Anti-religion internet memes

[Kittamaru]

I completely agree, but also never in the name of God, whereas the Gods of several religions and faiths have been the driving force and commanded wars in His Name.

I admit, I am somewhat vexed by this statement; perhaps my reading comprehension is a bit askew thanks to the rather interesting week that is capping a busy and strenuous month... but I can't figure out what you are meaning here. I am thinking you are referencing something akin to the Crusades?

 

[Kittamaru]

Well put.
I know I have my flaws and I dont try to hide them.
But it simply boils down to this ...we each know the other is wrong☺
What you see as evidence I dont.
I think the key point of disagreement would be that JC is God.
Your hypothisis,is I assume, JC is God your evidence is he said so and did things that you attribute to the power of God and died and rose three days later to then leave the Earthy relm presumably to become the God of all over.

The fundamental problem with this viewpoint is that you will never be satisfied with the opposing viewpoint because the evidence you demand is impossible to produce; it would be like telling someone who was gang-raped in front of several witnesses, all of whom have testified that, yes, they saw it happen, that you cannot prosecute the rapists because she went home and showered and scrubbed herself clean, leaving no physical DNA evidence of the event.

Or, perhaps even more accurately - it's like how flat-earth believers deny any and all evidence that they themselves cannot see (going so far as to claim that the curvature seen via camera is due to first fish-eye lenses, and then due to the "distortion of glass windows"... wut?)

Would it be safe to say that if the story I suggested is not correct in a broad sense then everything else is irrelevant because it would be in fact built on a lie.
JC being God is critical.
JC claims he is God some believe it some dont.
I dont you do.

So... throw the baby out with the bath water, then?

I know that.
My only strength, out side of bebate, is to continually ask questions that need to be answered without let up.
It requires no cunning or thought but usually wins the day.
It all boils down the mentally being in the moment you want to work out at a mere human level...tracking it that way you may get a thread of what went on and at what points the story may be real or invented.
Anyways that usually produces one question that if unanswered or avoided wins the game for you really...leading folk to focus onbthe key point is the art not debate.
But I agree with your view.

It will almost always, eventually, "win you the day" because people only have a finite amount of time to spend on debating things with internet strangers. Eventually, they will just throw up their hands and walk away, knowing that no matter how much evidence they provide, it has already been pre-determined by the opposing side that it will never be enough to be acceptable.

You are right.
Thats terrible and I appologise.

There is no excuse for that..I was going to shrug it off but you are right.

I am sorry.

Thank you - your apology is appreciated. I am also sorry for getting so snippy with you; I should know better than to get into debates like this when I'm already stressed out (real life has been... busy. very busy, to say the least).

That really is the best thing I dont want upset you and clearly I have.

I would love to continue to address more but I must go.

But on the up side I have been contenting myself thinking about all the good things christians do and that most are trying to do their best for themselves their family their friends the needy the nation and the world so that is a good thing.
Alex

I like to think that, overall, it has been a net positive for society... but I see folks, like some in the GOP, using it like a club against their enemies and I just want to scream. That isn't what it is supposed to be about... and is why separation of church and state is supposed to be so prominent and important a tenant for this country.

 

[Kittamaru]

You cannot unbind yourself from that which mathematically (logically) constitutes your reality.
Not even God..... Hence the turtles.

Except, reality is subjective... (or so they say)

Also, I present to you - the duck billed platypus.

 

[sideshowbob]

Erm... "called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin" would seem to indicate the term Christian came about because of one so-named.

The existence of the name doesn't necessitate the existence of the character that we think of as Jesus.

Plus, the reference to Pontius Pilatus "checking" the movement, would seem to indicate the Crucifixion, would it not?

That isn't obvious to me, no. Checking the movement sounds like suppression of Christianity.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

it would be like telling someone who was gang-raped in front of several witnesses, all of whom have testified that, yes, they saw it happen, that you cannot prosecute the rapists because she went home and showered and scrubbed herself clean, leaving no physical DNA evidence of the event.

Or, perhaps even more accurately - it's like how flat-earth believers deny any and all evidence that they themselves cannot see (going so far as to claim that the curvature seen via camera is due to first fish-eye lenses, and then due to the "distortion of glass windows"... wut?)

No nothing like that at all.
Your use of these "parrallel stories" suffer because neither example you offer are in anyway similar in any way at all.

So rather than saying it would be like this or that let us look at my approach and let it be judged fairely.

The JC story fits into a time where folk were not fortunate to know much about the world and used superstition and astrology to provide answers.
Astrology had great influence in their world as they saw the heavens as where the Gods existed.
I think JC and others before him tried to fit within the astrology.
There are at least 10 other "gods" that existed prior to JC that were born from a mother whos name started with M which seems to be a link to a certain star whos name also starts with M.
The "god" in all these prior case were the son or rather the Sun...and moved about with twelve followers just as the Sun moves through twelve constelations.
These earlier "gods" having the same story as JC reasonably suggests JC was following a well used method of fitting folks expectations of a god which seemed to demand certain astrological fundamentals be met.
Then we have JC's birth that parrallels astrology.
It seems Sirius was "the star" and "the three kings" stars in Orion that point to where Sirius rises on 25th December.
The christian fish is an astrology sign.
The death and resurrection is a parrallel of the Suns behaviour mid winter.
Now I have been very brief not to prove a point but to show the JC story is nothing like a rape case or flat Earth stuff.
I dont believe JC died and rose after three days as I think that part of the story was invented to link JC with the Sun and therefore show him to be the God that was in the heaven moving about with his followers the 12 zodiac constalations.

Now what I have told you is but a brief introduction as to why the evidence points to JC being a product of astrology.
I find it more appealing than the idea that a human claiming to be god was god.

If you want evidence I do think you need to fit all you know in the context of the superstitions of the times.

Finally JC promised to the folk he was talking to that he would return in their lifetime and a god could do that I expect...but he has not returned.

None of my approach remotely fits your rape case or flat Earth anologies.

All I will leave you with is the suggestion that JC may have been more the product of astrology than a human that was God.

So... throw the baby out with the bath water, then?

I dont like that saying it brings in emotions that are irrelevant.
Nothing to do with bathing babies or the risk of getting rid of good stuff with bad stuff.

But if the baby is dead I think it best to bury it.

The proposition is...if JC is not God the christians are wrong.

If not God then all the evidence that followed has been accumulated to support a lie.

Why do you find such an approach unreasonable.

So for me looking at all the evidence I find the probability that JC was God to be extremely remote and the evidence offerred to suggest he was God unconvincing.
Add to the mix that JC's story was not recorded in his life time makes critical examination impossible.

Eventually, they will just throw up their hands and walk away, knowing that no matter how much evidence they provide, it has already been pre-determined by the opposing side that it will never be enough to be acceptable.

Well of course.
Anything I have said about astrology being behind the JC story will be rejected by you because you wont allow the penny to drop.

If I thought that you would accept any of it I would not only provide more support for my observations but in addition links etc to establish my proposition...but I know you wont nay cant entertain my idea for a second...

I dont believe one humans claim that he was God and all I wish from you is that you understand that I have taken some time to arrive at that conclusssion and that I have considered more than just one source to place the claim in context.
JC was not the first to make the claim and his similarities to others making similar claims prior must alert one to the real posibility that JC was simply just another character making claims in the same format as others before him.

If any of it interests you look it up.

I should know better than to get into debates like this when I'm already stressed out (real life has been... busy. very busy, to say the least).

There is no harm done.
Having a go here probably was helpful in letting off steam.

and is why separation of church and state is supposed to be so prominent and important a tenant for this country.

I think all rational folk be they believers or not would like separation.

You have a good day and I hope things become less stressful...try this self talk ...." this time next year I will look back at today and laugh".....☺

and usually that is the way it will go.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Except, reality is subjective... (or so they say)

Precisely, one is totally unable to divorce oneself from oneself. Even God.

Also, I present to you - the duck billed platypus.

An interesting mutation. Apparently successful. It has survived all this time.

 

[Michael 345]

An interesting mutation. Apparently successful. It has survived all this time

Duck billed platypus, interesting mutation , and like the jc story mutation, has survived

When it was first displayed no one thought it real. It was made up by a taxidermist

Pity they didn't take the same approach to the jc story

For the duck billed platypus evidence was forthcoming. jc story, not so

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Duck billed platypus,

Is there a playypus that does not have a duck bill?
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Is there a platypus that does not have a duck bill?
Alex

No, but there are very few mammals that lay eggs. The Platypus is an awesome example of evolution. Borrowed a lot of genetic stuff from a lot of different species or evolved these attributes all by itself. Remarkable.

 

[Tiassa]

If I libelled in a different thread it is a little dishonest of you to voice your criticism in this thread. How am I supposed to track your accusation to another thread?

The point is simple: You're dishonest. Why should anyone waste their time on you?

Seriously, even the rest of your post on this occasion is a complete failure. No, seriously:

(1) "silvery salamander" — Why can't you just address what's there? Why do you need to change the subject?

(2) "mammalian procreation" — And? Seriously: Why do you need to change the subject?

(3) "Yes I understand" — No, you don't, else you wouldn't need to change the subject.

(4) "Honest criticism without insult to serious participants" — Yes, and you fail. You are dishonest. You are a libelous, bigoted zealot.​

Again, troll: Why should anyone waste their time on you?

 

[Michael 345]

Is there a playypus that does not have a duck bill?
Alex

Don't think so but not checked

I am sure there are a lot of duck bills, with ducks, and not platypuses attached



Bonus - checked

Egg-laying Mammals. There are only five living monotreme species: the duck-billed platypus and four species of echidna (also known as spiny anteaters). All of them are found only in Australia and New Guinea

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/monotreme.html

Is there a playypus that does not have a duck bill?

So no

 

[Write4U]

The point is simple: You're dishonest. Why should anyone waste their time on you?

Seriously, even the rest of your post on this occasion is a complete failure. No, seriously:

(1) "silvery salamander" — Why can't you just address what's there? Why do you need to change the subject?

(2) "mammalian procreation" — And? Seriously: Why do you need to change the subject?

(3) "Yes I understand" — No, you don't, else you wouldn't need to change the subject.

(4) "Honest criticism without insult to serious participants" — Yes, and you fail. You are dishonest. You are a libelous, bigoted zealot.​

Again, troll: Why should anyone waste their time on you?

Then don't, I won't miss you. There seem to be plenty posters who find my post interesting, even if they don't agree with me. By implication you are calling all those other posters libelous bigots. Not a way to make friends and influence people.

Tiassa, I did not start this name calling. Look to yourself for those uncontrolled outbursts of temper. Methinks thou protests too much.......

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Borrowed a lot of genetic stuff from a lot of different species or evolved these attributes

And here is me thinking it was just an intelligent design☺.
Alex

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You libeled in a different thread↗. Why can't you ever remember your own posts? Seriously, is there a reason you can't keep track of your own actions?

As to proving you wrong? Okay, fine: To take you at face value—



—you are either too stupid, or too dishonest, or perhaps both, to attend the issue in its proper context:

• No matter how much I might chuckle at the old advice column morality about how she just needs contact with sperm, and not intercourse itself ....

• If God is capable of separating night and day, and making the Earth come together, and breathing life into clay, sure, divinely manifesting a blastocyst inside a woman ought to be pretty simple. However, compared to the rest of society around them at the time, something had them really, really focused on what ought by now be familiar issues of youth, age, purity, and corruption. Like Nicaea, when the objection was to Christ's humanity because human frailty is disgusting and Jesus cannot be weak and disgusting, so also did someone really, really need Mary to be a virgin not because God can't be a rapist but because the mother of Christ cannot be a roadworn slut.​

Those two points are from 171↑ the post you quoted in #173↑. That is, to be specific, you either didn't read the post you quoted, or couldn't answer it and thus chose to require a change of subject.

No, really: The story is the story is the story, whether we believe it or not. Just like Vlad's bit in Yendi about cyclical and enforced poverty, i.e., racist classism. It doesn't really matter that sorcery isn't real, even if someone decides to pretend it is. If you can't figure out what the story is telling you, why? If you purport to choose to address the story but can only actually countenance a change of subject, why?

Is it that you are not capable of understanding the stories?

Or is it that you refuse to?

And we should take the moment to highlight that the latter does not preclude the former.

Screw your fallacies. In the end, you're a troll wasting people's time.

///
You make me wish there were a dislike button.
Face reality. YOU are the troll.

<>

 

[Write4U]

I admit, I am somewhat vexed by this statement; perhaps my reading comprehension is a bit askew thanks to the rather interesting week that is capping a busy and strenuous month... but I can't figure out what you are meaning here. I am thinking you are referencing something akin to the Crusades?

I'm sorry Kit, there is no intention on my part to inflict hurt. I speak only my thoughts, after weighing them by the evidence.

But, yes for one, history records the Holy Crusades as specifically commanded by the King, Church and the Christian God. Long before then, the priest Cyril was canonized by the Christian church for his order to kill the scientist Hypatia of Alexandria in the name of God.

And then there is that famous expression "praise be Allah" from that other Abrahamic religion, while they're blowing up someone else's church or trade center. Riddle me that one.

 

[Michael 345]

Borrowed a lot of genetic stuff from a lot of different species or evolved these attributes all by itself

Borrowed a lot of genetic stuff from a lot of different species

Don't know if you are serious but no evolution not work that way

evolved these attributes all by itself ✓

Would have liked it if it had gone around and pinched what it liked / wanted from different species

 

[Michael 345]

And here is me thinking it was just an intelligent design☺.
Alex

It would have been after a heavy night out

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It would have been after a heavy night out

So to duck and weave? or to platt a puss is the only question☺.

I wondered...if the intelligent designer was so clever why is it that millions of designs exist.

If intelligent you could think one or two would be all you need.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

to kill the scientist Hypatia of Alexandria in the name of God

It was probably more about getting rid of a pesky female that inadvertently showed they were no more than ignorant sex starved crazy arogant and ineffectual males neither at home with real men nor real females.
Alex

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I have been notified that 2 more of my posts have been moved to this thread. I am being censored. I suspect by a confused anti-atheist atheist.

<>