E-mails from my Born-again sister You respond.
Offline These to e-mails might be to easy to refute but i thought everyone would get a kick out of them.
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber
began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many
things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't
believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.
"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be
abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I
can't imagine a loving a God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to
start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just
after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty
hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and un-kept.
The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the
barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber.
And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would
be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."
"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him.
That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world. "
- Login to post comments
Offline "Religion is a negative force on science"...Tell that to Francis Collins, Director, US National Human Genome Research Institute.
Wasn't this the guy that converted to christianity AFTER his work on the human genome project.
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.
- Login to post comments
Offline Again, good post...We could argue about embryonic stem cell research for a long time, which I'm not inclined to do. But I think we both made my original point to the poster who posted that Bush banned embryonic stem cell research (which is a lie oft repeated).
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey Tilberian,
In your previous post you said that Bush's ban ended embryonic stem cell research in dozens of labs around the Country...Please provide the names of these labs and the specific research that was being conducted (or was that just spin
?).
- Login to post comments
Offline Tilberian,
Additionally, why did Germany, Austria, Poland, Lithuania, Malta, Luxembourg and etc. oppose EU funding for embryonic stem cell research?
Was it a vast right wing religious conspiracy there too or just opposition based on ethics (hint: Germany likened it to the Nazi holocaust expirements)?
Is it ever possible for an athiest to perceive an ethical issue without hurling religious epithets?
Clearly, the ethics related to embryonic stem cell research is broader than a strictly religious debate and furthermore it is also one of sciebtific debate...to disagree may suggest a certain level of being disingenuous.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey Tilberian,
In your previous post you said that Bush's ban ended embryonic stem cell research in dozens of labs around the Country...Please provide the names of these labs and the specific research that was being conducted (or was that just spin
I read it somewhere...I can't remember where. Treat yourself to a gotcha if you want.
The fact is, of course, that Bush's decision did halt a great deal of government funded stem cell research. It is logically necessary.
1) Government funded labs were engaged in research using embryonic stem cells from the 22 existing lines.
2) It is known that the viablity of those lines is decreasing, and that access to embryonic stem cells is insufficient to meet demand.
3) Bush's veto effectively prevented funding to labs that used new stem cell lines created from dead embryos.
4) Any lab wishing to continue embryonic stem cell research would need a steady and viable supply of new embryonic stem cells.
5) Any government funded lab needs government funds.
Therefore, any government funded lab would not be able to continue its embryonic stem cell research.
I suppose that a lab that wanted to limp along with the existing lines until they became exhausted could do so. But if I were the administrator of such a lab, I would certainly redirect my scarce resources into something else, rather than risk years of effort and expense down the drain the minute my fresh supply of embryonic stem cells ran out.
Perhaps you can think of a reason why an embryonic stem cell researcher would stay the course in the face of this announcement?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline Tilberian,
Additionally, why did Germany, Austria, Poland, Lithuania, Malta, Luxembourg and etc. oppose EU funding for embryonic stem cell research?
Was it a vast right wing religious conspiracy there too or just opposition based on ethics (hint: Germany likened it to the Nazi holocaust expirements)?
The actual list is Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Malta and Slovakia. So your "etc" encompasses 1 more country than the five you listed, but thanks for the spin anyway.
Of course the vast right wing conspiracy is in those places, too. It's called the Roman Catholic Church. Look it up. It's a fairly large organization that, if I remember correctly, has some history in Western Europe. In fact, I think it's pretty popular in some of those countries on the list.
There are any number of political reasons why those countries may have found it expediant to make this stand. They all have their own version of the christian right and I'm sure their leaders find it advisable to kiss up to them at times.
Of course, there are 21 other countries in the EU that did NOT support the ban. In fact, if we actually read the news report without the spin, we discover that the EU has funded eight embryonic stem cell projects and approved funding for 100 more. The ban proposal attracted NO additional support at the meeting where it was proposed, as we can read here: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23252/
LOL if Germany evoked the Nazis, then you know for sure that it was a political flag-waving incident. I'm sure the Germans are able to see the difference between real live jews being killed for no reason, and tiny little cells being killed in order to save millions of lives.
Is it ever possible for an athiest to perceive an ethical issue without hurling religious epithets?
Rarely, because the ethics of 90% of the people we get into debates with are informed by faulty religious premises. And it nauseates us when actual ethical questions (ie how should people treat each other) are sidelined by bogus theological questions around what god wants us to do.
Clearly, the ethics related to embryonic stem cell research is broader than a strictly religious debate and furthermore it is also one of sciebtific debate...to disagree may suggest a certain level of being disingenuous.
There is no scientific debate, and you have failed to show that there is, and lied in the process of trying. Every scientific organization in the field agrees that embryonic stem cells are better for use in stem cell research. You cannot find a scientific argument prefering the use of adult stem cells. You may find science that shows that adult stem cells can be used for some research in some places. What you will not find is a scientist saying that adult stem cells are as useful for research or in future treatments as embryonic stem cells are. They might say they could possibly be, or they could possibly be made to be, but the present fact is that they are not, and there is no scientific debate about this.
Absent a scientific debate, we are indeed left with an ethical debate. Rationality informs us that it makes no sense to equate the suffering that can be experienced by a blastocyst (zero) with the suffering that is experienced by people who could benefit from the resulting research. Rational segment of the ethical debate is thus settled.
Enter the arguments from sentiment and religion, in other words, the irrational arguments. Now we have a choice to make - will society be governed along irrational or rational lines? Since we can observe that irrational government leads to violence and civic decay, I would recommend from pragmatism that we stick to rational principles in guiding government policy.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:Hey Tilberian,
In your previous post you said that Bush's ban ended embryonic stem cell research in dozens of labs around the Country...Please provide the names of these labs and the specific research that was being conducted (or was that just spin
I read it somewhere...I can't remember where. Treat yourself to a gotcha if you want.
The fact is, of course, that Bush's decision did halt a great deal of government funded stem cell research. It is logically necessary.
1) Government funded labs were engaged in research using embryonic stem cells from the 22 existing lines.2) It is known that the viablity of those lines is decreasing, and that access to embryonic stem cells is insufficient to meet demand.
3) Bush's veto effectively prevented funding to labs that used new stem cell lines created from dead embryos.
4) Any lab wishing to continue embryonic stem cell research would need a steady and viable supply of new embryonic stem cells.
5) Any government funded lab needs government funds.
Therefore, any government funded lab would not be able to continue its embryonic stem cell research.
I suppose that a lab that wanted to limp along with the existing lines until they became exhausted could do so. But if I were the administrator of such a lab, I would certainly redirect my scarce resources into something else, rather than risk years of effort and expense down the drain the minute my fresh supply of embryonic stem cells ran out.
Perhaps you can think of a reason why an embryonic stem cell researcher would stay the course in the face of this announcement?
Answer: So you can't name the dozens of labs around the Country that ended research because of the ban...
It is ironic, given Bush's ban, as pointed out by Yuval Levin in a National Review Online article, that according to researchers, the US leads the world in the "embryonic stem-cell race".
From 1998 to 2005, 40% of the embryonic stem-cell research publications came from the US. The rest was divided up among 20 different nations...The next closest is Israel with 13%.
So much for the fundies killing people...
http://article.nationalreview.com (Falling Behind?, Dec. 4, 2006)
And you have to be able to answer the question posed in the above post about Germany's opposition to the EU funding of embryonic stem cell research. Germany appeals on an ethical basis. Please respond to the above post relative to Germany and the other EU countries that oppose EU funding.
Regards,
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:Tilberian,
Additionally, why did Germany, Austria, Poland, Lithuania, Malta, Luxembourg and etc. oppose EU funding for embryonic stem cell research?
Was it a vast right wing religious conspiracy there too or just opposition based on ethics (hint: Germany likened it to the Nazi holocaust expirements)?
The actual list is Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Malta and Slovakia. So your "etc" encompasses 1 more country than the five you listed, but thanks for the spin anyway.
Of course the vast right wing conspiracy is in those places, too. It's called the Roman Catholic Church. Look it up. It's a fairly large organization that, if I remember correctly, has some history in Western Europe. In fact, I think it's pretty popular in some of those countries on the list.
Answer: Please provide documentation that the Roman Catholic Church played a role in Germany's opposition. It doesn't seem credible to discredit all opposition to embryonic stem cell research as fringe and uninformed.
There are any number of political reasons why those countries may have found it expediant to make this stand. They all have their own version of the christian right and I'm sure their leaders find it advisable to kiss up to them at times.
Of course, there are 21 other countries in the EU that did NOT support the ban. In fact, if we actually read the news report without the spin, we discover that the EU has funded eight embryonic stem cell projects and approved funding for 100 more. The ban proposal attracted NO additional support at the meeting where it was proposed, as we can read here: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23252/
LOL if Germany evoked the Nazis, then you know for sure that it was a political flag-waving incident. I'm sure the Germans are able to see the difference between real live jews being killed for no reason, and tiny little cells being killed in order to save millions of lives.
Answer: There is no scientific proof that the killing of "tiny little cells" will "save millions of lives". There is only "hope" as Micheal J. Fox said.
pby wrote:Is it ever possible for an athiest to perceive an ethical issue without hurling religious epithets?
Rarely, because the ethics of 90% of the people we get into debates with are informed by faulty religious premises. And it nauseates us when actual ethical questions (ie how should people treat each other) are sidelined by bogus theological questions around what god wants us to do.
Answer: So where do bioethics come from and who can enter the debate or play a role?
pby wrote:Clearly, the ethics related to embryonic stem cell research is broader than a strictly religious debate and furthermore it is also one of scientific debate...to disagree may suggest a certain level of being disingenuous.
There is no scientific debate, and you have failed to show that there is, and lied in the process of trying. Every scientific organization in the field agrees that embryonic stem cells are better for use in stem cell research. You cannot find a scientific argument prefering the use of adult stem cells. You may find science that shows that adult stem cells can be used for some research in some places. What you will not find is a scientist saying that adult stem cells are as useful for research or in future treatments as embryonic stem cells are. They might say they could possibly be, or they could possibly be made to be, but the present fact is that they are not, and there is no scientific debate about this.
Answer: There is no lying on my part...And there is certainly scientific debate on this subject of adult stem cells v. embryonic stem cells. I listed at least one professor and scientist in my previous post but you dismissed the article because it was from a pro-life perspective. By the way...The professor was quoted from a Forbes magazine article and, I believe, a New York Times article (I didn't realize that these were pro-life organizations). I will provide additional support for my contention (w/ out lying, of course, as previously falsely accused).
Absent a scientific debate, we are indeed left with an ethical debate. Rationality informs us that it makes no sense to equate the suffering that can be experienced by a blastocyst (zero) with the suffering that is experienced by people who could benefit from the resulting research. Rational segment of the ethical debate is thus settled.
Answer: So...you have a different ethical standard than others that is why we have debates on these ethical matters...There exist sincere, well-informed persons on both sides of this issue and constant demonizing/degrading of the other side shows a certain lack of skill in presenting the strengths of a held position (and possibly strength in the position itself).
Enter the arguments from sentiment and religion, in other words, the irrational arguments. Now we have a choice to make - will society be governed along irrational or rational lines? Since we can observe that irrational government leads to violence and civic decay, I would recommend from pragmatism that we stick to rational principles in guiding government policy.
Answer: Communists were athiests and yet no less irrational than the people you are allegedly describing. Their godless government decayed into violence and collapse. I have read plenty of irrational posts on this website, as well.
Answer: Unfortunately for athiests, in this Country, the founding father's rightly pointed to the fact that our individual freedoms/rights are given to each man and woman by our Creator. As frustrating and unseemly as this belief/foundation is...it is a reality that will always come up in ethical debates of this nature. There is no getting around it.
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote"
"Unfortunately for athiests, in this Country, the founding father's rightly pointed to the fact that our individual freedoms/rights are given to each man and woman by our Creator. As frustrating and unseemly as this belief/foundation is...it is a reality that will always come up in ethical debates of this nature. There is no getting around it."
Unfortunately for you and other theists, you really have no proof whether they wer talking about the Judeo-Christian God or the God as described by Deism. Deism does not deny a Creator God, just that he no longer has anything to do with his creation.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote"
"Unfortunately for athiests, in this Country, the founding father's rightly pointed to the fact that our individual freedoms/rights are given to each man and woman by our Creator. As frustrating and unseemly as this belief/foundation is...it is a reality that will always come up in ethical debates of this nature. There is no getting around it."
Unfortunately for you and other theists, you really have no proof whether they wer talking about the Judeo-Christian God or the God as described by Deism. Deism does not deny a Creator God, just that he no longer has anything to do with his creation.
Answer: Now that really doesn't matter if we are just discussing the origin of the endowment of our inalienable rights, does it.
And if those inalienable rights are given by the Creator, then man doesn't have the right to decide whether or not life, even the "tiniest", is dispensable (for the "good" of humanity or not).
You can parse it theism, deism or any which way you want...but it will never change the historical fact that in this Country our inalienable rights are "endowed by our Creator".
By the way, there is proof of Whom some of the founders were referring to...Athiests really won't like that documentation!
(just like you didn't like the Ten Commandment documentation)
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:pby wrote"
"Unfortunately for athiests, in this Country, the founding father's rightly pointed to the fact that our individual freedoms/rights are given to each man and woman by our Creator. As frustrating and unseemly as this belief/foundation is...it is a reality that will always come up in ethical debates of this nature. There is no getting around it."
Unfortunately for you and other theists, you really have no proof whether they wer talking about the Judeo-Christian God or the God as described by Deism. Deism does not deny a Creator God, just that he no longer has anything to do with his creation.
Answer: Now that really doesn't matter if we are just discussing the origin of the endowment of our inalienable rights, does it.
And if those inalienable rights are given by the Creator, then man doesn't have the right to decide whether or not life, even the "tiniest", is dispensable (for the "good" of humanity or not).
You can parse it theism, deism or any which way you want...but it will never change the historical fact that in this Country our inalienable rights are "endowed by our Creator".
By the way, there is proof of Whom some of the founders were referring to...Athiests really won't like that documentation!
(just like you didn't like the Ten Commandment documentation)
Not that I didn't like it (it's information - I don't form passionate attachments to information).
And I don't dispute that some of the Founders were Christians. Your statement, however, implies that they all were. After all, you didn't say "Some of the founding fathers...", you said "... the founding fathers".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline The founding fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence all believed in a Creator that endowed men and woman with certain inalienable rights (they wrote it and signed it)...I did not mean to imply anything by my statement other than that. (I thought that this was a given.)
But like you said...Many of them were Christians and clearly made overt references to the God of the Bible and to Jesus Christ. These are perserved in primary source historical documents.
Can you cite any of them that did not believe that the Creator was the God of the Bible?
It, however, still remains that athiests are not pleased with this historical fact and that this is the foundation for our individual rights.
Thus, we have ACLU lawsuits attempting to expunge the Ten Commandments, the cross, and so forth from public display.
- Login to post comments
Offline http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/quotes.php
read some of the above by founding fathers.
Also read some of Thomas Paine's writings.
and this:
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/quotes.php
read some of the above by founding fathers.
Also read some of Thomas Paine's writings.
and this:
Answer: Like jcgadfly and I said...not all of the founders were Christians but many of them were.
Nothing changes the fact that the signers of The Declaration declared that we were endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator...That has to be a thorn in the side to athiests.
If you would like me to match and exceed your quotes with founder quotes about the God of the Bible and also about Jesus Christ...please let me know.
- Login to post comments
Offline Maybe that Creator was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- Login to post comments
Offline But like you said...Many of them were Christians and clearly made overt references to the God of the Bible and to Jesus Christ. These are perserved in primary source historical documents.
Certainly there were a lot of Christians at the time. But, the most notable of the "founding fathers" were deists.
Can you cite any of them that did not believe that the Creator was the God of the Bible?
Jeffereson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, etc. were deists. I believe there is some debate about Washington, as I think he is quoted as having said some pro-Christian sentiment, but others that were anti-Christian in sentiment.
It, however, still remains that athiests are not pleased with this historical fact and that this is the foundation for our individual rights.
It, however, remains that theists are not pleased with the historical fasct that the foundation of our individual rights was not placed at the feet of the Christian God...
Thus, we have ACLU lawsuits attempting to expunge the Ten Commandments, the cross, and so forth from public display.
Thus, we have Christians using the non-Christian heritage of the founding fathers as an excuse to try to foist Christianity.
Here's a bit of history for you. Did you know that the first lawsuit against prayer in school was instigated by a CATHOLIC, offended that the school was using a King James Bible, a protestant Bible? I bet you don't give a rat's ass about that piece of history as it doesn't support your preconceived notions.
And another piece of history that you forget, I think it was mentioned in this thread already, that the first US treaty was the Treaty of Tripoli, which specifically stated that the US is in no way founded on the Christian religion; and this treaty was ratified by congress unanimously. Fuck you and your cherry-picked history. Go feed it to somebody else that you can fool, you can't fool anybody here, so go fuck yourself.
- Login to post comments
Offline Maybe that Creator was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Maybe...many posts on this website, like this one, are irrational.
- Login to post comments
Offline MattShizzle wrote:Maybe that Creator was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Maybe...many posts on this website, like this one, are irrational.
How so? Despite the fact that some of the Founders may have believed the Creator to be the God of the Bible, none of them knew for sure or had anything remotely resembling evidence. Just like many theists today.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:But like you said...Many of them were Christians and clearly made overt references to the God of the Bible and to Jesus Christ. These are perserved in primary source historical documents.
Certainly there were a lot of Christians at the time. But, the most notable of the "founding fathers" were deists.
pby wrote:Can you cite any of them that did not believe that the Creator was the God of the Bible?Jeffereson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, etc. were deists. I believe there is some debate about Washington, as I think he is quoted as having said some pro-Christian sentiment, but others that were anti-Christian in sentiment.
pby wrote:It, however, still remains that athiests are not pleased with this historical fact and that this is the foundation for our individual rights.It, however, remains that theists are not pleased with the historical fasct that the foundation of our individual rights was not placed at the feet of the Christian God...
pby wrote:Thus, we have ACLU lawsuits attempting to expunge the Ten Commandments, the cross, and so forth from public display.Thus, we have Christians using the non-Christian heritage of the founding fathers as an excuse to try to foist Christianity.
Here's a bit of history for you. Did you know that the first lawsuit against prayer in school was instigated by a CATHOLIC, offended that the school was using a King James Bible, a protestant Bible? I bet you don't give a rat's ass about that piece of history as it doesn't support your preconceived notions.
And another piece of history that you forget, I think it was mentioned in this thread already, that the first US treaty was the Treaty of Tripoli, which specifically stated that the US is in no way founded on the Christian religion; and this treaty was ratified by congress unanimously. Fuck you and your cherry-picked history. Go feed it to somebody else that you can fool, you can't fool anybody here, so go fuck yourself.
Answer (rational response): Thank you for your classless and irrational response.
I love when athiests mention men like Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and etc.
If these men were alive today and stating what they stated back then...athiests, like you, would be screaming obscenities at them! (I can already here the cries of, "Theocracy! Theocracy...Call the ACLU!)
"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the Author of them; for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to llook through the discovery to the Author...How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? ...The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence..." (Thomas Paine, "The Study of God", January 16, 1797, criticizing the French in their science classes)
Do you agree with Paine's assessment, here?
Who do you think that Paine is referring to, here?
Benjamin Franklin stated that public schools should teach, "the necessity of public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient, or modern."
In 1787, Franklin said that a college that bore his name should be, "a nursery of religion and learning built on Christ, the Corner-stone."
Do you agree with Franklin, here?
I wonder who Franklin believed the Creator was.
The will of Samuel Adams, "I...recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of my sins."
Who do you think Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration, believed that the Creator was?
Carroll, Hancock, Morton, Robert Treat Paine, Sherman, Stockton, Witherspoon and etc. made very similar statements...Who do you think they believed the Creator to be?
"My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcedent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!" (Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence)
Who do you think Benjamin Rush believed the Creator to be?
Relative to his belief in God...I firmly believe that you would be as uncomfortable with Jefferson as you are with these others.
By the way, given the above quotes (and the plethora of others that exist)...not bad for an alleged "non-Christian heritage."
And John Adams would disagree with you saying, "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...the general principles of Christianity..."
To which lawsuit regarding prayer in school are you referring to? Provide citations, please (exact case name, etc.).
The first public school prayer case that the Supreme Court ruled on was Engle v. Vitale, in 1962. This case was brought forward by an athiest organization (O'hare's).
As far as the Treaty of Tripoli goes, apparently you do not know that Article XI, the one to which you referred, was dropped eight years later.
My historical references are not "cherry-picked" in the sense that they are in anyway out of context, or do not represent the quoted persons beliefs or views...But they certainly portray something greatly disliked by athiests, such as yourself (thus, the obscenity and fuzzy thinking).
In this vein/regard...so much for your case against faith!
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:Maybe that Creator was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Maybe...many posts on this website, like this one, are irrational.
How so? Despite the fact that some of the Founders may have believed the Creator to be the God of the Bible, none of them knew for sure or had anything remotely resembling evidence. Just like many theists today.
Answer (rational Response): First of all, for an athiest to recognize any diety (FSM, or other) is a logical fallacy.
Secondly, via documented historical quotes (see my other post to caseagainstfaith), it is obvious that the Founders did not believe in the FSM, as suggested by the irrational responder's post. Their belief was either outright stated belief in the God of the Bible or implied consistency with the general belief at the time.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:Maybe that Creator was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Maybe...many posts on this website, like this one, are irrational.
How so? Despite the fact that some of the Founders may have believed the Creator to be the God of the Bible, none of them knew for sure or had anything remotely resembling evidence. Just like many theists today.
Answer (rational Response): First of all, for an athiest to recognize any diety (FSM, or other) is a logical fallacy.
Secondly, via documented historical quotes (see my other post to caseagainstfaith), it is obvious that the Founders did not believe in the FSM, as suggested by the irrational responder's post. Their belief was either outright stated belief in the God of the Bible or implied consistency with the general belief at the time.
First, an athiest doesn't recognize god as a deity (this one doesn't due to a profound lack of evidence). However, to ignore those who follow that deity would be foolhardy (especially when the god-believers are determined to wield temporal power).
Second, you missed my point. I didn't say they didn't believe. I said they had no knowledge or even a shred of evidence on which to base their belief. In that respect, my response stands. Their belief has exactly as much validity and proof as the belief of the devotees of the FSM. So many theists are fond of saying "I know my God is real" when in fact they don't and can't know anything of the kind.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Come on jcgadfly... You are missing the original point altogether. The irrational responder stated that the Founder's Creator could have been the FSM. To which, I pointed out the irrational nature of that post...The point I made is documented history.
You are making a distinct and separate point.
In response: There is no basis for equating the God of the Bible with the FSM...
Does the FSM have a several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history? (no.)
Is the FSM's non-existent book supported by the existence of thousands of manuscripts? (no.)
Has belief in the FSM propagated a world-wide movement that has changed lives throughout history and born acts of mercy throughout all nations? (no.)
Has anyone been martyred or willing to die for the name of the FSM? (no.)
Do people meet every Sunday around the globe to worship the FSM? (no.)
Has the FSM inspired hymns of praise? (no.)
And so forth...
no, no and no!
One of the athiests favorite Founder's said this, "When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God?"
The FSM was not even invented until the 90's in response to an Intelligent Design court case. We know the FSM's beginning (1990's) and source (the imaginations of men)...When was God's beginning and what was His source (and if you say that the source is also the imagination of men, then provide the citation as exists with the FSM)?
Therefore, obviously, the FSM is not the Creator mentioned by the Founders. (nor is their any weight of evidence to put any reasonable faith in the FSM...unlike the evidence, as mentioned above, that exists for the God of the Bible)
- Login to post comments
Offline Come on jcgadfly... You are missing the original point altogether. The irrational responder stated that the Founder's Creator could have been the FSM. To which, I pointed out the irrational nature of that post...The point I made is documented history.
You are making a distinct and separate point.
In response: There is no basis for equating the God of the Bible with the FSM...
Does the FSM have a several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history? (no.)
Is the FSM's non-existent book supported by the existence of thousands of manuscripts? (no.)
Has belief in the FSM propagated a world-wide movement that has changed lives throughout history and born acts of mercy throughout all nations? (no.)
Has anyone been martyred or willing to die for the name of the FSM? (no.)
Do people meet every Sunday around the globe to worship the FSM? (no.)
Has the FSM inspired hymns of praise? (no.)
And so forth...
no, no and no!
One of the athiests favorite Founder's said this, "When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God?"
The FSM was not even invented until the 90's in response to an Intelligent Design court case. We know the FSM's beginning (1990's) and source (the imaginations of men)...When was God's beginning and what was His source (and if you say that the source is also the imagination of men, then provide the citation as exists with the FSM)?
Therefore, obviously, the FSM is not the Creator mentioned by the Founders. (nor is their any weight of evidence to put any reasonable faith in the FSM...unlike the evidence, as mentioned above, that exists for the God of the Bible)
That Founder was Thomas Paine.
- Login to post comments
Offline The FSM's book is non-existant? WRONG-O!
It might not be thousands of years old, but it does include many of the things mentioned.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline The FSM's book is non-existant? WRONG-O!
It might not be thousands of years old, but it does include many of the things mentioned.
Answer (rational response): Wrong-O...I don't think so!
Please note my exact question: "Does the FSM have a several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history?"
The humor laced ID parody that you cited, albeit the best you can do, doesn't even come close!
- Login to post comments
Offline You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.
- Login to post comments
Offline You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.
Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
- Login to post comments
Offline Answer (rational response):
Is the FSM's non-existent book supported by the existence of thousands of manuscripts?
EDIT (rational change):
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.
- Login to post comments
Offline MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.
Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
pby,
The Bible does not document God's existence throughout history. The OT documents the fact that humans at that time didn't understand the world around them and made up a God to answer those questions. It also documents how one group of people killed many others in the name of that God they created. It included quite a bit of propaganda to convince the readers that this God was supreme.
The NT is a collection of stories about a Christ concept that Paul created and the Gospel writers fleshed out based on other myths.
If the Bible was something that could be backed up by credible sources, I daresay many here would have less of a difficulty buying what you're selling.
As far as my other topic, feel free to PM me. I had to vent and apolohize for the attempted threadjacking.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Answer (rational response):
Quote:Is the FSM's non-existent book supported by the existence of thousands of manuscripts?
Answer: Oh...Now I understand where he may have been coming from. Sorry...My bad!
But...I think that it is a given, and very clear from my post, that the book that I was referring to, and as defined in my previous question, is non-existent.
...And it is.
Thanks for the clarification.
- Login to post comments
Offline MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
Is it your position that the Christian Bible is "inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents God's existence throughout history"?
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.
Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
pby,
The Bible does not document God's existence throughout history. The OT documents the fact that humans at that time didn't understand the world around them and made up a God to answer those questions. It also documents how one group of people killed many others in the name of that God they created. It included quite a bit of propaganda to convince the readers that this God was supreme.
The NT is a collection of stories about a Christ concept that Paul created and the Gospel writers fleshed out based on other myths.
If the Bible was something that could be backed up by credible sources, I daresay many here would have less of a difficulty buying what you're selling.
As far as my other topic, feel free to PM me. I had to vent and apolohize for the attempted threadjacking.
Answer: No problem!
Please provide citations for the OT's origins in man's lack of understanding and thereby creating God.
Please also provide citations that man invented the God of the Bible. I provided citations relative to the FSM's invention in the imagination of a man. Where is your proof that the God of the Bible was only invented in the imaginations of men.
What say you of the accurate archeology, people, places, history and prophecies in the OT? Were these the result of ignorant men who lacked in understanding?
Is not the history and archeology of the OT backed by "secular" and credible sources?
Please also provide proof/citations that Christ, or the concept thereof, is only a Pauline concept.
Why did Jews believe in Christ so close to the time of Christ, if Christ never existed at all?
And are you saying that the Pauline Epistles pre-dated the Gospels?
Regards,
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
Is it your position that the Christian Bible is "inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents God's existence throughout history"?
Answer: Yes.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.
Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
pby,
The Bible does not document God's existence throughout history. The OT documents the fact that humans at that time didn't understand the world around them and made up a God to answer those questions. It also documents how one group of people killed many others in the name of that God they created. It included quite a bit of propaganda to convince the readers that this God was supreme.
The NT is a collection of stories about a Christ concept that Paul created and the Gospel writers fleshed out based on other myths.
If the Bible was something that could be backed up by credible sources, I daresay many here would have less of a difficulty buying what you're selling.
As far as my other topic, feel free to PM me. I had to vent and apolohize for the attempted threadjacking.
Answer: No problem!
Please provide citations for the OT's origins in man's lack of understanding and thereby creating God.
Please also provide citations that man invented the God of the Bible. I provided citations relative to the FSM's invention in the imagination of a man. Where is your proof that the God of the Bible was only invented in the imaginations of men.
What say you of the accurate archeology, people, places, history and prophecies in the OT? Were these the result of ignorant men who lacked in understanding?
Is not the history and archeology of the OT backed by "secular" and credible sources?
Please also provide proof/citations that Christ, or the concept thereof, is only a Pauline concept.
Why did Jews believe in Christ so close to the time of Christ, if Christ never existed at all?
And are you saying that the Pauline Epistles pre-dated the Gospels?
Regards,
On the citations, give me some time to dig a bit. I don't have them on this machine.
On the accurate archeaology, etc. - the Spider-Man comics are set in New York City and occasionally reference real areas and real people. Is the Wall-Crawler real because of that?
Which Jews believed in Christ before Christ was thought up?
And yes, the Pauline epistles predate the gospels by at least 15 years.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline So you are saying that time makes a book more correct? Isn't that some
kind of fallacy. Maybe appeal to antiquity or something of the sort? Also
your whole argument about the founding fathers being theists: What is
your point? So they beleived there was a god. The fact is in the
constitution didn't mention god. The declaration of
independence if written during this time might have no mention of a
creator. It was taboo to be an atheist at the time. So your argument is
irrelavent at best because the declaration of indepedence is non-binding
to the USA. No where in the constitution does it say that we are a
theistic country - therefore to be secular is the only postion from a
first amendment context that is viable. Giving any preference to
any religion or non religion is still establishing that the country
thinks that religion or non-religion is better then the others.
- Login to post comments
Offline I love when athiests mention men like Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and etc.
I had said that there is conflicting information on Washington. It appears there is also conflicting information on Franklin. From a bit of research, it appears the quote you provided for Franklin is legitimate. Yet, most sources say he leaned more diest than Christian. As far as your quotes of Paine, they don't dispute his deism, for which is well known. As is Jefferson's.
To which lawsuit regarding prayer in school are you referring to? Provide citations, please (exact case name, etc.).
Read this article:
http://massbar.org/for-attorneys/publications/massachusetts-law-review/2006/v89-n4/book-review---the-fourth-r
or:
As far as the Treaty of Tripoli goes, apparently you do not know that Article XI, the one to which you referred, was dropped eight years later.
I hadn't heard this. I'll need to research it more. References?
- Login to post comments
Offline Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
Is it your position that the Christian Bible is "inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents God's existence throughout history"?
Answer: Yes.
What's your angle on all this? Are you a biblical literalist? Young Earth Creationist? The idea of the Bible (King James? Standard Revised?) being [holistically] an accurate historical and archaeological text is very much outside of the mainstream of modern, scientific thinking ... Not to mention the whole notion that the earth is 6,000 years old - the Bible loses a lot of credibility there. Or a world-wide flood - there is no evidence of a world-wide flood in the archaeological or geologic record. Further, the notion that all the worlds races could develop out of a single, inbred, homogeneous family in a couple thousand years is a little absurd. Also, modern linguisitics casts a major shadow over the Babel myth ...
I would agree that there is historical verisimilitude in the later books, esp. with respect to the United Monarchy, the Later Kings, the Assyrian Invasion and the Babylonian Captivity - but this is corroberated by other accounts of near-eastern and oriental civilizations. Between Egypt and Persia, the Hellenic world and the Arabia Peninsula, there are many records of the events from 1500 BCE to the time of Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and beyond ...
As for the Prophesy claims, I'm not supersititious and I don't believe in Prophesy, esp. when it's easy to go back and twist the facts to fit what someone before wrote cryptically ... same with the existence of gods, in this case Yahweh - there is no evidence that any gods have or do exist.
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:jcgadfly wrote:pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.
Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
pby,
The Bible does not document God's existence throughout history. The OT documents the fact that humans at that time didn't understand the world around them and made up a God to answer those questions. It also documents how one group of people killed many others in the name of that God they created. It included quite a bit of propaganda to convince the readers that this God was supreme.
The NT is a collection of stories about a Christ concept that Paul created and the Gospel writers fleshed out based on other myths.
If the Bible was something that could be backed up by credible sources, I daresay many here would have less of a difficulty buying what you're selling.
As far as my other topic, feel free to PM me. I had to vent and apolohize for the attempted threadjacking.
Answer: No problem!
Please provide citations for the OT's origins in man's lack of understanding and thereby creating God.
Please also provide citations that man invented the God of the Bible. I provided citations relative to the FSM's invention in the imagination of a man. Where is your proof that the God of the Bible was only invented in the imaginations of men.
What say you of the accurate archeology, people, places, history and prophecies in the OT? Were these the result of ignorant men who lacked in understanding?
Is not the history and archeology of the OT backed by "secular" and credible sources?
Please also provide proof/citations that Christ, or the concept thereof, is only a Pauline concept.
Why did Jews believe in Christ so close to the time of Christ, if Christ never existed at all?
And are you saying that the Pauline Epistles pre-dated the Gospels?
Regards,
On the citations, give me some time to dig a bit. I don't have them on this machine.
On the accurate archeaology, etc. - the Spider-Man comics are set in New York City and occasionally reference real areas and real people. Is the Wall-Crawler real because of that?
Which Jews believed in Christ before Christ was thought up?
And yes, the Pauline epistles predate the gospels by at least 15 years.
Answer: Does Spiderman contend that he is real or is he known to be a made up comic book hero?
You have made an assumed conclusion in comparing a comic book and a comic book hero vs. the Bible and the God of the Bible. I do not believe that this is logical.
Additionally, it is a very poor comparison (spidey comic book v. the Bible) in that the depth of history, people, places and archeology in the Bible far outweighs anything in any comic book (by vast volumes).
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:pby wrote:jcgadfly wrote:pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.
Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
pby,
The Bible does not document God's existence throughout history. The OT documents the fact that humans at that time didn't understand the world around them and made up a God to answer those questions. It also documents how one group of people killed many others in the name of that God they created. It included quite a bit of propaganda to convince the readers that this God was supreme.
The NT is a collection of stories about a Christ concept that Paul created and the Gospel writers fleshed out based on other myths.
If the Bible was something that could be backed up by credible sources, I daresay many here would have less of a difficulty buying what you're selling.
As far as my other topic, feel free to PM me. I had to vent and apolohize for the attempted threadjacking.
Answer: No problem!
Please provide citations for the OT's origins in man's lack of understanding and thereby creating God.
Please also provide citations that man invented the God of the Bible. I provided citations relative to the FSM's invention in the imagination of a man. Where is your proof that the God of the Bible was only invented in the imaginations of men.
What say you of the accurate archeology, people, places, history and prophecies in the OT? Were these the result of ignorant men who lacked in understanding?
Is not the history and archeology of the OT backed by "secular" and credible sources?
Please also provide proof/citations that Christ, or the concept thereof, is only a Pauline concept.
Why did Jews believe in Christ so close to the time of Christ, if Christ never existed at all?
And are you saying that the Pauline Epistles pre-dated the Gospels?
Regards,
On the citations, give me some time to dig a bit. I don't have them on this machine.
On the accurate archeaology, etc. - the Spider-Man comics are set in New York City and occasionally reference real areas and real people. Is the Wall-Crawler real because of that?
Which Jews believed in Christ before Christ was thought up?
And yes, the Pauline epistles predate the gospels by at least 15 years.
Answer: Does Spiderman contend that he is real or is he known to be a made up comic book hero?
You have made an assumed conclusion in comparing a comic book and a comic book hero vs. the Bible and the God of the Bible. I do not believe that this is logical.
Additionally, it is a very poor comparison (spidey comic book v. the Bible) in that the depth of history, people, places and archeology in the Bible far outweighs anything in any comic book (by vast volumes).
First, some links on they myths in the OT (mostly Canaanite in origin borrowed by the Hebrews)
http://www.jstor.org/view/08852758/ap050097/05a00050/0
http://www.dhushara.com/book/god/canaan.htm
Paul and the writers of the gospels had Mithra, Dionysus, Osiris and other myths to play with to come up with Christ. Links to come (I'm sorry to do this in bits and pieces but work/school take priority).
To your question, Spidey, in the context and the pages of the comic book, contends to be exactly as real as God and Jesus do in the pages of the Bible. Otherwise the fiction doesn't engender belief or the wilful suspension of it.
Have you seen definitive archaeology and history that backs up the Bible? I've seen a lot of "this may have been where X was located." or "Y may have lived here" or "Z could have happened" but nothing really definite.
Not trying to be argumentative - just admitting my lack of knowledge in this area.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Answer: Does Spiderman contend that he is real or is he known to be a made up comic book hero?
God isn't known to be real either. Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, etc. know that he isn't real.
You have made an assumed conclusion in comparing a comic book and a comic book hero vs. the Bible and the God of the Bible. I do not believe that this is logical.
Strictly your problem.
Additionally, it is a very poor comparison (spidey comic book v. the Bible) in that the depth of history, people, places and archeology in the Bible far outweighs anything in any comic book (by vast volumes).
OK, now, so blame Spider-Man comics that they don't extend on thousands of pages ! Silly!
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:Answer: Does Spiderman contend that he is real or is he known to be a made up comic book hero?
God isn't known to be real either. Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, etc. know that he isn't real.
Quote:You have made an assumed conclusion in comparing a comic book and a comic book hero vs. the Bible and the God of the Bible. I do not believe that this is logical.Strictly your problem.
Quote:Additionally, it is a very poor comparison (spidey comic book v. the Bible) in that the depth of history, people, places and archeology in the Bible far outweighs anything in any comic book (by vast volumes).OK, now, so blame Spider-Man comics that they don't extend on thousands of pages ! Silly!
Answer: Unlike Spidey, God is not known to be unreal. Some people just believe him to be unreal (despite the Bible, despite creation, despite changed lives, and etc.) We have direct evidence and can provide specific citations for the creation of spiderman and his comic books in the imagination of man...The same thing can not be said of God.
At least one historian has called Luke a great historian and his biblical account (Book of Luke, Acts) historically accurate. To compare spidey comics with the Bible is just not logical.
- Login to post comments
Offline Rigor_OMortis wrote:pby wrote:Answer: Does Spiderman contend that he is real or is he known to be a made up comic book hero?
God isn't known to be real either. Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, etc. know that he isn't real.
Quote:You have made an assumed conclusion in comparing a comic book and a comic book hero vs. the Bible and the God of the Bible. I do not believe that this is logical.Strictly your problem.
Quote:Additionally, it is a very poor comparison (spidey comic book v. the Bible) in that the depth of history, people, places and archeology in the Bible far outweighs anything in any comic book (by vast volumes).OK, now, so blame Spider-Man comics that they don't extend on thousands of pages ! Silly!
Answer: Unlike Spidey, God is not known to be unreal. Some people just believe him to be unreal (despite the Bible, despite creation, despite changed lives, and etc.) We have direct evidence and can provide specific citations for the creation of spiderman and his comic books in the imagination of man...The same thing can not be said of God.
At least one historian has called Luke a great historian and his biblical account (Book of Luke, Acts) historically accurate. To compare spidey comics with the Bible is just not logical.
Some people just believe God to be real also.
1. Using the Bible to prove God is recursive reasoning.
2. There are alternative explanations for how things came to be without resorting to the magic of a Creator.
3. Are you saying because the names of the gospel writers aren't known that God must've written them?
I'd like the name of that historian also.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Answer: Unlike Spidey, God is not known to be unreal. Some people just believe him to be unreal (despite the Bible, despite creation, despite changed lives, and etc.) We have direct evidence and can provide specific citations for the creation of spiderman and his comic books in the imagination of man...The same thing can not be said of God
Actually pby there is excellent and obvious evidence that god is of man's imagination. Please read my thread called the history of God
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline Answer: Unlike Spidey, God is not known to be unreal. Some people just believe him to be unreal (despite the Bible, despite creation, despite changed lives, and etc.) We have direct evidence and can provide specific citations for the creation of spiderman and his comic books in the imagination of man...The same thing can not be said of God
Actually pby there is excellent and obvious evidence that god is of man's imagination. Please read my thread called the history of God
Answer: Thanks, deludedgod. I will take a look at it.
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:
Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.
Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
Is it your position that the Christian Bible is "inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents God's existence throughout history"?
Answer: Yes.
What's your angle on all this? Are you a biblical literalist? Young Earth Creationist? The idea of the Bible (King James? Standard Revised?) being [holistically] an accurate historical and archaeological text is very much outside of the mainstream of modern, scientific thinking ... Not to mention the whole notion that the earth is 6,000 years old - the Bible loses a lot of credibility there. Or a world-wide flood - there is no evidence of a world-wide flood in the archaeological or geologic record. Further, the notion that all the worlds races could develop out of a single, inbred, homogeneous family in a couple thousand years is a little absurd. Also, modern linguisitics casts a major shadow over the Babel myth ...
I would agree that there is historical verisimilitude in the later books, esp. with respect to the United Monarchy, the Later Kings, the Assyrian Invasion and the Babylonian Captivity - but this is corroberated by other accounts of near-eastern and oriental civilizations. Between Egypt and Persia, the Hellenic world and the Arabia Peninsula, there are many records of the events from 1500 BCE to the time of Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and beyond ...
As for the Prophesy claims, I'm not supersititious and I don't believe in Prophesy, esp. when it's easy to go back and twist the facts to fit what someone before wrote cryptically ... same with the existence of gods, in this case Yahweh - there is no evidence that any gods have or do exist.
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
- Login to post comments
Offline pby wrote:Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:pby wrote:MattShizzle wrote:You called the book non-existant. And you might want to tone down the trolling.Answer (rational response): Please cite where I called the book non-existent. I didn't. I asked if the FSM had a "several thousand year old book, inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents his existence throughout history."
I, then, answered my question with a, "no.".
Again, the ID parody that you cite does not meet the requirements that I set forth.
...tone down the trolling (and why...I caught you)?
This advice comes from the guy with your tagline?
irony...
Is it your position that the Christian Bible is "inclusive of fulfilled prophecy, accurate archeology, accurate history, and etc., which documents God's existence throughout history"?
Answer: Yes.
What's your angle on all this? Are you a biblical literalist? Young Earth Creationist? The idea of the Bible (King James? Standard Revised?) being [holistically] an accurate historical and archaeological text is very much outside of the mainstream of modern, scientific thinking ... Not to mention the whole notion that the earth is 6,000 years old - the Bible loses a lot of credibility there. Or a world-wide flood - there is no evidence of a world-wide flood in the archaeological or geologic record. Further, the notion that all the worlds races could develop out of a single, inbred, homogeneous family in a couple thousand years is a little absurd. Also, modern linguisitics casts a major shadow over the Babel myth ...
I would agree that there is historical verisimilitude in the later books, esp. with respect to the United Monarchy, the Later Kings, the Assyrian Invasion and the Babylonian Captivity - but this is corroberated by other accounts of near-eastern and oriental civilizations. Between Egypt and Persia, the Hellenic world and the Arabia Peninsula, there are many records of the events from 1500 BCE to the time of Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and beyond ...
As for the Prophesy claims, I'm not supersititious and I don't believe in Prophesy, esp. when it's easy to go back and twist the facts to fit what someone before wrote cryptically ... same with the existence of gods, in this case Yahweh - there is no evidence that any gods have or do exist.
Answer: I am a literalist (I take the Bible literally)...And a creationist (btw, I don't know how old the Earth is.)
The Bible has been proven to be accurate in its historicity and archeology...even critics accept this.
- Login to post comments
Offline Answer: I am a literalist (I take the Bible literally)...And a creationist (btw, I don't know how old the Earth is.
In that case you will be interested in the scientific essay I wrote and discussion I had with a theist on my thread called Attention all theists: The fundamental axioms of evolution. The more people that disagree that read all of it, the better.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
I would like to intervene on this particular point. The resistance of the scientific commnity to new ideas is very simple and explainable, and also very different from the religious one. When an idea (such as birds descent from dinosaurs) has been around a long time, there have been many papers and studies forming a group of evidences for this idea. There are many evidences that has been found, since the idea was first pointed out, that birds descent from dinosaurs: DNA distance, phenotypes (such as dinosaurs feet very close to birds feet), winged dinosaurs and so on. If you wish to advocate for a new idea, you must find a plausible answer for all those researches that you are contradicting. If the idea still resists to that, you'll be greatyl rewarded and may win a nobel prize or an equivalent honor. An example of that is Motoo Kimura's "non darwinian (or neutral) evolution" which took 20 years of debate to be accepted. Now Kimura is extremely respected in the scientific community, but only because he produced a lot of peer reviewed work in the most prestigious scientific journals, to back up his revolutionary idea.
This resistance is totally natural. It is extremely different from a dogmatic resistance. There was no prior evidence (or really fallacious ones) for most work scientists were persecuted. The church openly discourage knowledge produced by infidels, one of the greatest example is the autodafe of pagan knowledge which halved the living standard of Europeans after the fall of the roman empire.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Isn't. Here's a bunch of links to a bunch of different stem cell research organizations. You won't find ONE that claims adult stem cells are as promising as embryonic stem cells for research or future therapeutic purposes.
Stem Cell Information
http://www.dels.nas.edu/bls/stemcells/
http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp
http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/main.htm
http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/
http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/s/stem_cells/
http://www.isscr.org/
http://books.ontheweb.com/shop/stem-cells.html
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/
http://www.tellmeaboutstemcells.org/
Your article, unsurprisingly for a pro-life vehicle, totally misrepresents the actual position of Harvard and the Einstein school of medicine on stem cells. Both organizations prefer to use embryonic stem cells, as you can read on their sites:
http://www.aecom.yu.edu/home/ibdnr.asp
http://stemcell.harvard.edu/research
Just flip through some of the abstracts on this site: http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/ You'll see scientists publishing from Japan, Belgium, Australia, and France, just to name a few.
Nice try spinmeister. I never said that. However, the Harvard Gazette appears to think that Bush's funding ban prevented some research:
"As far as is known, this decision marks the beginning of the first noncommercial effort in the United States to use human embryonic stem cells in a series of experiments whose principle has already been proven in animals.
The work is being entirely supported with private funds because of the federal restrictions on human embryonic stem cell work."
http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=1112
I'll tell you since you don't know: private research is just that - private. The results of the research are owned by the corporation that does it, and they keep it completely secret until they are ready to exploit it with some kind of treatment. The only research that gets done in the first place is research that is targetted toward generating immediate profits. Longer term "pure" research is almost never bothered with.
All that said, stem cell research is blasting forward all over the world, and private money is pouring into it in the US. Just look at that journal site I linked to above.
I find your willingness to distort the real facts about embryonic stem cell science in order to further your religious agenda disgusting. How does warping the truth serve god?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Thanks. You'll find that we take these questions seriously around here.
Very few. And their contributions have come despite their faith, not because of it.
I'd love to and will if I ever meet him at a cocktail party. And if he knows the historical record, he'll agree with me.
As for his particular faith, well, we should never underestimate the human capacity for doublethink. When it comes to leading scientists, guys like Collins are the exception that proves the rule.
No other force has ever been as inimicable to science as religion. Nothing. Communism gives up thousands of deaths and thousands of years of persecution to religion in this regard.
Um, saying that science has been a negative force for science is, well, just weird.
Scientific dissent and argument along scientific lines is a totally different matter. You will hear scientists say a lot of things to one another when they disagree, but you will never, ever, hear one tell another that they should be forcibly shut up. Scientists understand that they have to make their ideas stand or fall on their merits, through reason, or admit defeat. Theists understand that since their views are held on faith, and therefore not amenable to reason, that force is the only way to reconcile differences of opinion. Therefore scientists try to talk, and theists try to use force to shut them up.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown