- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (princess of the king @ Feb. 12 2010,12:34) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 10 2010,17:39) Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 10 2010,15:23) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 08 2010,15:29) the fact that your belief is so backward and evil .
Bod- Apologise to Princess of the King for using these words. Please.
Of course I wouldn't lie to her and apologize did she not admitQuote we see things the same, just differently, if that makes any sense to you. Kissing up to atheists is putting yourself in enmity against God.
Should I please the atheists or God?
Quote There is nothing wrong with admonishing someone who is clearly in error. bd, you have left many questions unanswered when asked, for instance you trying to prove the legal age of a child, in regards to your muhammad.
see bd, one thing you do not take into context at any time is that i do not see or believe as you do, i know deep in my heart that a woman is just as deserving as a man, even women in your belief are now understanding the same, as they have stated 'do they believe in a god that is lower'.
so what is proper for a man is also for a women, now if you were to hear that a adult female took upon a nine year old boy for her husband, and had sexual relationship with him you would call this an abomination. due to the shoe is on the other foot for use of a better term.
how i believe, a women can do the same as a man in life, we may not do it the same, it still can be done. so your male domination attitude is of no use to me, when you can place all things in a spiritual sense then come back and let me know the errors of my ways.
you however have not learnt unconditional love have you, i know who the adversary is.
you try to match wits with stuart and kejonn in regards to what they believe, without understanding they have studied just as you have with the koran.
if anyone has any foundation to stand on in regards to stuart and kejonn it is t8 (the daffodil) hands down.
being unkind, rude, selfish, mean spirited towards others is putting yourself between Father and his chosen.
and bd, just for the record, i have never believed anything you have written anyhow, so i would not even care if you were lying or not.
while you trying to convert others to your belief, i will continue to live as i live, learn as i am taught and be still and know that He is God, the Amighty creator of all.
your words change nothing.
I believe that women and men are equal but different.What is this about unconditional love? Is Good equal to Evil?
God taught us to obey Him and follow His commandments so where is this “unconditional love of God”
Do you really believe that you will be treated the same as an atheist, hypocrite or a Hitler?
You are truly in error.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 12 2010,01:43) Do you really believe that you will be treated the same as an atheist, hypocrite or a Hitler?
Haha, I love when you reveal your true stripes. Here is an example of where you try to put atheists on a level lower than yourself simply because they lack your belief in god.I don't blame you though, you have been brainwashed by your religion to view some people as unequal. Religion will do that for you. That is why my sig is so very appropriate:
“We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” — Jonathan Swift
Fits you to a “T”.
Quote I believe that women and men are equal but different. no, you believe that man are above women in every sense, there is no cause or concern with you.
Quote
What is this about unconditional love? Is Good equal to Evil?you also do not pay evil for evil
Quote
God taught us to obey Him and follow His commandments so where is this “unconditional love of God”you follow his commandments due to it says so, not because you love him.
Quote
Do you really believe that you will be treated the same as an atheist, hypocrite or a Hitler?i am blessed and highly favored
Quote You are truly in error. as are you.
Quote
Unless you want to claim that everything is an illusion and we cannot possibly find out anything about the world that can be relied upon.that sentence sounds familiar where have i heard it before?
Quote
But then if you couldn't rely on the technology of turning a frog into prince with a single kiss, what could you rely on??faith and hope, they do not disappoint.
Quote
Humans have been around for around 185,000 years. Few major evolutionary changes have happened in that time. Single-celled organisms have been on earth for over 4 billion years.how can one determine 4 billion years?
Quote
If you stretch your arms out on each side, and that distance you can reach represents the timeline of life on earth, then the history of humans is completely contained within the nail filings from a single sweep of a nail board on one side.this could depend on the nail size also, i am most assured my nails are much longer then yours, and by my stretched out arms, life hasn't been that long. (remember always go the same direction when filing your nails, base coat and top coat are a must and don't cut your cuticles)
went to barnes and nobles after work today, while having tires installed on the car, my sister wanted me to look for a spiritual warfare book, as i was looking through the christian section guess what was located right beside it, atheist books, they did not have as much as the christian books. found that amusing, here we are side by side also.
did however purchase 'the most dangerous book for boys' for my son.all the while still stuart, you do not believe and i do, so where do you think we will go from here?
P of the K
Quote that sentence sounds familiar where have i heard it before?
Descartes. I think therefore I am.But it cannot be proved that any of us actually are. So we should carry on as if it is true, because at least it seems to work!
Quote faith and hope, they do not disappoint.
No they couldn’t I suppose. I have the latter but not the former, and much besides, and I don’t feel disappointment.Quote how can one determine 4 billion years?
Good question. It does not have a straightforward answer…http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium-strontium_datingQuote this could depend on the nail size also, i am most assured my nails are much longer then yours, and by my stretched out arms, life hasn't been that long. (remember always go the same direction when filing your nails, base coat and top coat are a must and don't cut your cuticles)
If you cut your cuticles then you are messing with 30 million years ago, when our ancestors are thought to have looked something like this:
In fact there are some winter mornings I look like that out of bed. But being an ape, I don’t have a tail.
Is that why they tell you to leave your cuticles alone?
Quote went to barnes and nobles after work today, while having tires installed on the car, my sister wanted me to look for a spiritual warfare book, as i was looking through the christian section guess what was located right beside it, atheist books, they did not have as much as the christian books. found that amusing, here we are side by side also.
Yes I find that amusing too.Spiritual Warfare?
Quote did however purchase 'the most dangerous book for boys' for my son.
Good choice.Quote all the while still stuart, you do not believe and i do, so where do you think we will go from here?
That’s the problem with a religious website, the material is pointlessly dull, a recitation of fantasy stories by adults in broadcast mode that do not add up and are not inclusive of other people, until you start discussing on what basis the believer believes as he or she does. Then it is interesting.Stuart
Quote (princess of the king @ Feb. 13 2010,04:41) Quote I believe that women and men are equal but different. no, you believe that man are above women in every sense, there is no cause or concern with you.
Quote
What is this about unconditional love? Is Good equal to Evil?you also do not pay evil for evil
Quote
God taught us to obey Him and follow His commandments so where is this “unconditional love of God”you follow his commandments due to it says so, not because you love him.
Quote
Do you really believe that you will be treated the same as an atheist, hypocrite or a Hitler?i am blessed and highly favored
Quote You are truly in error. as are you.
Is Hell a good example of unconditional love?Is Good equal to Evil?
You are truly in error, sister. Lean not to your own understanding
This topic is about Dinosaurs.
On that note, they (scientists) are telling us that they became birds now. Obviously, being very big was a disadvantage when flying. So the heavy ones never got off the ground so to speak. The smaller ones could fly away quicker from enemies and had more chance to pass on their DNA.
Anyway that would be my 2 cents worth if I was an evolutionist. Thank God I am not. Just because dinos had feathers, doesn't make them birds, just as much as dogs have legs and heads and are not ape.
If Darwin could see how he led the world astray and into foolish doctrines, I wonder what he would think.
What's next for the world of evolution?
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,05:42) That’s the problem with a religious website, the material is pointlessly dull, a recitation of fantasy stories by adults in broadcast mode that do not add up and are not inclusive of other people, until you start discussing on what basis the believer believes as he or she does. Then it is interesting.
The problem with a graphical web site is that the material is pointless to a blind person.Likewise, a web site that has teachings about the creator is pointless to a spiritually blind person.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.Daniel 12:10
Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.Quote (t8 @ Feb. 13 2010,15:51) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,05:42) That’s the problem with a religious website, the material is pointlessly dull, a recitation of fantasy stories by adults in broadcast mode that do not add up and are not inclusive of other people, until you start discussing on what basis the believer believes as he or she does. Then it is interesting.
The problem with a graphical web site is that the material is pointless to a blind person.Likewise, a web site that has teachings about the creator is pointless to a spiritually blind person.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.Daniel 12:10
Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
Thank you for contributing quotations from the dull Judeo-christian book of mythology, and embellishing them with dull assertions and tedious wrong analogies to demonstrate my point.You could be interesting and tell us why you believe in this mythology.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 13 2010,15:45) This topic is about Dinosaurs. On that note, they (scientists) are telling us that they became birds now. Obviously, being very big was a disadvantage when flying. So the heavy ones never got off the ground so to speak. The smaller ones could fly away quicker from enemies and had more chance to pass on their DNA.
Anyway that would be my 2 cents worth if I was an evolutionist. Thank God I am not. Just because dinos had feathers, doesn't make them birds, just as much as dogs have legs and heads and are not ape.
If Darwin could see how he led the world astray and into foolish doctrines, I wonder what he would think.
What's next for the world of evolution?
Not sure what your point is t8. Pretty sure you don't have anything to contribute actually.There were flying dinosaurs, weren't there? And ones that couldn't fly. Probably the flying ones had less mass on average than the non-flyers. There was a time when some of those dinosaurs had things you could definitely call feathers. The fossil sequence leads from dinosaurs to birds.
Why are you not an 'evolutionist', if that is what the evidence unquestionably leads us. Wouldn't you have to be perverse to try and deny the most obvious description of the natural history of birds?
You assert that “Charles Darwin led the world astray”. One man's astray is another's right path.
The thing about evolution is that it can tell you quite a lot about “what's next”, and particularly “what isn't next”.
Creationism on the other hand can tell you absolutely nothing at all. God could decide to create a human with two arms, two legs and wings, instantly. Or not. The creationist has no way of knowing.
The REAL SCIENCE of natural selection says that it will not happen in the next generation, or in the next 100,000 years and probably much longer, because of the chances of such a radical change in body plan arising with all the necessary accomodations in that short timeframe.
Creationism is guessing for the willfully blind who have an incorruptible agenda.
Stuart
stu, I have a question. All this trying to prove a negative is futile.
What is the evidence against evolution? Have we found any fossils where they didn't belong yet? that's all that's needed right?
Quote (david @ Feb. 17 2010,17:10) stu, I have a question. All this trying to prove a negative is futile. What is the evidence against evolution? Have we found any fossils where they didn't belong yet? that's all that's needed right?
What negative is being proved, or not? I don't understand.J S Haldane quipped that if you find bunny rabbit fossils in precambrian rock then evolution by natural selection is disproved.
The answer to your question about what evidence there is against evolution is that I know of none. Can you enlighten me with any?
Stuart
Quote (david @ Feb. 17 2010,17:10) stu, I have a question. All this trying to prove a negative is futile. What is the evidence against evolution? Have we found any fossils where they didn't belong yet? that's all that's needed right?
actually david,they find fossils of animals and plants where they would not expect.
hope all is well with you.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,16:12) Not sure what your point is t8. Pretty sure you don't have anything to contribute actually.
Would have thought that was obvious.Changing your theories all the time means that the current theory can be changed and hence, to believe it to be true is to put faith that moments so-called truth is the actual truth.
In other words, science proves itself wrong all the time. Does that make people gullible for believing science wholeheartedly at any given moment, especially when it comes to Evolution for example.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 05 2010,09:43) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,16:12) Not sure what your point is t8. Pretty sure you don't have anything to contribute actually.
Would have thought that was obvious.Changing your theories all the time means that the current theory can be changed and hence, to believe it to be true is to put faith that moments so-called truth is the actual truth.
In other words, science proves itself wrong all the time. Does that make people gullible for believing science wholeheartedly at any given moment, especially when it comes to Evolution for example.
Glad you mentioned that example. If you had picked the theory of atomic structure or theoretical physics then I would have to agree: those two subjects have been turned on their heads in the past century.However, evolution by natural selection has never changed! There have been shifts in emphasis on the various factors, but Darwin was basically right. What makes it even more astonishing is that the revolutionary new information about genetics provided by Mendel, Watson and Crick has slotted straight into the framework of Darwin's original writing.
Off the top of my head I can't think of another piece of science that has been that solid for such a long period of time.
How many new schisms and irreconcilable differences in doctrine have occurred within the christian cults since 1859? By comparison Darwin has provided one of the most stable foundations of all human history. It rivals the mathematics of ancient Greece, even though it is an experimental science!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 05 2010,15:28) However, evolution by natural selection has never changed! There have been shifts in emphasis on the various factors, but Darwin was basically right. What makes it even more astonishing is that the revolutionary new information about genetics provided by Mendel, Watson and Crick has slotted straight into the framework of Darwin's original writing.
Actually the reason Evolution has survived this long is because people want it believe it is true. Some do not like the idea that there is a God and so they back the best opposing theory, and Evolution appears to be that for atheists. They are willing to overlook the many shortcomings in light of preserving the best chance of convincing people that there is no God. Maybe deep down they think that if they can convince everyone, then maybe if it turns out that there is a God, then they may be in a better position themselves. The funny part here is that you cannot even use Evolution to disprove God.If you don't believe what I am saying then look at yourself. You unfairly remove the idea of God by bias, and promote Evolution by bias. Your conduct has reinforced this, in case I thought that I was imagining that Atheists act that way. BTW, when I was an Atheist, I was exactly the same.
The idea of God is longer lived than Evolution and billions still believe in a God. Every culture believed in a God of some kind, and no culture that I am aware of was based on Atheism. In light of that, Atheism is a relatively recent cult that exists within cultures, mainly in cultures of the western world. Prophet Darwin has many faithful followers, but that doesn't make his view the right one.
Belief in God was around a long time before Evolution and it will be a round along time after it too.
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 05 2010,15:28) How many new schisms and irreconcilable differences in doctrine have occurred within the christian cults since 1859?
A man called Derek Prince once said, Christians tend to divide over the variables and ignore the absolutes.One thing I can derive from that is that all Christians believe in God. They believe that Jesus is a prophet of that God, and they believe that man is separated by god because of his sin. They divide on smaller issues for sure, even if they do ignore some bigger and more foundational issues. But as for the basic principles such as the existence of God, Jesus, sin, and redemption we can all agree on that.
The absolutes are there Stu. For where you are at, that is what matters.
Think of it as those scientists who believed in the universe as a Steady State universe or a Big Bang. These type of schisms do not make the universe go away or make it less believable that there is a universe, but they are divided over certain points about that universe. The universe itself is not in question just as God isn't.
The fact that Christianity has thousands of schisms doesn't change the fact that there is a God or that Jesus is the messiah, or that men are sinful and because of that, they are separated from God. It just shows that there are millions maybe billions of believers which is a much bigger number than Scientists, and that they are imperfect like everyone else. So it is to be expected in that sense. It also shows how tradition kills truth and needs to be challenged.
Many Christians are Christians not because they have had a real conversion with God, but because they were culturally brought up to believe that way. If it came down to denying God or dying for their faith, how many would deny God? Who knows, but I am pointing out a fact that people stick with traditions because they get all patriotic about it. You see the same thing in sport such as Soccer or Rugby. Most All Black fans are from New Zealand and most Wallaby fans are from Australia. Is that a coincidence or testament to how patriotism effects a man's judgement?
This web site's main mission was always to challenge the traditions that have crept into Christianity over the centuries and many of them were introduced by the likes of emperors or people who were not interested in truth, but control. It stands to reason that there needs to exist people that are willing to challenge all things, in order to see if things are truly so. That mission does extend itself to other groups including Atheism. Atheist's like any other group with a belief need to be challenged to the core.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 07 2010,17:46) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 05 2010,15:28) However, evolution by natural selection has never changed! There have been shifts in emphasis on the various factors, but Darwin was basically right. What makes it even more astonishing is that the revolutionary new information about genetics provided by Mendel, Watson and Crick has slotted straight into the framework of Darwin's original writing.
Actually the reason Evolution has survived this long is because people want it believe it is true. Some do not like the idea that there is a God and so they back the best opposing theory, and Evolution appears to be that for atheists. They are willing to overlook the many shortcomings in light of preserving the best chance of convincing people that there is no God. Maybe deep down they think that if they can convince everyone, then maybe if it turns out that there is a God, then they may be in a better position themselves. The funny part here is that you cannot even use Evolution to disprove God.If you don't believe what I am saying then look at yourself. You unfairly remove the idea of God by bias, and promote Evolution by bias. Your conduct has reinforced this, in case I thought that I was imagining that Atheists act that way. BTW, when I was an Atheist, I was exactly the same.
The idea of God is longer lived than Evolution and billions still believe in a God. Every culture believed in a God of some kind, and no culture that I am aware of was based on Atheism. In light of that, Atheism is a relatively recent cult that exists within cultures, mainly in cultures of the western world. Prophet Darwin has many faithful followers, but that doesn't make his view the right one.
Belief in God was around a long time before Evolution and it will be a round along time after it too.
Just for those keeping count, this post contains the following logical fallacies:Ad hominem (people want it to be true and don't like god)
Category error[ (that anyone would think you could use “evolution to disprove god”)
No True Scotsman (only atheists promote evolution)
Ad populam (billions believe in a god; every culture has gods)
Strawman (Darwin is a prophet)
Appeal to tradition (belief in god was around a long time before evolution)
Six in three paragraphs. Not bad!
Let us know when you can come up with an argument that does not involve you shooting yourself in the foot.
Stuart
t8
Quote One thing I can derive from that is that all Christians believe in God. They believe that Jesus is a prophet of that God, and they believe that man is separated by god because of his sin. They divide on smaller issues for sure, even if they do ignore some bigger and more foundational issues. But as for the basic principles such as the existence of God, Jesus, sin, and redemption we can all agree on that.
13% of anglican vicars do not believe in god. They probably believe that Jesus was a decent bloke who said some uesful things. Are they christians?Quote Think of it as those scientists who believed in the universe as a Steady State universe or a Big Bang. These type of schisms do not make the universe go away or make it less believable that there is a universe, but they are divided over certain points about that universe. The universe itself is not in question just as God isn't.
I never claimed that science was unified. Just that it goes from division to unity over time because there is an ultimate arbiter in empirical evidence. It would appear that religions do not have the ultimate arbiter they claim, judging by the extent and increasing rate of schism.Quote The fact that Christianity has thousands of schisms doesn't change the fact that there is a God or that Jesus is the messiah, or that men are sinful and because of that, they are separated from God. It just shows that there are millions maybe billions of believers which is a much bigger number than Scientists, and that they are imperfect like everyone else. So it is to be expected in that sense. It also shows how tradition kills truth and needs to be challenged.
Or, that the god they believe in does not care about his message being clear, or is too insipid to communicate it effectively (that whole flood business is seriously passive-aggressive don’t you think!), OR that there is no such thing as the god. The latter is what all the other evidence we have suggests is the case.Quote Many Christians are Christians not because they have had a real conversion with God, but because they were culturally brought up to believe that way. If it came down to denying God or dying for their faith, how many would deny God? Who knows, but I am pointing out a fact that people stick with traditions because they get all patriotic about it. You see the same thing in sport such as Soccer or Rugby. Most All Black fans are from New Zealand and most Wallaby fans are from Australia. Is that a coincidence or testament to how patriotism effects a man's judgement?
The logical fallacy of No True Scotsman again.Quote This web site's main mission was always to challenge the traditions that have crept into Christianity over the centuries and many of them were introduced by the likes of emperors or people who were not interested in truth, but control. It stands to reason that there needs to exist people that are willing to challenge all things, in order to see if things are truly so. That mission does extend itself to other groups including Atheism. Atheist's like any other group with a belief need to be challenged to the core.
I agree, but am disappointed at the base-level challenge I get here as an atheist. It is all religious platitudes, creationists in need of some basic biology, and logically fallacious arguments.They say the devil has the best tunes. Looks like that applies to arguments as well.
Stuart
Ad hominem (people want it to be true and don't like god)
Answer: Stu and others like him.Category error (that anyone would think you could use “evolution to disprove god”)
Answer: Stu and others like him.No True Scotsman (only atheists promote evolution)
Answer: Stu and others like him with a few God believers thrown in.Ad populam (billions believe in a god; every culture has gods)
Answer: Rather than list the culture, find a culture that doesn't believe in God. There might be a few, but never heard of one.Strawman (Darwin is a prophet)
Answer: Stu and others follow his teachings as truth and revelation. Darwin is the revealer of truth.Appeal to tradition (belief in god was around a long time before evolution)
Answer: Yes, the theory of Evolution is how old? Belief in God is how old?Not bad aye!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
