Christians: Your Thoughts

IceAgeCivilizations said:
The "Left Behind" crowd is about half the American Christians, the other half are mostly Catholics and other Dominion theologists.

Euro Christians, I guess, don't preach much about Revelation and endtimes prophecy, so I guess spidergoat thinks the Euro way is the way.
Click to expand...

Note the almost militant nationalism and xenophobia, as well as denial of science.
 
Darwinists are notoriously unwilling to debate, so they say that they're above it, and they rarely cite any of the many glaring weaknesses in their theory, so they're just basically rolling around controlling the media with their official dogma, a total lack of intellectual honesty. This is one of the reasons that it doesn't pass the smell test.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Darwinists are notoriously unwilling to debate, so they say that they're above it, and they rarely cite any of the many glaring weaknesses in their theory, so they're just basically rolling around controlling the media with their official dogma, a total lack of intellectual honesty. This is one of the reasons that it doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

WE TRIED FOR 16 PAGES, YOU RESPONDED WITH "SMELL TEST", a personal expression of incredulity. Not a valid argument.
 
My reading of the subtext of the 'Scopes' trial suggests: One can simultaneously have theist beliefs and observe Darwinian mechanisms as evident.

Note that the church once persecuted people who disagreed with the biblical notion the the Sun moved around the Earth....science and rationalism changed this and now most 'believers' agree this to be true.

So it is with Darwinism...

IAC.... you sure like a good debate and I enjoy our conversations...no personal offence is ever intended and I respect the fact that whilst I may disagree with someone's ideology I have to remember that it is personal to them and helps to form their self-image.

In the spirit of good science I would recommend that issues such as: evolutionary cosmology, exobiology, origin of life, panspermia, etc. are far better places to identify areas where phenomena could be easily misinterpreted as a 'divine creator'/god.

Teilhard de Chardin is a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Darwinists are notoriously unwilling to debate, so they say that they're above it, and they rarely cite any of the many glaring weaknesses in their theory, so they're just basically rolling around controlling the media with their official dogma, a total lack of intellectual honesty. This is one of the reasons that it doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...
-A rational mind accepts the idea that there are errors to its every reasoning and is willing to discuss them with minds that hold the same basic premise to be true about their own reasoning. Skepticism is the method the rational mind uses to remain as objective as possible, and to retain its intellectual integrity and seriousness.

-A rational mind is willing to debate a probability, based on the common assumption that sensual interpretations are the most reliable source of human experience (in fact it is human experience), but will not waste its time debating an imagined, hypothetical possibility based entirely on hearsay or a supposed supernatural dimension in which normal human experience, of what is probable and what is not, does not hold true and denying the basic first assumption that sensual information is the starting point to any rational debate.

-A rational mind maintains a consistency in its reasoning; applying the same stringent standards of discovering truth and fact and reality and not resorting to double or triple methods of measuring what is probable, as the circumstances suit its needs or preferences. To do otherwise is to invent different logical standards depending on emotional and psychological needs and constituting any debate a farce about whose imagination can invent the best plausibility in support of what it can provide no other empirical or rational argument for.

-A rational mind remains honest, both to others but, especially, to itself recognizing its own human frailties and so maintaining no perspective as being absolute or certain; judging the plausibility of any hypothesis on the grounds of its common adherence to common sense, logic and empirical, sensual standards.

-A rational mind will not lower itself to the level of its opposite by legitimizing it through serious consideration, unless the one confronting it is able to present a viable, plausible, provable, commonly perceptible and sensually accessible argument.
To do otherwise is to waste one’s time debating fools, schizophrenics, neurotics, retarded ignorant minds and idiots about hypothetical realities for which no rational plausibility can be provided other than the "What if".

------------------ ----------------------- -------------------------
The tool of the modern Christian apologist is the turning-of-the-tables strategy in which the Christian closed mind accuses the opposition of what it is most guilty of, thusly eliminating this from its weakness or taking it away as a argument from the opposing side.
Also labeling things in the Orwellian opposite is a well established method of mind control.

For instance in the U.S. the media – the quintessential systemic tool of information dissemination – is dubbed ‘liberal’ to mask its conservative and unchallenging, to the status quo, character. In this way it wears the garments of what is its opposite nature.

In this case the Christian retarded mind unable to provide a single rational argument and relying on hearsay, faith and magical dimensions and creatures and unable to define basic words, maintaining their ambiguous insinuations, resorts to turning the tables on the doubters.

Here we have some people presenting a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is judged on the merit of its arguments, reasoning and evidence.
Being unable to show any mature thinking they are forced to fall back on emotional displays of desire and moral righteousness and imagining possible entities to explain the unknown, taking a single reference point as infallible and omnipotent, and from this building an edifice of hypocrisy, cowardice, and intellectual lies using double-talk, faulty reasoning and disingenuous motivations.

In science a hypothesis is judged by no less stringent standards. The presenter of a possible explanation for a phenomenon is burdened with the need to provide evidence and rational arguments in support of it. It isn’t the denier or skeptic that must disprove the hypothesis but only provide rational skepticism and point out the holes in the evidence and reasoning provided, so as to maintain that the hypothesis remains a hypothetical and not a certainty.

Absolute entities demand absolute evidence.
If no such evidence can be provided then it ceases to be an absolute and it becomes a hypothetical. This hypothetical is then judged as more or less plausible based on the evidence and reasoning at hand.

To do otherwise would open up as possible the existence of anything and everything based on blind faith, on another's opinion, and on the, similarly hypothetical, magical or supernatural dimension.
Here a hypothetical is used in support of another hypothetical creating an absurdity.

Having said all that…
Who the fuck cares what these imbeciles believe in?
Forums like this become the most popular because here the more reasonable and intellectually gifted can feel superior to the imbeciles and morons that frequent such places.
It is like a waterhole in a dry savannah.
Carnivores frequent the watering holes because here herd animals pool and become easy prey.

The prey cannot help itself, the waterhole is too attractive.
Here it can follow through with propagating the infection that burdens it. The meme, like the gene, contains in its programming a method of procreation.
Here ‘Doing God’s work’ is how this infection spreads.
Also here the religious herd legitimizes itself by mingling with what it superior to it.
It becomes respectable just by being taken seriously.

They can now claim that Creationism is a viable scientific theory, even if it lacks the basic scientific methodology behind it.

They’re only relevance comes from the fact that they are more numerous than the rational minds.
Mediocrity always makes up in quantity what it lacks in quality.

Nothing can break through those thick skulls. A rational mind becomes frustrated in its futile attempt to break through using reason.
In one instance the religious herd displays reason and humility.
Then, in the next, it turn and becomes irrational and arrogant.

They have a double-standard towards everything they need to remain psychologically healthy.
They equate happiness with ‘truth’ or emotion with reason and assume that all hypothetical concerning ‘fact’ must offer something positive in return.
They attach evolution Theory using what reason they can muster, as is their right as science invites criticism and challenge, but then deny that the same reason applies to their belief in Creationism.

Because of all this I have concluded that it is the supreme waste of my time to engage with these minds in any serious discussion.
Let them declare victory and reason away their rational ineptness.

Might as well reason with a dog to not lick its balls and asshole, based on my human opinions on hygiene and civility.
Instead I mock, belittle, humor and am entertained with their intellectual thrashing about .
That these people will live and die in complete darkness, is of no concern to me – let them take vengeance by imagining a hell for me. What does concern me is the political power these imbeciles posses, due to cultural reasons and their sheer numbers.
A herd of stampeding buffalos is dangerous, no matter what caused them to stampede or what clever mind started it and is directing them.
 
Last edited:
Satyr said:
-A rational mind accepts the idea that there are errors to its every reasoning and is willing to discuss them with minds that hold the same basic premise to be true about their own reasoning. Skepticism is the method the rational mind uses to remain as objective as possible, and to retain its intellectual integrity and seriousness.

-A rational mind is willing to debate a probability, based on the common assumption that sensual interpretations are the most reliable source of human experience (in fact it is human experience), but will not waste its time debating an imagined, hypothetical possibility based entirely on hearsay or a supposed supernatural dimension in which normal human experience, of what is probable and what is not, does not hold true and denying the basic first assumption that sensual information is the starting point to any rational debate.

-A rational mind maintains a consistency in its reasoning; applying the same stringent standards of discovering truth and fact and reality and not resorting to double or triple methods of measuring what is probable, as the circumstances suit its needs or preferences. To do otherwise is to invent different logical standards depending on emotional and psychological needs and constituting any debate a farce about whose imagination can invent the best plausibility in support of what it can provide no other empirical or rational argument for.

-A rational mind remains honest, both to others but, especially, to itself recognizing its own human frailties and so maintaining no perspective as being absolute or certain; judging the plausibility of any hypothesis on the grounds of its common adherence to common sense, logic and empirical, sensual standards.

-A rational mind will not lower itself to the level of its opposite by legitimizing it through serious consideration, unless the one confronting it is able to present a viable, plausible, provable, commonly perceptible and sensually accessible argument.
To do otherwise is to waste one’s time debating fools, schizophrenics, neurotics, retarded ignorant minds and idiots about hypothetical realities for which no rational plausibility can be provided other than the "What if".

------------------ ----------------------- -------------------------
The tool of the modern Christian apologist is the turning-of-the-tables strategy in which the Christian closed mind accuses the opposition of what it is most guilty of, thusly eliminating this from its weakness or taking it away as a argument from the opposing side.
Also labeling things in the Orwellian opposite is a well established method of mind control.

For instance in the U.S. the media – the quintessential systemic tool of information dissemination – is dubbed ‘liberal’ to mask its conservative and unchallenging, to the status quo, character. In this way it wears the garments of what is its opposite nature.

In this case the Christian retarded mind unable to provide a single rational argument and relying on hearsay, faith and magical dimensions and creatures and unable to define basic words, maintaining their ambiguous insinuations, resorts to turning the tables on the doubters.

Here we have some people presenting a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is judged on the merit of its arguments, reasoning and evidence.
Being unable to show any mature thinking they are forced to fall back on emotional displays of desire and moral righteousness and imagining possible entities to explain the unknown, taking a single reference point as infallible and omnipotent, and from this building an edifice of hypocrisy, cowardice, and intellectual lies using double-talk, faulty reasoning and disingenuous motivations.

In science a hypothesis is judged by no less stringent standards. The presenter of a possible explanation for a phenomenon is burdened with the need to provide evidence and rational arguments in support of it. It isn’t the denier or skeptic that must disprove the hypothesis but only provide rational skepticism and point out the holes in the evidence and reasoning provided, so as to maintain that the hypothesis remains a hypothetical and not a certainty.

Absolute entities demand absolute evidence.
If no such evidence can be provided then it ceases to be an absolute and it becomes a hypothetical. This hypothetical is then judged as more or less plausible based on the evidence and reasoning at hand.

To do otherwise would open up as possible the existence of anything and everything based on blind faith, on another's opinion, and on the, similarly hypothetical, magical or supernatural dimension.
Here a hypothetical is used in support of another hypothetical creating an absurdity.

Having said all that…
Who the fuck cares what these imbeciles believe in?
Forums like this become the most popular because here the more reasonable and intellectually gifted can feel superior to the imbeciles and morons that frequent such places.
It is like a waterhole in a dry savannah.
Carnivores frequent the watering holes because here herd animals pool and become easy prey.

The prey cannot help itself, the waterhole is too attractive.
Here it can follow through with propagating the infection that burdens it. The meme, like the gene, contains in its programming a method of procreation.
Here ‘Doing God’s work’ is how this infection spreads.
Also here the religious herd legitimizes itself by mingling with what it superior to it.
It becomes respectable just by being taken seriously.

They can now claim that Creationism is a viable scientific theory, even if it lacks the basic scientific methodology behind it.

They’re only relevance comes from the fact that they are more numerous than the rational minds.
Mediocrity always makes up in quantity what it lacks in quality.

Nothing can break through those thick skulls. A rational mind becomes frustrated in its futile attempt to break through using reason.
In one instance the religious herd displays reason and humility.
Then, in the next, it turn and becomes irrational and arrogant.

They have a double-standard towards everything they need to remain psychologically healthy.
They equate happiness with ‘truth’ or emotion with reason and assume that all hypothetical concerning ‘fact’ must offer something positive in return.
They attach evolution Theory using what reason they can muster, as is their right as science invites criticism and challenge, but then deny that the same reason applies to their belief in Creationism.

Because of all this I have concluded that it is the supreme waste of my time to engage with these minds in any serious discussion.
Let them declare victory and reason away their rational ineptness.

Might as well reason with a dog to not lick its balls and asshole, based on my human opinions on hygiene and civility.
Instead I mock, belittle, humor and am entertained with their intellectual thrashing about .
That these people will live and die in complete darkness, is of no concern to me – let them take vengeance by imagining a hell for me. What does concern me is the political power these imbeciles posses, due to cultural reasons and their sheer numbers.
A herd of stampeding buffalos is dangerous, no matter what caused them to stampede or what clever mind started it and is directing them.
Click to expand...


As a rational mind then, surely you can see that you have a problem with anger! You can see that, can't you Satyr?
 
Satyr, good science does not line-up with the Darwinian/Lyellian scheme, and billions of people know it, so you better come up with some new material, that junk like "panspermia" and "punctuated equilibrium" are just lame rationalizations which also don't pass the smell test, billions of people agree, so you've got a tough sell, but keep pluggin' along if you like.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Satyr, good science does not line-up with the Darwinian/Lyellian scheme, and billions of people know it, so you better come up with some new material, that junk like "panspermia" and "punctuated equilibrium" are just lame rationalizations which also don't pass the smell test, billions of people agree, so you've got a tough sell, but keep pluggin' along if you like.
Click to expand...
Usually one has to understand a theory before dismissing it.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
I agree that you can find many different large groups that have been programmed to believe in as many different Christian gospels, or ways of salvation. There are millions of Christians even today that would disagree with your version of salvation.

You say they are wrong, and they say you are wrong.

Some of these groups have become so arrogant in their own belief system, that they will not hesitate to damn to hell any "Christian" who disagrees with their own interpretations of the Bible. And historically there have even been instances of genocide with "Christian" killing "Christian" simply over doctrinal differences. Not a very good witness to the "world" is it? On this basis alone, why should anyone believe in your version or theirs?

This model for genocide is nestled within the golden pages of the Bible that every young child carries into Sunday school each and every week. If you make even the smallest attempt to find it written there, you will.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right in "Christians" killing Christians. I am simply telling what I claim to be truth. I really cant stop people from saying they are Christians when they are not. I gave a clear description of the neccesities and beliefs about being a Christian. You say I say they are wrong and you are correct in your statement. Truth can not afford me to say they are correct. Then you will ask the need to call them wrong? They are a huge detriment to my Savior's message. The difference you will find in "Christian" religions and the actual Sons and Daughters of Christ is their message. They preach works and we preach Grace. Though they may use the same words they have very different conotations. Mormans and Jehovah Witnesses claim they are Christians but they are not. Which brings us to another point: Translations.
There are alot of translations of the Bible that are crap. This is what happens. I am not going to say that the Bibles now are the exact 100% replica, that would be non sense. 2000 years ago there wasnt a printing press so there is room for scribal error yes especially concerning geneologies, however I would say that what we have now is 99.7% accurate. That percentage goes down with each translation(usually). The Bible I have here at my desk is NIV translation and it has taken out a couple of things, however the prophecies and reports that it contains I believe happened. I dont claim to have a revelation or special insight. I believe the reports.

Thankyou,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Darwinists are notoriously unwilling to debate, so they say that they're above it, and they rarely cite any of the many glaring weaknesses in their theory, so they're just basically rolling around controlling the media with their official dogma, a total lack of intellectual honesty. This is one of the reasons that it doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

IceAgeCivilizations said:
Satyr, good science does not line-up with the Darwinian/Lyellian scheme, and billions of people know it, so you better come up with some new material, that junk like "panspermia" and "punctuated equilibrium" are just lame rationalizations which also don't pass the smell test, billions of people agree, so you've got a tough sell, but keep pluggin' along if you like.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot...that's worse that the AIDS conspiracy.
 
...sections which are selected as being fit in a particular time and locale give the subtext its form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top