone like Phelps is denounced. If they did, they would in fact hear Phelps being denounced with regularity. (As an example, my previous church was threatened by Phelps because our pastor wrote a letter condemning Westboro Baptist.) Have you heard a lot of reporting on the thoughts of common man-in-the-street atheists about whether they support some of Pete Singers more outrageous "ethics"? Have you seen reporting about whether the atheist next door thinks it is a good idea to desecrate a communion wafer and a Koran and to describe pictures of aborted fetuses as meat? I haven't--but I'm not pinheaded enough to assume that the onus is on the typical atheist to make me fully aware--to my ever-changing standard of satisfaction-- that he is appalled by bad behavior from some fellow atheists. Nor do I assume, just because he hasn't told me otherwise, that just because some jackasses like PZ are famous--that  that means they are representatives of atheism. (Yes I know, PZ would not claim that he is atheism's representative. Do you have a link where Sarah Palin announces that she is Christianity's representative?) -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,13:21    This pissing match has gone long enough. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,14:12    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 28 2011,15:34) What I find mysterious is where all these "moderate" Christians go on election day, and where all the (oddly equal in number) nutjobs suddenly come from. Prop 8 didn't pass because of a small minority of nutjobs over the will of a vast majority of moderates. Boehner and Palin and Bachman didn't get elected by a small minority of nutjobs in spite of a vast majority of moderates. Funny how this vast majority of moderate Christians seems to disappear on election day. Or change their stripes in the privacy of the voting booth? Nah. Couldn't be. That would mean there are hypocrites amongst them, and that's just not Christian. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Sol3a1 Posts: 110 Joined: July 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,14:33    Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2011,14:12) Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 28 2011,15:34) What I find mysterious is where all these "moderate" Christians go on election day, and where all the (oddly equal in number) nutjobs suddenly come from. Prop 8 didn't pass because of a small minority of nutjobs over the will of a vast majority of moderates. Boehner and Palin and Bachman didn't get elected by a small minority of nutjobs in spite of a vast majority of moderates. Funny how this vast majority of moderate Christians seems to disappear on election day. Or change their stripes in the privacy of the voting booth? Nah. Couldn't be. That would mean there are hypocrites amongst them, and that's just not Christian. I think you're talking about people I know. The five women I love most in the world, my mom, sister, wife and daughters are all theists more or less Christian (Catholic and Methodist) and believe in the "good things" in god and Jesus. Of course we often have the discussions,"Why did you stop believing?". "Are you going with us to mass?" and more but not really about the deep philosophical stuff.  At least they have stopped asking me about Pasquale's Wager. But when I ask them, any of them, deep questions on doctrine and canon, they really don't know the bible very well.  To all of them, Jesus softened god's stance, Jesus is good and nice and kind and pets puppies and would hurt you and will take you with him to heaven, Gays are people too god loves them and it's okay.  So there they are all believing strongly in this god concept but none of them really following that harsh book they claim to live by. I guess like most people, they don't want to think about their religion. It gives them a "warm fuzzy" kinda the ultimate tranquilizer, "Grandpa's in a better place" So these moderate Christians aren't being hypocritical, they're just not thinking this whole thing through.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,14:58    Quote So these moderate Christians aren't being hypocritical, they're just not thinking this whole thing through. I agree what you described is not hypocritical at all.  Lou's point is that some (large) fraction of these "Gays are people too and god loves them and it's OK" types are voting to deny gays the same basic rights that all "gods people" deserve. namely:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ETA:  Actually, i guess that was my point, as a possible answer to Lou's question. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,18:40    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 29 2011,10:01) blipes college kids are the ones losing their religion the fastest aren't they. i know at least 2 dozen christians who have directly stated to me that they use imprecatory prayer.  not saying those individuals are phylogenetically independent, and maybe hillbillies or working class folks are more inclined [than the effete academic class] to overtly favor violent rhetoric for whatever social historic economic reasons you care to invent, so i agree when heddle says "who made the the spokesmen for christians".   But it is also true that some powerful christians, including Wiley Drake who has been a leader of the southern baptist convention and would be vice-presidential candidate, have declared in public that they are praying for the death of abortion doctors, obama and democrats.  So while we can play games about who is and who ain't a representative, it's clear that some powerful christians do hold this view.   You are all batshit to me. I'm not sure what demographics are losing their religion the fastest, though college students seems a better guess than any to me.  I do not disagree that there are a lot of powerful people with ridiculous ideas and statements (Falwell comes immediately to mind). However, my interaction with the religious generally seems to indicate that the Falwell's of the world are the fringe not the main stream.  Of course, my personal experiences also indicate that the Wesleys and Ken Millers of the world are also on the fringe. There just aren't many people I interact with (and I interact with a broad swath of people) who actively seeks other people's death.  This is regardless of whether they are religious or irreligious. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,20:34    Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,12:48) Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 29 2011,12:01)     Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31) Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative." I do not think it is possible for you to miss the point any more blatantly than this.  So let's try it again, shall we? These people are Christians, yes?  (Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, or aren't acting in an acceptably Christ-like manner by, say, John Kwok's reckoning.) These people use their Christianity as a justification, rationale, and motivation for their heated rhetoric and inflammatory denunciations of the 'other'. They are also popular to varying degrees (Phelps being an exception) whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported).  They are certainly not held up as shameful examples of excess by their crowds of adoring fans, who seem to hold the same shallow, silly, childish view of the world that they publicly espouse.  Quite the opposite. That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it, whether or not anyone's officially asked that they become the public voice.  Your attempt to dodge your (collective) responsibility in this matter is pretty pathetic. The MadPanda, FCD The MadPanda, FCD     Quote (Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, ) Since I never, ever make a claim regarding who is a True Christian,--you can kiss my ass for implying that I do.     Quote That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it, Are you being disingenuous on purpose, or is this concept too difficult to grasp? Once again: I didn't say they were not a representative sample, I said, they do not represent Christianity. They are not the same. There are an infinite number of groups that are representative of Christianity. They are not (duh) our official representatives.  Even though they are representative samples, they speak only for themselves.     Quote whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported). We are talking about abortion violence. Give me one example of, say, Palin supporting violence against abortion doctors or clinics. And the standard, by the way, asinine. Reporters do not come in to garden variety churches and listen to whether someone like Phelps is denounced. If they did, they would in fact hear Phelps being denounced with regularity. (As an example, my previous church was threatened by Phelps because our pastor wrote a letter condemning Westboro Baptist.) Have you heard a lot of reporting on the thoughts of common man-in-the-street atheists about whether they support some of Pete Singers more outrageous "ethics"? Have you seen reporting about whether the atheist next door thinks it is a good idea to desecrate a communion wafer and a Koran and to describe pictures of aborted fetuses as meat? I haven't--but I'm not pinheaded enough to assume that the onus is on the typical atheist to make me fully aware--to my ever-changing standard of satisfaction-- that he is appalled by bad behavior from some fellow atheists. Nor do I assume, just because he hasn't told me otherwise, that just because some jackasses like PZ are famous--that  that means they are representatives of atheism. (Yes I know, PZ would not claim that he is atheism's representative. Do you have a link where Sarah Palin announces that she is Christianity's representative?) I see a coward who dodges the issue, abdicates his moral responsibility, and refuses to face unpleasant facts, all the while breezily insisting that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't understand the essence of his delusions. You have been known to play the No True Scotsman card, sirrah, and to do so with abandon.  That you here indulge in semantic nit-picking of Kris-like proportions in order to avoid admitting it is not surprising in the least, but is very, very disappointing. By the fruits of your bretheren, and their failure to own up to the consequences, we know you...all too well. I invite you to stick your fat head into a barrel of overripe squishy pomegranates and whistle Dixie. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2011,09:24    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 29 2011,11:54) Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31) Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative." I'm still looking for that part of religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) that's not dumb and easy to attack. Hey now here's a blast from the past! How've you been, Jim? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2011,09:27    Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2011,15:58) Quote So these moderate Christians aren't being hypocritical, they're just not thinking this whole thing through. I agree what you described is not hypocritical at all.  Lou's point is that some (large) fraction of these "Gays are people too and god loves them and it's OK" types are voting to deny gays the same basic rights that all "gods people" deserve. namely:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ETA:  Actually, i guess that was my point, as a possible answer to Lou's question. Nope, you got it. That was exactly my point. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,06:13    I believe that Christians will be a minority within a generation, even in America. There is just too much information out there now that we didn't have when we were growing up. I think that the main problem is Christianity itself. The big problem is that God is omni-everything. If you are omni-everything, how can you have a personality - especially one that resembles a 3 year old. It doesn't do a good job of explaining suffering either. If you are a white American with affluent parents and blessed with low libido and a high boredom threshold it is a cinch to get into heaven compared to someone who has drug addicted parents who abuse you and force you on the street at 10. I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process. Rather than good and evil you have ying and yang which are more like complementary forces that are necessary for the universe to function. * My mangled understanding of it in any case.

Indiumas Posts: 12 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,08:15    Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2011,13:13) I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process. * My mangled understanding of it in any case. So, how do you know you have a soul so that this concept can even begin to make any sense at all? And what the heck is this next level of existence I keep hearing about?  :O

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,08:33    Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,08:15)   Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2011,13:13) I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process. * My mangled understanding of it in any case. So, how do you know you have a soul so that this concept can even begin to make any sense at all? And what the heck is this next level of existence I keep hearing about?  :O Perhaps in the "set of things that make no sense" there are things that make more or less sense then other things in the set. So, an arbitrary and for all intents and purposes evil deity like what StephenB worships, makes no sense. A hierarchy of suffering to be worked through - slightly more sense. I know what I'd rather pin my hopes on should I be so inclined.... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Indiumas Posts: 12 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,08:44    Yeah, in this sense, maybe :D But without further evidence my bet would be "no soul" and "no higher level of existance". With this bet you save yourself alot of trouble! (And, as a major benefit, you can eat a nice steak without having to worry about potential consequences for the ghost/soul of your grandma!)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,09:02    Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,08:44) Yeah, in this sense, maybe :D But without further evidence my bet would be "no soul" and "no higher level of existance". With this bet you save yourself alot of trouble! (And, as a major benefit, you can eat a nice steak without having to worry about potential consequences for the ghost/soul of your grandma!) Sure, but then again anything is possible :) and the universe has been around much longer then we have... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,09:37    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 30 2011,09:24) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 29 2011,11:54) Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31) Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative." I'm still looking for that part of religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) that's not dumb and easy to attack. Hey now here's a blast from the past! How've you been, Jim? I'm good, thanks. I'm here lurking just about every day and just poke my head out from behind the curtain now and then. Carry on. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Indiumas Posts: 12 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,10:07    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 31 2011,16:02) Sure, but then again anything is possible and the universe has been around much longer then we have... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld Well, anything might be possible in some FSM-like remote sense. Maybe you have a soul or a demon or two souls or a soul playing football with 3 demons in your head and you only find this interesting higher level of existence if and when you eat so much pasta that the soul wins 42:24? Who knows? How is this relevant for anything? Anyway, Riverworld is a nice idea, thanks for the link. Ramen!

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,10:35    Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,10:07) How is this relevant for anything? Under the cardboard pyramid everything is relevant! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,10:40    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:44) Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,12:32) Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,13:17) You should be very justifiably proud. I shall have to beat my boy more, he's 19 months and barely knows any quantum mechanics and he cannot even write a symphony yet.* Louis *I'm not serious. Of course he can write a symphony! (I'm not serious about the beating of course...is that Child Services at the door?) I'm 60, I've been married & divorced; I've had an abortion; I've had wisdom teeth yanked; I've had sex outside of marriage. I've also eaten shrimp & clams; & have worn clothes of mixed fabrics; & interplanted crops. Which of these behaviors are subject to stoning or shunning? Always looking for punishment, aren't you?  I'm giving you the ideal....what is strived for.  Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.   It's not a perfect world, obviously.  I personally believe we learn a lot about life from our mistakes.  That doesn't mean that Ima support abortion because it makes you all feel better. You bringing up stoning and shunning is entirely a different subject that should be taken back to Christianity 101. Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end. It's called pair bonding and is quite common in the animal kingdom.

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,10:48    Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,08:15) Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2011,13:13) I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process. * My mangled understanding of it in any case. So, how do you know you have a soul so that this concept can even begin to make any sense at all? And what the heck is this next level of existence I keep hearing about?  :O Death.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,11:04    just for shits and giggles heddle, you renounced your support for palin only after she quit her job?   not after watching videos of her being anointed for protection from WITCHES?  i know you read Ed's blog so I know that you had from September 2008 to June 2009 to tell yourself "What the hell, it's a good thing for someone a heartbeat away from whatever it is the president does to believe that she has protection from witches" and not be concerned about her sanity.  Until she quit her job?  wow. of course we are taking the piss a bit.  We know that expecting Christians to point out the irrationality of other Christians is expecting too much.  because if you were being rational about the whole thing there wouldn't be any religious beliefs held by anyone.   Hence, you have no rational basis for arguing with other Christians, from Christianity, about imprecatory prayer, shooting abortion doctors in the face or warding off haints and boogers with anointing oil.  If it were a simple matter of deduction from the premises there would be no religious diversity.  And there is. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2011,11:11    tell me how many of this crowd thinks christians deplore violence? Quote FLETCHER — A dispute over leadership at a Henderson County church has turned from angry words to fist fights. About 30 police officers from five agencies were called to break up fights Sunday at Greater New Zion Baptist Church in Fletcher. Henderson County Sheriff's Capt. Jerry Rice says the brawl is under investigation, and no one appears to have been seriously hurt. Rice says there were about 75 people at the church when police arrived, but not all of them were scuffling. Church members are divided over the recent ouster of the Rev. LeVonia Ray as pastor of the church. The fighting apparently began over whether a vote should be held to reinstate Ray. No charges have been filed. Looks like Business As Usual at church to me. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Pages: (40) < ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard