Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - liljp617

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 63
Debate & Discuss / Re: The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins
« on: August 11, 2010, 11:20:25 pm »Message ID: 219422
bleh, his writing in the field he's educated and specializes in is much more interesting.  The Selfish Gene for example.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Favorite Bible Quotes
« on: August 11, 2010, 11:15:57 pm »Message ID: 219420
God is a type of person to me. I refer to Him as my heavenly if you say my Dad was like charles manson then, to me it's the same thing.

If your dad commanded people to murder others, I wouldn't have any much problem making the same comparison.

you said God murdered people.

He did (you accepted this).

And if you really think you understand the context of the OT and still think God is comparable to charles manson then you ARE ignorant. But that is my opinion of course. I'm sure you probably think the same of me.

I understand the context well enough and know the generic Christian excuses for what goes on in that glorious book.

As for the comparison, still has not been invalidated in the least:

Charles Manson commanded others to murder (a given).
God commanded others to murder (again, you accepted this was true).

What's the issue?  The only issue I see is one party is constantly excused and the other rots in a jail cell for decades.  Bit inconsistent to say the least.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Favorite Bible Quotes
« on: August 10, 2010, 09:38:22 pm »Message ID: 218920
so your favorite quote is God is like Charles Manson?? alrighty then!

I posted my favorite quote.  It had nothing to do with Manson.  It was simply an analogy after you made nonsense excuses for murdering people.

and how exactly have i resorted to the immature tactic of insulting? because if i have resorted to petty name calling (as compared to haha you're god is a meany just like charles manson) then please let me know. mainly so i can apologize because i find that behavior unacceptable.

I didn't insult anyone.  Your religion is not a person.  If you take personal offense to me criticizing an ideology, I don't know what to tell you.

You assumed my intent with the quote, then proceeded to call me ignorant -- even when I completely understand the context of the OT and don't really need it explained.  I appreciate your concern though.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Favorite Bible Quotes
« on: August 10, 2010, 09:22:11 pm »Message ID: 218912
I think my last post made a very clear difference between God and Manson and Manson's followers and God's followers.

You're being ridiculous and I would have expected better from you than to resort to school yard tactics of insulting.

Reap what you sow, something or another (I believe that's in your cool book).  I posted my favorite quote, you jumped on me for no apparent reason. I enjoy biting back as well.

You didn't show the difference really.  You cherry-picked random quotes to prove a silly point, even after accepting that you were defending a being that commanded murder on dozens of occasions.  "/ boring

Funny enough, the only real difference between the two is that it's never been proven Manson killed anybody himself.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Need a quick God related question answered
« on: August 10, 2010, 02:53:26 pm »Message ID: 218763
And you said microevolution is fact so you must accept macroevolution as fact or your terminology is shot.
I stated to liljp before about my understanding of the difference (and there is a difference) and he continually tried to redefine it, in the pattern of so many other evolutionists.

This is a definition from an evolution website.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

It is essentially correct, however we have undeniable irrefutable proof for microevolution. Macroevolution requires the proof of transitional fossils, there is none. There is no proof of one species evolving over time into a complete different species. So sorry. And if you want to list all your nonsense evidence like archeopteryx and "Lucy" and fruit flies and moths.....well, don't waste your time because I have read all about them and they fall very short of proving anything on a large scale of evolution, such as required for macroevolution. And it comes back to origins, macroevolution is what is used to say we all descended from a common ancestor.....there is NO proof of that. So if you want to continue in ignorance, that is your problem. Hmmmm, you believe in something for which there is no proof (FAITH).

I'm not going to do this whole thing again, I will simply state, very clearly in bold:  We have numerous modern, observed examples of speciation -- speciation IS macroevolution.

I did not redefine the word, I defined it the same as the definition you just quoted and how the words, although rarely used, are defined in the field of evolutionary biology -- macroevolution is microevolution on a longer time scale, there is no difference in how the two mechanisms occur.  They are the same process, merely on different time scales.  It's a simple detail to comprehend.

Just remember who puts faith in man-made fairy-tale stories and their characters and who does not.
Once upon a time nothing made something and that something exploded to create matter in the nothing (now referred to as the universe). Then it rained and rained on one the rocks until it made a warm soup. One glorious moment lightening flashed across that soup and a tiny little cell was formed. Fred (that's the cell's name now), he was so excited to be alive that he turned into fish! He swam around for soooo many years until finally he decided he wanted to go on land. So he grew some legs! Oh Fred was so proud of himself for growing legs and he was ecstatic to crawl on the land. One day Fred decided he was lonely and needed a partner so he magically split himself in half! He loved Freda (the other half that magically had the capability to reproduce) so much. They lived happily ever after creating children who constantly mutated over the years to produce all the animals and people we see today!

No that doesn't sound like a fairy tale at all! You were right, you are definitely not delusional for believing that story  :D

Once upon a time, you clearly really don't know a thing about what the theories propose or address.  The Big Bang Theory proposes nothing of the sort that you just described.  The Theory of Evolution proposes nothing about the origin of life.  Open a physics and biology book in the future.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Obama and America`s deficit.
« on: August 10, 2010, 02:50:38 pm »Message ID: 218760

I SEE, that is sooooo cool. I wonder why people are freaking out over color or race. It already has happened. You can't say you're are pure whatever we have been coupling inter-rationally for billions of years.

Race wasn't the point of the image at all.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Favorite Bible Quotes
« on: August 10, 2010, 02:41:53 pm »Message ID: 218756
LOL God=Charles Manson. Yeah okay  ::)

Psychotic commander of murder and immorality = Psychotic commander of murder and immorality

Debate & Discuss / Re: Gender
« on: August 09, 2010, 09:33:27 am »Message ID: 218166
Because the idea of a monotheistic being was created in patriarchal, often misogynistic, societies.

Probably has quite a lot to do with it.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Need a quick God related question answered
« on: August 08, 2010, 11:50:39 pm »Message ID: 218053
So, now being in a position to trust the bible I can trust the witnesses to Jesus and things He has claimed.  The eyewitnesses of his life and ministry, death and resurrection gave accounts of events of all this.

Who are these witnesses we're speaking of?  Surely we're not referencing the Gospels as first-hand accounts....

If you read my post thoroughly, I set up the historical credibility of the bible and enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bible can be legitimately believed. Based on evidence of Creation and credibility of the bible, I find it reasonable to trust the writers of the Gospels in their accounts of Jesus' life. So yes that is I am talking about.

Well since you've taken in all the information to come to your "rational and logical conclusions," you should probably know there's plenty of reason in not believing the Gospels were first hand accounts.  Paul's writings were written down before the Gospels and those sure as hell weren't first hand. The only Gospel that has a shot at being a primary source is that of Mark, and even that is questionable given the debate still surrounding "Q," as well as simply looking at the dates for Mark (roughly 60-70AD).  There's really not a single iota of evidence that the other three Gospels are primary sources.  You don't find it the least bit odd the Gospels do not reference each other, even when they contradict one another?  You don't find it the least bit odd that much of Luke's writing is heavily based on what is written in Mark?  You don't find it the least bit odd that Paul never once quotes Jesus...hell, he never even makes it obvious that he met him -- the only times he mentions seeing him is "in visions."  Paul's letters say Jesus was crucified, but he never makes a hint at when or where -- in fact, he goes out of his way to say he got the information through divine revelation, not by seeing it himself.  This list goes on and on.  There are numerous reasons to have doubt towards the accuracy/validity of the Gospels and Paul's writings, which are basically everything that Christianity is based upon.

Outside of the Bible -- which, let's be honest, is a poor's like saying Masters of the Universe is evidence of the existence of He-Man -- there is extremely little historical evidence Jesus existed, especially how he is portrayed in the Gospels.  There is a questionable mention in Josephus, which is largely seen as fake/altered by scholars -- this was written around 60 years after the assumed death of Jesus.  There is a brief mention in Tacitus, a source that is already known to have factual errors in other details -- around 100 years after the assumed death.  One of the Plinys wrote around this time as well.  Then there is smattering of other fourth-and-fifth-hand sources like Suetonius and Celsus.  No, there is basically zero first-hand extant evidence.

I've always found it odd that this is the case, when you have armies of scribes manipulating historical documents to provide evidence for Jesus, and still the best they can do is two short books and a handful of letters.  Then you turn around and look at the overwhelming amount of historical and textual evidence supporting the existence of someone like Socrates -- a man whose entire identity and catalogue was victim to widespread, organized attempted destruction by early Christian Roman leaders looking to destroy the old, "heretical" beliefs of people like Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, etc.  On one hand, you have an individual who had a cult of fanatics (and eventually a gigantic worldwide organization) who did everything they could to preserve anything even remotely related to him, and on the other hand you have a man whose entire existence and everything he wrote was purposely destroyed (had it not been for Muslims of the time).  And here we are, with a ridiculous amount of evidence supporting one individual, and quite a small amount of evidence, relatively speaking, supporting the other individual.  But I digress.

Was there a real Jesus? Perhaps. Was there a real King Arthur? Perhaps. The probability of both is about the same, I'd say.  And the explanations for both run down the same path: maybe there was a person the stories are based upon. Maybe the stories are compiled from fragments and pieces of several people. Maybe they're completely fictional.  You can pick a position for now, they're all about the same probability.  But if there was a real person who inspired the Jesus of the Gospels, his life was probably nothing like the character in the Gospels.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Favorite Bible Quotes
« on: August 08, 2010, 11:19:33 pm »Message ID: 218046
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)
In the Old Testament God appears harsh for three reasons. First, it was to demonstrate the exacting requirements of the Law, a perfect and demanding standard. Second, it ultimately demonstrates the need for grace that would eventually be manifested on the cross. Third, should rebellion take root the very heart of the gospel would be at risk since the prophecies of the Messiah coming to and through Israel could be undermined should rebellion become rampant and society fall apart causing the prophecies to fail. Therefore, we can conclude that this harsh requirement was a necessary legality to instill and designate the necessity of family order and respect and to ultimately provide another safeguard that would ensure the sacrifice of Christ.

If you bothered to research the meaning of the scriptures and not just take it out of context to mock it, you wouldn't appear as ignorant.

Always fun to defend psychopathic murderers ::)  I could make up excuses for Charles Manson as well, but that would be silly, because what he commanded his followers to do was blatantly immoral and inexcusable.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Favorite Bible Quotes
« on: August 08, 2010, 05:51:25 pm »Message ID: 217974
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)

 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

 19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

 20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

 21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Definitely one of my favorites...

Debate & Discuss / Re: Need a quick God related question answered
« on: August 08, 2010, 05:49:11 pm »Message ID: 217973
So, now being in a position to trust the bible I can trust the witnesses to Jesus and things He has claimed.  The eyewitnesses of his life and ministry, death and resurrection gave accounts of events of all this.

Who are these witnesses we're speaking of?  Surely we're not referencing the Gospels as first-hand accounts....

Debate & Discuss / Re: In this economy, how are YOU do'in?
« on: August 08, 2010, 10:48:12 am »Message ID: 217905
I'm guessing God told him to invade.

Unfortunately it's really not that far from the truth...

...but another topic for another time.

I'm doing just fine.

Debate & Discuss / Re: Need a quick God related question answered
« on: August 08, 2010, 10:43:49 am »Message ID: 217904

So basically I say this... You're entire religion is wrong. Jesus never rose from he dead and you are not very intelligent if you think he did.

BIG DAMN DEAL! Get Over It...Smarty Pants.

You do realize you don't contribute a thing to these forums, correct?

Debate & Discuss / Re: Need a quick God related question answered
« on: August 07, 2010, 06:30:17 pm »Message ID: 217683
and how God created the boulder is completely relevant because it demonstrates his supernatural power.

It's not relevant at all, because that isn't the question.  The question is can God do it or not -- that is the extent of the question.  God could sit there and carve the stone into a special shape for 3 million years, go to a nice eternal quarry and pick whatever stone God wanted, take trillions of tiny pebbles and glue them together to form a stone, "breathe it into existence," etc. etc.  It makes no difference how God makes the stone come into existence.  The question does not entail that the stone be brought into existence in any particular fashion, so long as it is brought into existence by God.

can you say "let there be a boulder" and a boulder appears? NO because you are a physical being, God isn't and the fact that he can speak things into existence shows that the question becomes irrelevant.

What I can or can't do has nothing to do with the question.

The question isn't irrelevant; the paradox serves the purpose it was meant to serve.  I don't see why you would attempt to answer it rationally if you thought the whole question was irrelevant.  If the whole discussion is irrelevant, just say that to begin with.  Instead, you've taken multiple attempts at trying to rationalize irrationality.

God is all powerful, plain and simple.

That position brings forth paradoxes of this sort.

if he can create things by speaking why would he need to life a boulder with physical strength? He wouldn't.

It doesn't matter why.  The question doesn't require an answer for why God would or would not do said act.  The paradox is being taken too literal -- the paradox was created merely to make the point that the concept of omnipotence is logically flawed.

The question is straight forward and so is the answer but if it makes you feel more intelligent to say  since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful....go ahead. but for the rest of us who are free thinkers we will accept the logical answer of an all powerful God who isn't limited by the laws HE created.

This isn't about my intelligence.  I certainly wouldn't be on these forums if I was trying to boost my intelligence.

Thousands of theologians and religious apologetics have spent centuries trying to wiggle out of the many paradoxes that arise from an omnipotent, omniscient being (and the numerous other paradoxes throughout theology).  It's nothing new and they've yet to succeed, because the only logically sound answer is that the concept of omnipotence is flawed to begin with and has been since its inception around the 14th century or so.  Of course, they can't accept that, because it means they would have to admit an error in their proposals, and we know that's a big "no-no" in that field.

You're no more of a "free thinker" than anyone else.  You stick straight to your guns at every turn on these forums, that much is obvious.  It's not really a big deal to stick with your long as you don't put on airs about being more open minded than others.  Then it becomes arrogance, on the brink of hypocrisy.

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 63