Holy Quran

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:42 am

Felix wrote:you and I used to be internet buds...

We still are.

You and I are the two newbie dumbfucks that got trolled by Rumplestiltskin, aka Nyeman, circa 2000 at SC III.

Misery loves company, but no, I don't want a hug.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:34 am

ppanther wrote:
You could have just said, "No, there is no 10,000 year old living tree." I was interested in a link about that, if it existed, since I was pretty sure it didn't.

But thanks!!

did you miss this, or just not read it?

The European oak and pine chronology, a composite of work done in Germany and Northern Ireland, is now over 11,000 years long.

they estimate the bristlecone pine to be about 8,500 years old, but acknowledge in the article that that estimate could be low by as much as 3,000 years, which would meant it could be as old as 11,500 years, unfortunately they can't cut it down and start counting the rings, because that would kill it....

if you've got something (OTHER THAN THE BIBLE), you know, something of scientific relevance that disputes the authors findings, please by all means link me up to them

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:35 am

War Wagon wrote: We still are.

good by me wags

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:30 am

Cory Nye was run.

Btw, the pic of Cory and his scrawny pasty-white daddy's boy college wigga' fliends posing and "flexing" all bad-@ss for the camera is still among TEH funnayest pics AVAR posted on our boards.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:45 pm

poptart wrote:Cory Nye was run.

Btw, the pic of Cory and his scrawny pasty-white daddy's boy college wigga' fliends posing and "flexing" all bad-@ss for the camera is still among TEH funnayest pics AVAR posted on our boards.

I forgot about that....truly one of the great moments in TNW history

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:52 pm

Felix wrote:if you've got something (OTHER THAN THE BIBLE), you know, something of scientific relevance that disputes the authors findings, please by all means link me up to them

Felix, the oldest living bristlecone pine is 4,000+ years old. I don't get that information from the Bible, I get it from the books and pamphlets accumulated by actually having an interest in them. My in-laws live about 100 miles from the bristlecones in the White Mountains in Eastern CA. Information about them is hardly scarce. I don't know how they figured out the age of the oldest of the trees, but I'm going to go ahead and assume they did it with whatever scientific means were available. I'm not sure why you're getting all weird about this, anyway... all I wanted you to do was substantiate the claim that there was a living tree over 10,000 years old.

And since you might not be understanding exactly what I am saying, I am not talking about evidence of a species merely existing. I am not talking about what may or may not be an ancestral line of related trees that still exist. I am talking about a currently living tree.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:02 pm

Felix, since you'll probably go nuts if I don't provide any links, here you go...

http://sonic.net/bristlecone/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/
http://www.cmdrmark.com/bristlecone.html
http://www.goldengatephoto.com/WestUS/bristlecone.html

Let me know if you need more, I get about 29,000 Google results when I enter "oldest bristlecone pine"... Or rather, if you need more, just search yourself.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:37 am

ppanther wrote:Felix, since you'll probably go nuts if I don't provide any links, here you go...

why would you want to argue about the oldest tree and what does that have anything to do with what I've said about dendrochronology dating trees back to 11,000 years...

I could give a rats ass whether the oldest living tree is 3 years old

what matters is that dating methods prove that trees are older than the dating in the bible...that's what the whole point of the discussion was

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:39 am

Trees aren't dated in the Bible.

The earth isn't dated in the Bible.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Felix wrote:why would you want to argue about the oldest tree and what does that have anything to do with what I've said about dendrochronology dating trees back to 11,000 years...

Um, Felix...

You said "hell, even the most fundamental dating method dendrochronology has found that the oldest tree is more than 10,000 years old, way past the dates in your holy book...."

I asked you if you meant the oldest living tree. You answered as if you did, and provided a link that you apparently thought meant there were bristlecones over 10,000 years old. I read the article and found nothing that led me to believe there was a tree over 10,000 years old. You then said:

"they estimate the bristlecone pine to be about 8,500 years old, but acknowledge in the article that that estimate could be low by as much as 3,000 years, which would meant it could be as old as 11,500 years, unfortunately they can't cut it down and start counting the rings, because that would kill it...."

Clearly, you were making up the bold part, since you've now changed your stance.

You asked for sources (OTHER THAN THE BIBLE) that disputed your "facts". I provided them, now you're backpedaling... AGAIN. From the holes in your argument, I am pretty certain you don't even understand much of what that article you linked means.

I find it interesting that you're whining about how this is off-topic, when you're off-topic about 80% of the time. You're the one who brought up the trees. I also think it's strange that you think Christians think the world began at the flood. Obviously there was vegetation prior to then, so... what was your point again? Off-topic as it was, given the point of this thread?

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:49 pm

well I think the tree discussion is interesting, I'd never really thought about it before

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:36 pm

poptart wrote:Trees aren't dated in the Bible.

The earth isn't dated in the Bible.

but there are many bible experts that based on the chronology of the tales in the bible have attempted to trace back the age of the universe based on this chronology.....you know, the "Young Earth Creationists" such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc......they assert the earth is about 6,000 old....

so, let me ask you, how old do you think the earth is and how old do you think the universe is?

Dr_Phibes wrote:well I think the tree discussion is interesting, I'd never really thought about it before

yeah, this is sterling stuff-why ppanther wants to talk about the age of trees is beyond me

all I was saying is that based on dendrochronology, tree rings have been dated back to about 11,000 years which pretty much refutes the whole Young Earth Creationist movement and their beliefs...I don't know that she is, but she sounds like a YEC so that's what the point in the demonstration was....I didn't know it was going to devolve into a discussion about how old the oldest tree in the world is.....fuck, it's obvious I have to be very careful about what I say around her, otherwise TANGENT CITY here we come

so I'll ask you panther....how old do you think the earth and the universe are-and be specific.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:17 pm

So Felix, no comment on the fact that you clearly didn't understand the information in the article you posted? Glossing right past that? Is the fact that you jumped to a conclusion based on information you didn't understand part of your "careful consideration" nonsense? Don't blame this tangent on me... you are the one who brought up the mythical over-10,000-year-old tree.

poptart is correct, the Bible doesn't give the age of trees or of the earth. So the point of your statement, again?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:19 am

Felix, I don't know how old the earth is and I don't know how old the universe is.
I just don't know.
If someone from the scientific community wants to tell me how old it all is ... ok.
I can listen to it.

I've mentioned before that I suspect that there is a ... gap ... of some amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
But it's not told to us in the Bible and I conclude that it's not important for me to know or focus on.

The Bible was not written as a science text, it was written to point us toward our salvation.

John 5:39 (Jesus speaking to the Pharisees)
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 20:31
But these (Scripture) are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:22 am

ppanther wrote:So Felix, no comment on the fact that you clearly didn't understand the information in the article you posted?

Glossing right past that? Is the fact that you jumped to a conclusion based on information you didn't understand part of your "careful consideration" nonsense?[/quote]

Uh, okay I didn't understand the gist of the article I posted...what do you win....

Don't blame this tangent on me... you are the one who brought up the mythical over-10,000-year-old tree.

I said the oldest tree had been dated to 11,000 years....I thought I read that the bristlecone was 8,500 years, but clearly that was a dead tree that had been dated using other methods (likely carbon dating)......what's the point of this?

poptart is correct, the Bible doesn't give the age of trees or of the earth. So the point of your statement, again?

good evasion to a direct question....I didn't ask how old you thought the bible indicated the earth to be I asked YOU how old do you think the earth is?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:28 am

poptart wrote:
I've mentioned before that I suspect that there is a ... gap ... of some amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
But it's not told to us in the Bible and I conclude that it's not important for me to know or focus on.

of course it's not.....what's important is that god sent his son down to be mercilessly tortured to atone for something that happened eons before...again, why it was necessary for his "son" to suffer all of this excruciating agony instead of god just saying "okay, everybody is forgiven" is anybody's guess, but if that's the story you want to stick with, then that's what you should go with

The Bible was not written as a science text, it was written to point us toward our salvation.

yeah, I know that's what you've said at least 1,000 times

again, why couldn't god just forgive everybody instead of going through all of this? After all, he's god so he can do anything he wants....so apparently he wanted to send his son down to be hung up on a cross...makes perfect sense to me

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:28 am

Felix wrote:good evasion to a direct question....I didn't ask how old you thought the bible indicated the earth to be I asked YOU how old do you think the earth is?

Direct? Sure. Relevant? No.

I have no idea how old the earth or universe is... am I supposed to? Since you have a problem with tangents, what does that question have to do with the topic of this thread?

You've not done well here, Felix.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:07 am

Felix, as I read your last post I pictured a man flailing in water, as his boat has capsized.

As a rescue boat comes by and tosses a life jacket down to him, the flailing man looks up and says, "Why the hell did you give me that jacket?? This SUCKS!!"

Perhaps I can't answer for exactly why God uses some methods that He uses.

But I'll say this --

As soon as Adam and Eve sinned and became separated from God, God used the blood sacrifice - Genesis 3:21

The blood sacrifice is somehow necessary to bring man out of the hand of satan, and we see it throughout the Bible -- Hebrews 9:22

And of course Christ's blood is the necessary ransom to pay for your sins, which separate you from God and lead you to certain failure and destruction -- Mark 10:45

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:40 pm

ppanther wrote: I have no idea how old the earth or universe is... am I supposed to?

Well you should, there's lots of scientific evidence that it's about 16.3 billlion years old-but you're not going to get trapped into that so good on you

okay, let me ask you this question that's related directly to the bible

DO YOU BELIEVE THERE WAS A GLOBAL FLOOD OF THE SORT WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE BIBLE? (noah's ark thing) It's a simple question, either you do or you don't.

as for when this thing got side tracked, it was probably when bible apologists started asserting that they were right and EVERYBODY else is wrong.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:50 pm

poptart wrote: As soon as Adam and Eve sinned and became separated from God, God used the blood sacrifice - Genesis 3:21

why did he tempt them in the first place...obviously he knew what was coming because he's all knowing, all seeing, all everything....he knew that by placing the "tree of knowledge" at man's disposal that it would ultimately result in man sinning and the parade of blood sacrifices would be set into motion....of course you're answer is going to be "gee, I don't know why god did this" and then proceed to say that all you know is what the bible tells you to know, then pull out some quotes from the bible which apparently is supposed to supplicate those unable or unwilling to think for themselves...what kind of loving god would do something like that?

The blood sacrifice is somehow necessary to bring man out of the hand of satan, and we see it throughout the Bible -- Hebrews 9:22

And of course Christ's blood is the necessary ransom to pay for your sins, which separate you from God and lead you to certain failure and destruction -- Mark 10:45

look, stop with the biblical quotes and give me some reasoning of your own...you sound like a fucking religious nutjob when all you do is spout quotes from the bible....

give me some justification for what you believe, why you believe it without citing biblical passages.....you don't see me pulling quotes from darwin every time I explain why I'm an adherent to the theory of evolution now do you?

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Felix wrote:DO YOU BELIEVE THERE WAS A GLOBAL FLOOD OF THE SORT WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE BIBLE? (noah's ark thing) It's a simple question, either you do or you don't.

Of course it's a simple question, and yes, I do. Are you taking a poll?

as for when this thing got side tracked, it was probably when bible apologists started asserting that they were right and EVERYBODY else is wrong.

This statement is ridiculous to the point of absurd.
Christians think they're right? *GASP* OH NO!!! What horrors have we unleashed? Will the world survive? It stuns me a little bit that you are actually serious when you type things like this.

Felix, just so you know, you also think you're right and EVERYBODY else (assuming your use of EVERYBODY actually means "everybody who doesn't agree with you") is wrong.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:26 pm

ppanther wrote: Of course it's a simple question, and yes, I do. Are you taking a poll?

no, just trying to find out exactly how devout to the bible you are....

okay, so how do would you explain the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence through examination of the geologic column that any such world wide flood ever took place? Of course anytime I ask thumpers to address this question, I'm usually greeted with blank stares and them muttering something to the effect that "god didn't want people to know about it, other than via a book of desert scribblings and nothing more"....of course, this would have required him to adjust all of the strata within the geologic column in order to fool people that there never was any such geocataclysmic event...once again the only explanation for something like this is that god is so hellbent on not being discovered that he's been forced to change the structure of the geological column so that people would be forced to question his existance....I guess it serves as some sort of weeding out process....

scientists have been able to determine five life ending events that have occured on this planet, but trust me none of them were via a flood-you can read about them here http://geologyecology.suite101.com/arti ... xtinctions

don't you find it odd, that god as a designer essentially designed this planet in such a manner that roughly 90% of it is uninhabitable by human beings? Now why would a perfect "designer" make such a shitty design?

This statement is ridiculous to the point of absurd.
Christians think they're right? *GASP* OH NO!!! What horrors have we unleashed?

How about we start with the Crusades and go from there?

Will the world survive? It stuns me a little bit that you are actually serious when you type things like this.

so I'll ask you this.....how do you know what you believe is right, and that everyone else is wrong.....in order to believe the tenents of christianity, you have to believe that every other religious belief is wrong...there are no ifs, ands, or but's about this...so, how do you know you're right, and everyone else is wrong....without using scripture please.....

Felix, just so you know, you also think you're right and EVERYBODY else (assuming your use of EVERYBODY actually means "everybody who doesn't agree with you") is wrong.

I don't know that everybody else is wrong, all I know is what I believe contradicts what christians, muslims, confuscionists, hindi's, etc. believe-I find most religions relatively harmless enough, but as we've seen religion can and has been perverted to EXTREMES (muslim terrorists, abortion doctor murderers, etc.)....but chistinanity (and all religions in general) force you take a them or me stand-that what you believe is absolutely right, and that what everybody else believes is dead fucking wrong...seriously believe what you want and it's no matter to me until the time comes when you start sticking your noses into other people's business, then it becomes a problem for me

take for example tart, everytime we have a discussion he prays that jesus will enter my soul and reveal to me that he is THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION

(I've told him to stop doing that, but he's persistent)

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:58 pm

Felix wrote:okay, so how do would you explain the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence through examination of the geologic column that any such world wide flood ever took place?

Actually, if I look in Google (which is probably where you look also, given the fact that you're not a scientist), I can find several sites that claim there is proof of such a flood. I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt how much you know about science in general. Given that fact, and given that both sides of this argument exist, I don't know why you expect your assertion to be treated with any sort of authority.

Of course anytime I ask thumpers to address this question, I'm usually greeted with blank stares and them muttering something to the effect that "god didn't want people to know about it, other than via a book of desert scribblings and nothing more"

And this is exactly why I can't take your alleged desire to debate seriously. You never even attempt to digest the answers you're given. You use insulting language and ask the same questions over and over and over again. Why are you so confrontational (and at the same time, purposely dense) about people who disagree with what you've chosen to believe?

scientists have been able to determine five life ending events that have occured on this planet, but trust me none of them were via a flood

Trust you? Good one, Felix! Why on earth would I trust you with scientific information? I'm not terribly sold on the fact that you even understand 25% of what you read!

don't you find it odd, that god as a designer essentially designed this planet in such a manner that roughly 90% of it is uninhabitable by human beings? Now why would a perfect "designer" make such a shitty design?

Another ridiculous, subjective complaint about God by Felix, the non-believer.

I think the planet was designed perfectly, but hey, you're welcome to your own opinion about that. Man, you are painfully self-centered!

How about we start with the Crusades and go from there?

I do believe we've reached the most stereotypical of the whining atheist arguments right here. Good job!

so I'll ask you this.....how do you know what you believe is right, and that everyone else is wrong.....in order to believe the tenents of christianity, you have to believe that every other religious belief is wrong...there are no ifs, ands, or but's about this...so, how do you know you're right, and everyone else is wrong....without using scripture please.....

Felix, please stop being such a brick wall...

I don't know that everybody else is wrong, all I know is what I believe contradicts what [those who don't agree with me] believe

That means you disagree with them. You think you're right, and you think they're wrong. Look up the word "contradict" in the dictionary, please. If you don't think they're wrong, then you're not terribly sold on your own beliefs. The term wishy-washy comes to mind.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:35 pm

ppanther wrote:
Actually, if I look in Google (which is probably where you look also, given the fact that you're not a scientist), I can find several sites that claim there is proof of such a flood.

Let me save you the time (and embarassment) of posting the links to these sites.....
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.discovery.org/
or it will be some related bible thumping organization that beleives the bible is the inerrent word of god....right? anything from a reputable science organization would be greatly appreciated....

I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt how much you know about science in general. Given that fact, and given that both sides of this argument exist, I don't know why you expect your assertion to be treated with any sort of authority.

put up or shut the fuck up time.....go ahead and link me up to things I've said (other than the bristlecone pine inannity) that can be refuted with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, not idiots like Ken Ham who's science creation museaum shows people and meat eating dinosaurs playing along side of each other....seriously, if you've got scientific facts that would dispute my assertion the world is approximately 16.3 billion years old....then present them....look sugar britches, one thing I can assure you of is that I know infinitely more about scientific study and research than you do....seriously, your blindered by your beliefs in a super duper sky daddy that's going to reward you for behaving well and believing in him

I

think the planet was designed perfectly, but hey, you're welcome to your own opinion about that. Man, you are painfully self-centered!

90% of the earth being uninhabitable by man is what you'd call perfect? You're seriously deluded, you do know that don't you.

I do believe we've reached the most stereotypical of the whining atheist arguments right here. Good job!

you inadvertently asked for examples of what's the worst that can happen from people believing in christ.....I provided a single example wherein christians, of course working in the name of god mercilessly slaughtered 70,000 people....If you'd like, I could provide you examples of much worse behavior on the part of christians that felt they were simply doing god's work.....you simply want to ignore all of the attrocities that have been inflicted on fellow human beings BY CHRISTIANS in the name of god.....here's a clue, ignoring them doesn't make them any less brutal than what they were.....

That means you disagree with them.

well, if they think there's some magical being that created everything via an unknown mechanism, then yeah, I disagree with them

You think you're right, and you think they're wrong.

I think I'm right based on the scientific evidence presented....but I'm certainly not so pragmatic that I wouldn't be willing to change my belief, should evidence that contradicts what I currently believe be discovered (which is the antithesis of religious zealots nothing can dissuede them from their beliefs)....no amount of scientific evidence, no nothing....you simply won't be swayed....that is the very definition of anti-science.....

but I certainly would never infringe on your right to worship anybody or thing you choose to worship...of course I think it's childish but I've never said there aren't certain merits to religions...why do you insist on projecting your own inadequacies about what you believe into to what I believe.

Look up the word "contradict" in the dictionary, please. If you don't think they're wrong, then you're not terribly sold on your own beliefs. The term wishy-washy comes to mind.

quit changing the subject for once will you....I'm more than willing to admit that religions serve a certain purpose-they have provided the world with many good things...as mvscal pointed out, higher (university education) was largely initiated by religious groups...no one can doubt the good things they do for charitable organizations, the money they give to the homeless...I recognize that they do many good things....but if you'd care to, here's a reading suggestion for you "God is Not Great, How Religion Poisins Everything" by Christopher Hitchens....really, its a great read.

here, take the Christopher Hitchens challenge:

Come up with a moral statement made, or a moral action performed by a believer or a person of faith, that could not have been uttered or accomplished by an unbeliever.

should be a snap for you.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:29 pm

Felix wrote:or it will be some related bible thumping organization that beleives the bible is the inerrent word of god....right? anything from a reputable science organization would be greatly appreciated....

I'm not Google, Felix. You can go search for yourself. There are lots of sites that aren't the two you mentioned. You can take them or leave them. You can continue to believe that the scientific websites you prefer (see: the ones that give you the answers you like) are inerrant. I assume you were trying to make a point?

go ahead and link me up to things I've said (other than the bristlecone pine inannity) that can be refuted with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

You can stop complaining about the tree discussion any time now... After all, you brought it up. It's amazing how severely you pout when you get caught talking out your ass. And you call me childish. Ponderous.

seriously, if you've got scientific facts that would dispute my assertion the world is approximately 16.3 billion years old....then present them

Stop scrambling, Felix. I already said I didn't know how old the universe is. Maybe you should ease off the intense need you seem to have to repeat yourself over and over again, and start reading the replies you're getting.

....look sugar britches, one thing I can assure you of is that I know infinitely more about scientific study and research than you do....seriously, your blindered by your beliefs in a super duper sky daddy that's going to reward you for behaving well and believing in him

Hmm... "sugar britches"... what's with that nonsense? Seriously? "super duper sky daddy"? Again, I marvel that you call me (or anyone else) childish. So bizarre.

You don't actually have the credibility to assure me of anything. You don't know infinitely more about scientific study and research than I do, as was made obvious by your lack of understanding of the scientific article to which you linked. You tossed out scientific terms that you've read, but never really studied, and you fell on your face. Now you're using some pretty lame, insulting language in order to get the upper hand in a debate in which you've failed miserably.

90% of the earth being uninhabitable by man is what you'd call perfect? You're seriously deluded, you do know that don't you.

I simply don't harbor any delusions about my place on earth. I'm clearly not as self-centered as you are. The earth is what it is, and parts of it are pretty damn spectacular. If you don't like it, sucks to be you. You might want to think about blaming something other than God for your dissatisfaction, given that you don't believe in Him. Not that that will stop you...

here's a clue, ignoring them doesn't make them any less brutal than what they were.....

There have been brutal people of all types in the world, Felix. Should I ask you why there are brutal atheists, too? Does it even remotely relate to the point that you are no more tolerant of those who disagree with you than the Christians about whom you whined so pitifully?

I think I'm right based on the scientific evidence presented....but I'm certainly not so pragmatic that I wouldn't be willing to change my belief, should evidence that contradicts what I currently believe be discovered

So if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, I am sure you'll change a few people's beliefs. You'll also make the news. Better than you have tried without any success. By the way... I don't think "pragmatic" was the word you were looking for. If it was, the rest of the sentence needs some work. Get back to me.

of course I think it's childish

Given the source, no big deal.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:09 am

ppanther, awaiting Felix next "pitch".

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:11 am

Felix, know that my intention here is not to argue with you.

I believe the Bible, believe it to be God's Word, and am relaying to you what it says, along with just some of my own understanding of what the message is.
If you question things or disagree with it, that is fine.
I want to try to answer your questions and don't intend to dodge anything.

If you don't like that I cite Scripture, ok.

The "Hitchens Challenge"
Come up with a moral statement made, or a moral action performed by a believer or a person of faith, that could not have been uttered or accomplished by an unbeliever.

Unbelievers can make moral statements and they can perform moral actions.

Hitchens wins.

But I want to point out that Hitches FUNDAMENTALLY misses a critical point by "winning" this challenge that he made the rules for.

That is, the Bible is centered on the SPIRITUAL world, and what Hitchens is looking at in his challenge is the PHYSICAL world.

The spiritual world dwarfs the physical world that we see.
Adam and Eve were in tune with this, but as soon as they became ensnared by satan, their focus shifted dramatically toward the PHYSICAL world, rather than the spiritual reality.

Genesis 3:6,7
6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Their eyes were opened up.
Their focus and interested shifted to the physical rather than the spiritual.

And this is the state of mankind up to today.
EVERYTHING is digested in physical terms.

Hitchens looks at the physical and declares victory in his challenge.
Ok.

The Pharisees did just that and missed the Christ, because He spoke of the SPIRITUAL realm.
Ponderous.

Felix wrote:why did he tempt them in the first place...obviously he knew what was coming because he's all knowing, all seeing, all everything....he knew that by placing the "tree of knowledge" at man's disposal that it would ultimately result in man sinning and the parade of blood sacrifices would be set into motion....of course you're answer is going to be "gee, I don't know why god did this" and then proceed to say that all you know is what the bible tells you to know, then pull out some quotes from the bible which apparently is supposed to supplicate those unable or unwilling to think for themselves...what kind of loving god would do something like that?

Felix, I can't answer all of WHY God has set up our world the way He has.
Some things are revealed to us in the Bible and other things are left unanswered ... for now.

My view on the "Tree" (which was VERY large, btw) being in the midst of the garden was that it was a continual "reminder" to Adam and Eve of their Creator God.

give me some justification for what you believe, why you believe it without citing biblical passages.....you don't see me pulling quotes from darwin every time I explain why I'm an adherent to the theory of evolution now do you?

I showed you the "Address in History."

As I see it, no rational person can view that and casually dismiss it with a wave of the hand.
A rational person will look at it and consider it.

And as noted, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the RATIONAL reasons why one must at least give serious consideration to whether or not this man, Jesus, was in fact the Christ of God.

Rationally, He is the Christ.

Beyond "rational," I, like other Christians who read this, have my own personal testimony -- which is ongoing.

It's not easy to explain in such a forum as this, because again, the majority of it is centered on the SPIRITUAL realm.

John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:27 am

War Wagon wrote:ppanther, awaiting Felix next "pitch".

Actually, it appears that Felix is content with setting the ball on a tee for her to smash as opposed to trying to pitch to her. Still, rack this statement. Keep up the good work, my friend Panther.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:35 am

ppanther wrote:
I'm not Google, Felix. You can go search for yourself. There are lots of sites that aren't the two you mentioned. You can take them or leave them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....had I made such a claim as what you're making I'd have had something to back it up.....it's not incumbent on me to prove your point, it's incumbent on you to back up your extraordinary claim.....I've never seen anything in all of my research that supports the extraordinary claim of a global flood...get busy and find it for me.....

You can stop complaining about the tree discussion any time now... After all, you brought it up. It's amazing how severely you pout when you get caught talking out your ass. And you call me childish. Ponderous.

you're the one that dragged it on for more posts than it deserved-my point, which the website I provided supports my belief that dendrochronology proves the earth is older than what many YEC's say it is....if your not a supporter of a young earth, you're already ahead of the game....

But you've already stated you believe there was a cataclymisic global flood and I've simply asked you to provide any scientific proof of that...if it's that easy to google up, then you should be able to provide a link PDQ

You don't actually have the credibility to assure me of anything. You don't know infinitely more about scientific study and research than I do, as was made obvious by your lack of understanding of the scientific article to which you linked.

but, but you said we were past the tree thing and now you bring it up again....so I fucking mistook what the article stated, once again I ask WHAT DO YOU WIN

You tossed out scientific terms that you've read, but never really studied

which would those be-dendrochronology? nothing too astounding scientifically about the study of tree ring dating....

and you fell on your face. Now you're using some pretty lame, insulting language in order to get the upper hand in a debate in which you've failed miserably.

you're the one that's been insulting me throughout the last few posts in this thread...take a look back and you'll see what I mean...oh and save the "I'm kicking your ass" self congratulations for somebody that hasn't been on these boards for all these years...

I simply don't harbor any delusions about my place on earth.

stop it, I'm not asking you about your place on earth, your trying once again to divert the discussion....I said what the fuck kind of perfect creator creates a planet that is only about 10% inhabitable by "god's most perfect creation" man.....I mean seriously, if you built something that was only 10 percent effective would you seriously call that a perfect creation? (save the I'm not god response, you're better than that)

I'm clearly not as self-centered as you are.

now you're calling me names and making assumptions about me....to be honest with you, in all of the years I've posted on these boards, I can't ever remember having a single discussion with you about anything...now you're making the assertion that I'm self centered-why would that be, because I don't believe what you believe?

The earth is what it is, and parts of it are pretty damn spectacular.

sure, but there's lots of places on the face of this planet that aren't all that great...the deserts are pretty much uninhabitable, the oceans are uninhabitable, the jungles are largely uninhabitable for man, Siberia is largely uninhabitable, Alaska is largely uninhabitable, that Artic and the Antarctic are uninhabitable. the badlands of the Dakotas are largely uninhabitable....I could go on and on....but I'm not sure what point your trying to make here...you seem to assert that because there are some pretty nice places on earth this is indicative of a creator? What about the really shitty places, what's that indicative of? wait for it, wait for it......the DEVIL right?

If you don't like it, sucks to be you. You might want to think about blaming something other than God for your dissatisfaction, given that you don't believe in Him. Not that that will stop you...

see, now you're just getting all emotional here....what makes you think I'm unsatisfied? I recognize the fact that what I do on this earth is the only thing that I'll be remembered for....if I can leave this earth a little better because I was here, then that's all the satisfaction I need...and exactly how do you get that I'm "blamng" (whatever the fuck that means) anything on anybody? Because I don't see things the way you do? Good fucking keyrist, do you project like this all the time? Seriously

There have been brutal people of all types in the world, Felix. Should I ask you why there are brutal atheists, too? Does it even remotely relate to the point that you are no more tolerant of those who disagree with you than the Christians about whom you whined so pitifully?

go ahead and hook me up with all the wars, genocides, and brutal atrocity's that were started in the name of atheism...

So if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, I am sure you'll change a few people's beliefs.

Of course not, but I'm not the one making extraordinary claims...remember what I said earlier about extraordinary claims...it takes extraordinary evidence, yet you sole source your evidence out to a singular book that may or may not have been written by the people who claim to have written it, was voted on several times as to what would finally be the "word of God" (I mean, who the fuck votes on the word of god?), has been through so many rewrites (exclusion of the gnostic gospels, rewriting the whole virgin mary story) and you claim that I'm the one that's being narrow minded...take a look in the mirror, because your religious beliefs are entirely predicated on that single book, with no supporting evidence of any kind....

I don't think "pragmatic" was the word you were looking for. If it was, the rest of the sentence needs some work. Get back to me.

you're right again, it was DOGMATIC, the sort of which you've amply displayed in this thread...you don't want discourse on your beliefs because you're afraid that somebody might point out that in fact what you believe is a bunch of fairy tales....that's DOGMATISM...pragmatism is more related to practical consideration as to where dogmatists will simply not be changed....good catch there....

oh and look the fact that you've got a couple of bible toting thumpers in your corner is not evidence that your doing well here....trust me-you're not....

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:59 am

Felix wrote:what the fuck kind of perfect creator creates a planet that is only about 10% inhabitable by "god's most perfect creation" man.....

The Bible tells us that God created everything very good for man.

What about the really shitty places, what's that indicative of? wait for it, wait for it......the DEVIL right?

You're getting warm.

Read Genesis 3 and see what happened.

The very ground is cursed, and if one stops to think about that, everything we have and do comes up from the ground, somehow.

It's very heartbreaking to see people struggle and flail around, thinking education, diligence, goodness, religiosity, perserverence, money, etc., is going to do squat for them.

People are spiritually captured and on a path to certain failure.

It comes knockin'.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:03 am

Ugh, Felix, you need to take a pill or five.

First of all, you asked me if I believed in the flood. I said yes. In no way does that place any demand on me to find evidence of a flood for you. You want me to think you're smart, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You can Google for yourself. I am not trying to change your mind... if poptart can't do it, there's no way I can. But apparently, you are trying as hard as you can to change my mind. In this situation, the burden of proof is on you.

Stop whining about me being insulting until you can get through a post without calling Christians "thumpers", or without resorting to that redneck "sugar britches" crap.

Did I really say I'd let the tree thing go? Oh well. The point was too precious. It also has nothing to do with trees. It has to do with establishing your lack of credibility. You actually tried to imply that I was the one not getting it, when the entire time, you were wrong. TOO precious. Interestingly enough, about those bristlecones... the oldest one has been alive since approximately when the flood would have happened. Of course, I think that's more than just coincidental, but that's just me.

Your attempt to disprove God by telling me the earth is 90% uninhabitable by humans is just... weird. Honestly, it's a reach even for you. The fact that there are spectacular things on this planet does make me pretty impressed with God's design, but that wasn't my point. I really think it's one of the most bizarre complaints I've ever heard. And yes Felix, you were "blaming" God. And I'm pretty sure that if you're the scientific genius you want everyone to think you are, you can figure out what that means.

Stop spinning, stop trying to convince yourself that this exchange has gone well for you. You don't like that Christians think they're right (and therefore non-Christians are wrong), and you can't admit that you're no different. It's crystal clear to me, and probably to anyone else reading this. So answer this question for me: What is so wrong with believing you're right? Why do you get so bothered by that? In what way are you threatened by people who disagree with you? Please refrain from making any trite reference to the Crusades, and stick with the now.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:19 pm

Edit, I stumbled across this video and would like to get your opinion if this is how you think it went down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAMSMiArq4E

ppanther wrote:
First of all, you asked me if I believed in the flood. I said yes.

The purpose of the question was to find out just how big of a bible toter you are....

In no way does that place any demand on me to find evidence of a flood for you.

okay, here's a couple of videos that an Aussie internet bud of mine (hey, weren't you in Austrailia for a while?) produced that should pretty much dispel the whole Noah's Ark, global flood belief..of course, I'm willing to bet that you won't watch them because you have no interest in anything that might dispel your beliefs, but what the hell, I'll put em up anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA

You want me to think you're smart, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I don't want anything other than you to think for yourself instead of getting your marching orders from a book of fairy tales...as I've said before, you are almost as big an atheist as I am, except that you simply believe in one god more than I do.

But apparently, you are trying as hard as you can to change my mind. In this situation, the burden of proof is on you.

quite to the contrary, I'm simply asking you to explain to me why you put so much credence into this one solitiary book.....here's a question that I ask a lot of my religious friends, and almost everyone of them always answers it the same way...lets see if you do....

let's suppose that you had never heard of the bible before now, hadn't been raised to believe in it, hadn't ever been exposed to it, nothing no sort of contact with it whatsoever...then one day you stroll into a book store, see a copy of it and start reading it....do you honestly think that you would say to yourself "Yep, this is the book I'm going to base all of my beliefs on"....be honest

Interestingly enough, about those bristlecones... the oldest one has been alive since approximately when the flood would have happened. Of course, I think that's more than just coincidental, but that's just me.

see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about here....the article I posted gave specific examples of trees that have been dated to a much older date than what the chronology of the bible indicates it should be, and instead you simply skip over all of it to find that the oldest living thing is a bristlecone pine that dates to about 4,500 years, which alledgedly matches the chronology of the bible...that's what I mean when I say you sole source your beliefs to a single book that's been rewritten who knows how many times and is unsupported by anything else...how so many otherwise rational and intelligent people can put so much faith into it is simply stunning.

Your attempt to disprove God by telling me the earth is 90% uninhabitable by humans is just... weird.

once again, I'm not trying to disprove god, I'm simply relaying why I don't believe in the fairy tales and mythology of the bible.

Honestly, it's a reach even for you. The fact that there are spectacular things on this planet does make me pretty impressed with God's design, but that wasn't my point. I really think it's one of the most bizarre complaints I've ever heard. And yes Felix, you were "blaming" God. And I'm pretty sure that if you're the scientific genius you want everyone to think you are, you can figure out what that means.

who or what am I blaming and maybe you could spell out for me exactly what this "blame" is...in order for me to "blame" someone-something, it would be necessary for me to believe that someone-something exists, which I don't...but you see it doesn't make me a bad person because I don't believe what you do, and your belief in something I don't doesn't make you a bad person either, it just means we have differences of opinion, and that's what this discussion should have been about, those differences....

enough

I've discovered that rational discussion with you about this is not going to happen anytime soon, so you stay on your side of the room and I'll stay on mine. Deal?

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:22 pm

I've discovered that rational discussion with you about this is not going to happen anytime soon, so you stay on your side of the room and I'll stay on mine. Deal?

Sorry, no deal. If you want to quit responding, feel free. But you can't post the crap you've posted and cry when you get called out on it.

You can't ask questions and simply ignore the answers, and it's painfully clear that you do ignore them, especially given this last post of yours. I'm going to address a few things here, and you can either explain the parts that make no sense or you can simply leave them as nonsense. You're trying to win this debate intellectually, so you shouldn't be surprised when someone rightfully questions your intellect.

I watched parts of your videos and heard the exact same language about the exact same thing you've repeated about 80 times in this thread. My beliefs remain unchanged, but not because I am "unwilling" to hear other sides to the debate. I'm simply not persuaded. And no, I've never been to Australia.

I don't want anything other than you to think for yourself instead of getting your marching orders from a book of fairy tales...as I've said before, you are almost as big an atheist as I am, except that you simply believe in one god more than I do.

One little sentence, two big errors.

First, while it may be true that some Christians don't prefer to think for themselves (as is probably also true for some atheists or believers of other faiths), the vast majority of Christians think for themselves just fine. It's pretty absurd of you to assume otherwise, really. I mean, I know you seem to believe that the only path to Christ is "getting marching orders from a book of fairy tales"" -- in fact, I'm sure you believe that with all your heart. But Felix, you could not be more wrong. Having observed your tendency to ignore replies that contradict your system of beliefs, I doubt that will sink in. That doesn't make it any less true.

Second, and we've gone over this already, though you obviously chose not to read my reply: I am not any kind of atheist, let alone "almost as big an atheist" as you are. I posted the definition of atheist. You either didn't read it, or you're so mind-numbingly arrogant that you think Webster's had it wrong.

quite to the contrary, I'm simply asking you to explain to me why you put so much credence into this one solitiary book.....here's a question that I ask a lot of my religious friends, and almost everyone of them always answers it the same way...lets see if you do....

I wonder if you use the same disrespectful language when you ask your "religious friends" these questions that you so love to use in this forum...

let's suppose that you had never heard of the bible before now, hadn't been raised to believe in it, hadn't ever been exposed to it, nothing no sort of contact with it whatsoever...then one day you stroll into a book store, see a copy of it and start reading it....do you honestly think that you would say to yourself "Yep, this is the book I'm going to base all of my beliefs on"....be honest

Honestly? I hope so. My life is 100% more fulfilling, joyful, and satisfying now than it was when I was too busy (and thought I had no need) for Scripture. Your question is impossible to answer with certainty, but you really like those kinds of questions, so I suppose you'll keep asking. It's also not relevant to what I believe now. Contrary to what you may believe, I've heard all sides to this debate. I still choose to believe the way I do. In fact, I believe it now more than ever.

see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about here....the article I posted gave specific examples of trees that have been dated to a much older date than what the chronology of the bible indicates it should be, and instead you simply skip over all of it to find that the oldest living thing is a bristlecone pine that dates to about 4,500 years, which alledgedly matches the chronology of the bible...

This is one of those examples of you failing intellectually.

You asked how old I think the universe is, and I said I don't know... because I don't. The Bible doesn't say how old the universe is. I also said that vegetation existed before the flood, so the article you posted (that you didn't understand...) proves nothing. I never said I didn't believe the chronology of the Bible. Clearly you've been too dense to understand the fact that the chronology of the universe is not present in the Bible. It's been mentioned in this thread several times. But that doesn't mesh with one of your precious arguments, so you've ignored it. No real surprise there...

once again, I'm not trying to disprove god, I'm simply relaying why I don't believe in the fairy tales and mythology of the bible.

This makes no sense.

I'm fairly certain that the Bible never promises the earth to be any certain percentage habitable by man.

It's a weird complaint, anyway. As an atheist who believes in evolution, you must believe that the earth was exactly as it needed to be for life to form, and for it to support that life all the way to when you think man first appeared. Your argument proves nothing about nothing.

in order for me to "blame" someone-something, it would be necessary for me to believe that someone-something exists

You'd think, wouldn't you...

but you see it doesn't make me a bad person because I don't believe what you do, and your belief in something I don't doesn't make you a bad person either, it just means we have differences of opinion, and that's what this discussion should have been about, those differences....

Sure, except you had to go and react like a child about the fact that Christians (GASP) think they're right. Grow up, Felix.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:38 pm

ppanther wrote:
which questions have I failed to respond to...point them out and I'll respond as quickly and as thoughtfully as I can

My beliefs remain unchanged
good for you...it takes a special kind of person to hold on to their beliefs in the face of scientific evidence that pretty much kicks those beliefs to the curb...

First, while it may be true that some Christians don't prefer to think for themselves (as is probably also true for some atheists or believers of other faiths), the vast majority of Christians think for themselves just fine.

really? I have yet to meet one-honestly.

Sure, except you had to go and react like a child about the fact that Christians (GASP) think they're right. Grow up, Felix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0B-X9LJjs

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:11 pm

Felix, I'm sure you've met plenty of Christians who think for themselves. You simply refuse to accept it. I don't know what makes you think you're capable of having a rational discussion about any kind of religion. You lack the fundamental respect necessary to hold up your side of the debate.

Sad.

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:26 pm

By the way, Felix, I just watched that last video to which you linked.

I remain unpersuaded. I am, however, fascinated by how much faith you place in that man's opinions. (And that is just what he called them -- opinions.)

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:53 pm

ppanther wrote:Felix, I'm sure you've met plenty of Christians who think for themselves.

sure, chrisitians are pefectly capable of thinking for themselves, just not when it comes to chritianity

You simply refuse to accept it. I don't know what makes you think you're capable of having a rational discussion about any kind of religion.

I don't accept what, that when it comes to religion that they don't think for themselves? They don't. THey're told what to believe, when to believe it, etc. etc. An example of this is christian apologetics, the type that try and justify the attrocities put forth in the bible....do you believe in genocide? Of course not, but have you ever said one word in disgust at the various genocides carried out in god's name...e.g. the Passover incident described in Exodus chapters 11 and 12, in which all of the firstborn of all Egypt were slaughtered, including newborns, children, youths, adults, the elderly -- both human and animal. (god had a real penchant for killing animals), the conquest of Canaan, where God ordered the Hebrews to completely exterminate the Canaanite people. The extermination of almost all of the tribe of Benjamin by the remaining 11 tribes. How about the Israelites obliteration of the Amalekites in which they in turn enslaved all of the Amalekite women....have you condemned any of these actions, or do you just accept them because they were god's will.....if it's the latter, there is a perfect example of not thinking for yourself, because I find it hard to believe that you would endorse genocide

You lack the fundamental respect necessary to hold up your side of the debate.

what the fuck is this supposed to mean....I despise religion and because you're religious you're taking it personally....don't take what I say personally, it has nothing to do with a lack of respect for you and everything to do with my distaste for religions in general..

ppanther wrote:By the way, Felix, I just watched that last video to which you linked.

you did, the whole hour and seven minutes of it?

I remain unpersuaded. I am, however, fascinated by how much faith you place in that man's opinions. (And that is just what he called them -- opinions.)

I'm not trying to persude you, I'm trying to point out what my view of religion in general is...he's better suited at expressing it, but his views and mine are pretty closely aligned...yeah, you could say I'm a big fan of his.....but I also like Richard Dawkins as well, although less radical than Hitchens is, he's pretty much on par with my feelings as well..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMqTEfeqvmM

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:30 pm

Of course I don't endorse genocide. Don't be dense. I'm also not God, and neither are you.

I watched 20 minutes of the video. I actually gave it 10 minutes longer than I wanted to initially, because I was waiting for him to say something that was indisputable fact rather than opinion. I was waiting for some inerrant proof that what he was saying had any real meat behind it. If he came up with that proof later, well, someone should tell him to get to the good stuff a little quicker next time. I don't buy that DNA strings disprove creationism just because he says so. And while I do believe that non-religious people are capable of being morally decent, the fact that "morally decent" is defined by an ever-changing set of worldly morals can't be dismissed. I'm not just talking about rape and murder. I'm also intrigued by the fact that he didn't bother explaining the psychopaths and sociopaths who lack those morals. "More study is needed" means he has no explanation, and glosses past the fact that it's a gaping hole in his theory. Let me know if I missed anything important in the other 40 minutes... somehow, I'm doubting it.

What I find really interesting about this discussion is the fact that you haven't actually studied DNA yourself. Have you? What do you do for a living, Felix? Do you think you're a scientific expert because you took some required classes in college (if you went to college) and because you can read articles on the internet (with varying levels of understanding)? If that's your basis for expertise, you're no more an expert than I am. If you are simply accepting that someone else has decided that gene sequences disprove creation, and you are not an expert on why, then there are some things about which you do not think for yourself. Sorry, truth is truth.

As far as respect goes: don't worry, I haven't taken a single thing you've said personally. I don't feel any more like "sugar britches" than I did before this discussion began. I just don't see how you expect to be taken seriously when you show Christians, people who do nothing more than disagree with you about religious beliefs, such a complete lack of respect. Do you use the same disrespectful language with your "religious friends" that you do on this forum, before you're even remotely provoked? Do you honestly still not get that you can't think you're right without thinking someone who disagrees with you is wrong? Do you not see why that makes your earlier statement about Christians intensely hypocritical?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:04 pm

ppanther wrote: I watched 20 minutes of the video. I actually gave it 10 minutes longer than I wanted to initially, because I was waiting for him to say something that was indisputable fact rather than opinion. I was waiting for some inerrant proof that what he was saying had any real meat behind it.

wait, you're expecting somebody to disprove god?!?!?! Seriously, that's pretty funny, almost as funny as me asking somebody to prove that god exists....

If he came up with that proof later, well, someone should tell him to get to the good stuff a little quicker next time. I don't buy that DNA strings disprove creationism just because he says so.

it's not because he says so, it's because it's been proven with science via the mitrochondrial DNA I was talking about earlier...see, each and every strand of DNA has markers that can be traced...through the use of this tracing method, they've been able to determine that so far the first upright walking man (in this case a woman) came from the central plains of Africa....this isn't the stuff of science fiction, it's the stuff of science fact....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

And while I do believe that non-religious people are capable of being morally decent, the fact that "morally decent" is defined by an ever-changing set of worldly morals can't be dismissed.

seriously, when does something that is immoral become moral...morality doesn't change just peoples views of it....and it isn't heaven sent either..it's inherent in every species....morality is necessary for the survival of a species.....how would you explain that human groups (we're talking Congo and Amazonian type groups of people that have never heard of god don't kill, rape and murder each other?...how would you explaing that apes, lions, and other communal creatures, that have no concept or understanding of any god don't kill each other off in wild abandon? It's simple, they live together because they know that in order to survive, they must work together to propagate the species....this isn't supernatural, this is survial...

I'm not just talking about rape and murder. I'm also intrigued by the fact that he didn't bother explaining the psychopaths and sociopaths who lack those morals.

he did, you just didn't watch the video long enough

"More study is needed" means he has no explanation, and glosses past the fact that it's a gaping hole in his theory. Let me know if I missed anything important in the other 40 minutes... somehow, I'm doubting it.

sure, you missed his entire explanation about psycopaths, and sociopaths, you missed the entire question and answer period...he's expounding no "theories" here, he's just expressing why he believes religion has in general, had a negative impact on our species.....

What I find really interesting about this discussion is the fact that you haven't actually studied DNA yourself. Have you?

Have I observed it under a microscope-no, but I've read enough by people that have to have a pretty good understanding of it...what's your point?

What do you do for a living, Felix?

irrelevant to the discussion

Do you think you're a scientific expert because you took some required classes in college (if you went to college) and because you can read articles on the internet (with varying levels of understanding)?

where have I ever held myself out to be scientific expert? Science is a hobby of mine and yes, I have taken numerous scientific classes in college...that's where I first developed my interest in it....but I've never once held myself out to be an expert-what I did say is that I'm pretty confident that I probably know more about it than you do, but what's this got to do with anything....you've never once in any of your posts talked about anything remotely scientific, so I'm trying to figure out where your taking this....you're not going to bring up the tree ring thing again are you...look, I've already said I misread the thing.....what the fuck do you want me to do?

If that's your basis for expertise, you're no more an expert than I am. If you are simply accepting that someone else has decided that gene sequences disprove creation, and you are not an expert on why, then there are some things about which you do not think for yourself. Sorry, truth is truth.

It's not-like I say I took at least 6 science classes at a collegiate level, the last 4 because I wanted to take them...you seem to think that it's a single person that comes up with these scientific theories-it's not, its' thousands of people putting in years of study to formualte scientific theories.....science is a fascinating subject and since I graduated from college, I've made it a hobby of mine...I actually enjoy reading scientific journals (the horror)

As far as respect goes: don't worry, I haven't taken a single thing you've said personally. I don't feel any more like "sugar britches" than I did before this discussion began. I just don't see how you expect to be taken seriously when you show Christians, people who do nothing more than disagree with you about religious beliefs, such a complete lack of respect.

seriously, you whine about this more than anybody I've ever seen...this is a smack board fer keyrists sake...understand that the occasional "are you out of your fucking mind" or a "hey shit for brains" is going to weave it's way into the fabric of the discussion at some point....I take back the sugar britches comment and promise never to call you that again....would candy pants be better?

Do you use the same disrespectful language with your "religious friends" that you do on this forum, before you're even remotely provoked? Do you honestly still not get that you can't think you're right without thinking someone who disagrees with you is wrong? Do you not see why that makes your earlier statement about Christians intensely hypocritical?

sure I call them religious fucking nutbags all the time....I tell them their god is pretty much of a prick, and explain why....and the fact of the matter is that there is no "right or wrong" there is only what you believe....I can no more prove that god doesn't exist than you can that he does exist-see, these are beliefs, these aren't facts so there is no right or wrong, just beliefs....but lets get to the heart of the matter...what I want is for you to list all of the times I've been disrespectful to you on a FUCKING SMACK BOARD....maybe if we go line by line, I can dry your tears on each point.....

why does god go to SUCH GREAT LENGTHS TO HIDE HIS EXISTENCE FROM US?

ppanther · Post by **ppanther** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:11 pm

So then... you admit that there are some things you believe that you did not think up on your own?

So then... there are times when you haven't thought for yourself? About something you believe with enough conviction to come into a Theology forum and desperately plea for an argument?

And you admit you sometimes misread scientific articles? And you agree that it's possible that scientific journals are not inerrant (GASP)?

And you agree that you think you are right, and those who disagree with you are wrong? (Or are you trying to hedge on that one, and claim to believe you're right, but refuse to admit that means the people who disagree with you are wrong? Odd standpoint, but you've tried making it already, so...)

Yeah, "Good night Irene" indeed...

Edit to answer your edit...
Why would you presume to ask a question of a human that only God could answer? Aside from the answer you won't accept, which is that I believe He is not totally hidden from us. You really just don't want to see it. And please don't have a conniption when you reply to that.