Dinosaurs went extinct 5000 years ago, idiot!

johnsoninca: Dinosaurs went extinct 5000 years ago, idiot!

Not if Jesus was riding them 2,000 years ago ;)

Very cool. We had a thread about this when they announced the plans for putting the Sinaiticus online, been waiting to see this in the news again.

Wiki has a decent preliminary, with some solid notes on the textual variances within this copy. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this copy does not include the resurrection of Christ in Mark 16.

(Quick search confirms).

ninjakirby: Very cool. We had a thread about this when they announced the plans for putting the Sinaiticus online, been waiting to see this in the news again.

Wiki has a decent preliminary, with some solid notes on the textual variances within this copy. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this copy does not include the resurrection of Christ in Mark 16.

(Quick search confirms).

It looks they they said Jesus got risen there..

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

There is nothing further about the resurrection in the current form of Mark

ninjakirby: Very cool. We had a thread about this when they announced the plans for putting the Sinaiticus online, been waiting to see this in the news again.

Wiki has a decent preliminary, with some solid notes on the textual variances within this copy. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this copy does not include the resurrection of Christ in Mark 16.

(Quick search confirms).

Well... an abbreviated version, compared to the usual ones we know. But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

That's a resurrection, or at least news of one. Even if the women didn't say anything about it. And the other three gospel stories are intact anyway, as are the accounts in Acts and Corinthians.

Ha ha, your book is written in scriptio continua.


It's true, it is.

Benevolent Misanthrope: That's a resurrection, or at least news of one. Even if the women didn't say anything about it. And the other three gospel stories are intact anyway, as are the accounts in Acts and Corinthians.

Yeah, but Mark is generally considered the earliest source; that the account of 16:9-19 isn't within this version or the Vaticanus is whats so interesting.

Seems to me the likely scenario would be one of a later scribe (c. ~400) coming across this mere allusion to a return of Christ in Galilee and comparing it to the other texts at his disposal which give an account (not necessarily the same account, but an account) of the resurrection, so he tosses in a few lines confirming that in Mark, and voila.

Wow this is pretty cool!

Con_Authority: Ha ha, your book is written in scriptio continua.


Welcome my friend to the script that never ends?

ninjakirby:

Seems to me the likely scenario would be one of a later scribe (c. ~400) coming across this mere allusion to a return of Christ in Galilee and comparing it to the other texts at his disposal which give an account (not necessarily the same account, but an account) of the resurrection, so he tosses in a few lines confirming that in Mark, and voila.

Can't be! We all know that the bible was inspired by God! There can't be any revisions! I mean, Jesus snuck back to earth and handed it to King James! So this Greek version must be a lie.

Jesus was English.

eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.

eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

The entire thing is ridiculous. I think it is comforting to have the glimmer of hope that they will live beyond death and that is how they can justify the stupidity.

I am fairly certain you could add walking jellyfish saviors and breakdancing burning bushes and they will still maintain that it is reasonable.

But, who are we to judge? We are enjoying life beyond the slavery. If they want to remain in the matrix, so be it.

Darth_Lukecash: When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

consider for a moment that there are a section of people on this planet that think god wants them to cut their peckers to please him.

not getting into the 'you should/you shoudn't', or wanting to turn down the turtleneck direction w/ the thread - just something that's always overloaded my creepymeter. any god that told you to hack anything else off would be automatically assumed goofy, but this is just accepted as normal.

Darth_Lukecash: Welcome my friend to the script that never ends?

*golf clap*

As an historical document, it is fascinating.

But it's still complete rubbish.

It's still bullshiat.

eyehate: eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

The entire thing is ridiculous. I think it is comforting to have the glimmer of hope that they will live beyond death and that is how they can justify the stupidity.

I am fairly certain you could add walking jellyfish saviors and breakdancing burning bushes and they will still maintain that it is reasonable.

But, who are we to judge? We are enjoying life beyond the slavery. If they want to remain in the matrix, so be it.

eqtworld
I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

Religion: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Soooo, can we get a fresh translation from this thing, with footnotes where words might have multiple connotations depending on usage?

Because we've been chained to the KJV for far too long, and all the mistakes and bad translations in that have really farked with a lot of christians. Need a more accurate version so they REALLY know what's an abomination and what's OK.

/turns out shrimp were OK all along
//but 70-acre church complexes complete with gyms and swimming pools... not so much

Darth_Lukecash: eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

think of it this way: they worship a zombie

DemonEater: Need a more accurate version so they REALLY know what's an abomination and what's OK.

There are many, the problem comes from them being ignored because they came from elitist intellectual types with fancy degrees rather than the resident head of a megachurch.

NeuroticRocker: think of it this way: they worship a zombie

Wow. When you put it that way, Christianity sounds a lot cooler than it actually is.

/braaaaaaiiiiiiiiiins

It's not the bible! The bible was written in the same language Jebus spoke....English!

Darth_Lukecash: eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

Maybe you'll prefer this description:



/hot

NeuroticRocker:
think of it this way: they worship a zombie

We had this argument a few of these threads ago, i think the consensus was that zombie was closest, but not perfect, and that a lot depended on what zombie movies you were basing the evaluation on. And also that we're a buch of farking nerds.

ninjakirby: Seems to me the likely scenario would be one of a later scribe...

Yep, that's pretty much the interpretation among biblical scholars as well as non-literalist Christians. Highly recommended: "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman (same guy that is quoted in the article).

Ultimately, it's not that different from following a modern news story about a celebrity death and finding that the details reported a week later are different from the details reported the day of the killing or the stories that emerge a year later. Heck, there are people today who are convinced that Elvis and Tupac are alive. Of course, these days we are "too sophisticated" to believe in people rising from the dead, so instead they have to convince themselves that they never died.

I'm a little disappointed - When I saw the headline, I was hoping for an elaborate illuminated text. Some of those are breathtaking works of art - but on reflection, I should have thought about the date - that's well before the "golden age" of text illumination.
Still, I'm sure it's a fascinating artifact if you're a biblical scholar or some such.

Awesome. This should keep my Greek-reading atheist ass busy for a long time.

eyehate: Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.



I like the way I read your post better.

/hotter than Godzilla's heat ray

I won't believe a word of it until Bevets tells me what quotes to read

Site offline. And the proto-bible is probably in some funny-looking foreign language anyway. It didn't occur to me to wonder about textual changes. I was wondering how many entire books were added or missing; this was during the editing process that resulted in the modern canon.

maddogdelta: It's not the bible! The bible was written in the same language Jebus spoke....English!

Everyone knows that Jesus speaks spanish.

kabloink: Everyone knows that Jesus speaks spanish.

I don't know about that... I just watched Jesus the other night ^{(^)}, I didn't talk to him...(but since he's from Puerto Rico...you may be right...

maddogdelta: kabloink: Everyone knows that Jesus speaks spanish.

I don't know about that... I just watched Jesus the other night (^), I didn't talk to him...(but since he's from Puerto Rico...you may be right...

I've always wondered about that. If Jesus was really Jewish, how come he has a Mexican first name?

I came here for pics of Jesus riding a dinosaur & have seen none so I guess I will have to add some.

ZAZ: this was during the editing process that resulted in the modern canon.

It was during one of the many cycles of editing. I think, around this time, is when they decided the Wisdom of Solomon was out because it was written in Greek but was an Old Testament book.

FTA: "[The Bible] should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God,"

Wait... wut?

rideSpecialized: FTA: "[The Bible] should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God,"

Wait... wut?

Yeah really...and there was me thinking it was the infallible word of god dictated by him personally...

/love the moving of the goalposts

CheeseEatingBulldog: /love the moving of the goalposts

In all fairness, there's a lot of variation in Christian thought on this subject. Only the most fundie of fundies deny the fact that the Bible is a historical document that has mutated over time.

rideSpecialized: FTA: "[The Bible] should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God decide which parts they find agreeable,"

Well considering the bulk of the bible belt in the US can barely speak, yet alone read and and write, proper English I don't think something written in Greek is going to do much for them. Maybe if they get Jeff Foxworthy to read the translation of it on an audio book and simulcast it during a NASCAR broadcast you might get somewhere with these people but until then we just have to endure the stupid.

Great... just exactly what we need... more bibles.

ninjakirby: Benevolent Misanthrope: That's a resurrection, or at least news of one. Even if the women didn't say anything about it. And the other three gospel stories are intact anyway, as are the accounts in Acts and Corinthians.

Yeah, but Mark is generally considered the earliest source; that the account of 16:9-19 isn't within this version or the Vaticanus is whats so interesting.

Seems to me the likely scenario would be one of a later scribe (c. ~400) coming across this mere allusion to a return of Christ in Galilee and comparing it to the other texts at his disposal which give an account (not necessarily the same account, but an account) of the resurrection, so he tosses in a few lines confirming that in Mark, and voila.

If you read with a critical eye, and have a decent sense of authorial "voice" you can spot all sorts of latter-day "additions" to a number of the gospels where Jesus' character and speech patterns radically shift for a few verses before shifting back to the original. Once you realize that most of these "breaks" just happen to neatly match up with raging doctrinal controversies of the Early church; It becomes obvious that some over-eager postulants wanted to settle matters by putting words in Jesus' mouth.

However, its is also clear when you read them, that Mark, Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke, were all writing based on some earlier oral or written source that focused less on the narrative of Jesus's life and more on his teachings. Where the three strongly agree, the likelihood of forgery is much lower.

t3knomanser: CheeseEatingBulldog: /love the moving of the goalposts

In all fairness, there's a lot of variation in Christian thought on this subject. Only the most fundie of fundies deny the fact that the Bible is a historical document that has mutated over time.

Actually, the most Hard-corps of the Fundies believe that the document mutated over time, but this was all Part of God's Plan to produce the final, authoritative and literally true version of the bible; Which is, of course the King James Version.

To these folks the English version of the KJV is literally true, and if you point out that a particular word had a different connotation in greek, Hebrew or Latin, they don't care because the only REAL bible is written in English

eyehate: Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.

Actually its really more Manichiest-Christ, unless you really want to blow your mind and read up on Mandeanism, which was a middle eastern mystery religion that very closely matched the practices that we ascribed to the Essene sect of Judaism and called their highest level initiates Nasoreans (enlightened teacher more or less). In their tradition both John the Baptist and Jesus were Nasoreans, but, here's the fun twist: John the Baptist was their most revered teacher and Jesus was reviled as basically their version of a Sith Lord who betrayed the order and turned to the dark side.

Magorn: However, its is also clear when you read them, that Mark, Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke, were all writing based on some earlier oral or written source that focused less on the narrative of Jesus's life and more on his teachings.

That would be the hypothetical Q, correct?


Not this Q.

Magorn: the only REAL bible is written in English

And screw them non-English speakers. God is for Americans. Yes, you are correct. It's not so much that Fundies deny the historical nature of the document, they simply ignore it.

Magorn: It becomes obvious that some over-eager postulants wanted to settle matters by putting words in Jesus' mouth.

It becomes even more clear when you look at the Epistles. Some of those questionable edits are clearly added based on the content of those Epistles.

I tend to think of Jesus much like Socrates. Socrates probably existed, and probably said some mildly interesting things, but Plato fictionalized him to such an extent that the record and the reality are probably so divergent that one wouldn't even recognize them as having the same source.

t3knomanser: CheeseEatingBulldog: /love the moving of the goalposts

In all fairness, there's a lot of variation in Christian thought on this subject. Only the most fundie of fundies deny the fact that the Bible is a historical document that has mutated over time.

Oh right...so god is so perfect he couldn't dicatate what he meant in the first place...so when he said send all teh geys to hell, he actually meant that they are ok?

/move the posts any further and we can play aussie rules

CheeseEatingBulldog: Oh right...so god is so perfect he couldn't dicatate what he meant in the first place...so when he said send all teh geys to hell, he actually meant that they are ok?

Well, if you want to go that route, one could point out that if God were actually omnipotent and omniscient, there would have been no need to do the whole New Testament thing in the first place.

The dodge the religious use is "free will". Fallible humans received the infallible message, and corrupted it, or whatever.

The reality of the situation is that the Bible is so large, and so vague, and so open to interpretation that you can make it mean anything you want it to mean. It's like a horoscope or a tarot card.

The bible is not a book... it is a tool. It is used by the weak and willfully ignorant to exert control over even weaker and easily subjugated masses. They want them loyal, willing to give up their evergreen dollars into the donation bin, and fearful that any deviation from their "rules" results in their invisible friend being angry with them and denying them passage into "super happy fun good place". It doesn't matter what language it's written in or even who wrote it, every single version of these tools is designed for the sole purpose of using it to control others.

The really sad part is... if everyone who is all big into religion spent their time working to help their fellow man instead of praying, worshiping, and doing other religious crap, we would be a lot better off as a species. But they won't. They're all too busy looking down their noses at everyone who isn't a member of their exclusive club (church) and pretending they know something they don't to bother helping their fellow man just out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any goodness in their hearts).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but religion is a hindrance to the betterment of man and more bibles (written in any language) only increases the divides that already exist because of religion.

JohnnyC: The bible is not a book... it is a tool. It is used by the weak and willfully ignorant to exert control over even weaker and easily subjugated masses. They want them loyal, willing to give up their evergreen dollars into the donation bin, and fearful that any deviation from their "rules" results in their invisible friend being angry with them and denying them passage into "super happy fun good place". It doesn't matter what language it's written in or even who wrote it, every single version of these tools is designed for the sole purpose of using it to control others.

The really sad part is... if everyone who is all big into religion spent their time working to help their fellow man instead of praying, worshiping, and doing other religious crap, we would be a lot better off as a species. But they won't. They're all too busy looking down their noses at everyone who isn't a member of their exclusive club (church) and pretending they know something they don't to bother helping their fellow man just out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any goodness in their hearts).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but religion is a hindrance to the betterment of man and more bibles (written in any language) only increases the divides that already exist because of religion.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the bible is unlikely to make much difference, since governments can just switch over to threats about terrorists/paedophiles/climate change/communists &c in order to maintain control over people.

t3knomanser: CheeseEatingBulldog: Oh right...so god is so perfect he couldn't dicatate what he meant in the first place...so when he said send all teh geys to hell, he actually meant that they are ok?

Well, if you want to go that route, one could point out that if God were actually omnipotent and omniscient, there would have been no need to do the whole New Testament thing in the first place.

The dodge the religious use is "free will". Fallible humans received the infallible message, and corrupted it, or whatever.

The reality of the situation is that the Bible is so large, and so vague, and so open to interpretation that you can make it mean anything you want it to mean. It's like a horoscope or a tarot card.

Preaching to choir here, I was just being obtuse. If you go even further you would wonder why god didn't know that it would become corrupted and adjust the message and ionflux capicitors on level 2 to compensate for the corruption. All in all it is a christian manual on how to circle jerk.

ooh... let's get back to the wealth/camel/needle discussion where fundies claim that "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land and that god was really saying, "hells, yeah - get rich, you farkers! buy that escalade with 20s!!!"

FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

FlashHarry: ooh... let's get back to the wealth/camel/needle discussion where fundies claim that "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land and that god was really saying, "hells, yeah - get rich, you farkers! buy that escalade with 20s!!!"

They spinnin', they spinnin'!

Any rediscovered forms of shame in there I should know about?

t3knomanser: The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

"literal?" oops. forgot about that.

wait - can't i take the bible literally when it supports my colossal bigotry and sybaritic lifestyle and cherry pick/"interpret" when it doesn't?

PC LOAD LETTER: Awesome. This should keep my Greek-reading atheist ass busy for a long time.

I wish I read ancient Greek. I would start a translation wiki on this or something.
Someone needs to.

t3knomanser: I tend to think of Jesus much like Socrates. Socrates probably existed, and probably said some mildly interesting things, but Plato fictionalized him to such an extent that the record and the reality are probably so divergent that one wouldn't even recognize them as having the same source.

Kind of like getting your Sarah Palin news from Fark.

caret: Unfortunately, getting rid of the bible is unlikely to make much difference, since governments can just switch over to threats about terrorists/paedophiles/climate change/communists &c in order to maintain control over people.

They do that anyway... Fear as a control mechanism isn't going away, I understand that. The thing about religion is that the focus of the fear tactic isn't going to go away. It is every bit as intangible as everything else in religion... sadly an even more effective bogeyman than "terrorist", "pedophile", or "communist" since with religion it has no face.

Of course you also have to consider that most people in government have been fully indoctrinated with religious beliefs. It isn't too hard to figure out where they learned that you can control others with fear. Maybe instead they will learn that you can control with fear, but lead with hope. Maybe some in government already know that. Yeah, I know that's highly optimistic of me to even suggest that the methods we use to rally our nation be based on hope, joy, and cooperation (through compromise and tolerance of our individual ways of life), but oh well... I guess I'm a bit of an optimist. :)

Or I suppose we can keep on hating and killing each other over who's invisible sky friend is the best...

ReverendJasen: PC LOAD LETTER: Awesome. This should keep my Greek-reading atheist ass busy for a long time.

I wish I read ancient Greek. I would start a translation wiki on this or something.
Someone needs to.

The problem with Ancient Greek (actually this is Koine Greek, which is a bit of a different animal but not by a huge amount) is that you can translate this any number of ways, sometimes arriving at a FAR different sentence. The Bible has been translated with rose-colored glasses, so highly divergent alternate translations are dismissed as false because it invalidates the bible. Circular and all that. There are some parts of the NT that clearly make ZERO sense in Greek in the context of the rest of the NT, and, for me, are evidence that this originally came from Aramaic, which was either translated to Greek text-to-text or speech-to-text, by people who didn't know Greek very well (or possibly a poorly educated bunch of Greeks who didn't know Aramaic). The Aramaic leftovers in the oldest Syriac bibles (Syriac is effectively Aramaic) actually clear up many of the contradictions in Greek NT due to split words and other artifacts of language. Paul's writings (which are probably actually his own words) are great because he was pretty fluent in Greek. It's just that "I never knew Jesus, but I...uhhh...saw him in a vision! Yeah, that's it! So trust me and follow everything I say" bit kinda muddies the pool of knowledge about that minor Doomsday Essene Rabbi Jesus and his small, but cult-like following.

Ancient Greek (and to a somewhat lesser extent Koine) is some hard-assed shiat. It is one of the most complicated and vague languages out there, with much being inferred by context. With accents and such, it's hard enough, but keep in mind that the Codex and most writings until later had no spaces, were all caps and had no accents, breathing marks or punctuation. So when (minus accents) there are about 4 different words that can come out of the same 3 letters (which happen to be the ending to a verbal or adjectival form), this is really REALLY a mess to translate. And that's not even including implied words that are occasionally missing from texts either by colloquialism, idiom or mistake.

Still, I am 37, and I am learning Attic Greek on my own. It's a big commitment, and my memory sucks these days, but I am to the point where I have on very rare occasion disagreed with my textbook's translation of something and have been proven right by checking other translations of the same passage. "Take that, Bainbridge Scholars!"

t3knomanser: CheeseEatingBulldog: /love the moving of the goalposts

In all fairness, there's a lot of variation in Christian thought on this subject. Only the most fundie of fundies deny the fact that the Bible is a historical document that has mutated over time.

Even the Bible doesn't consider the Bible to be inerrant. Go read Matthew, who misquotes liberally (in both senses) from Old Testament... then follow the notes to what the OT actually says. It's a fun game to play with Bible literalists.

ReverendJasen: I wish I read ancient Greek. I would start a translation wiki on this or something.
Someone needs to.

CodexSinaiticus.com

The pages of the manuscript are all online, replete with a side-bar interpretation and a great deal of other information.

t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

So the Escalade is still out then?

Apparently this version is one of the very rare versions that include the first page it reads:


"To my darling candy

All people and places within this book are works of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or deceased is purely coincidental and completely unintentional."

meat0918: nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

So the Escalade is still out then?

I think it's ok if there's a Jesus fish on the back.

nesler: Not this Q.

More in character for this one:

JohnnyC: The bible is not a book... it is a tool. It is used by the weak and willfully ignorant to exert control over even weaker and easily subjugated masses. They want them loyal, willing to give up their evergreen dollars into the donation bin, and fearful that any deviation from their "rules" results in their invisible friend being angry with them and denying them passage into "super happy fun good place". It doesn't matter what language it's written in or even who wrote it, every single version of these tools is designed for the sole purpose of using it to control others.

The really sad part is... if everyone who is all big into religion spent their time working to help their fellow man instead of praying, worshiping, and doing other religious crap, we would be a lot better off as a species. But they won't. They're all too busy looking down their noses at everyone who isn't a member of their exclusive club (church) and pretending they know something they don't to bother helping their fellow man just out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any goodness in their hearts).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but religion is a hindrance to the betterment of man and more bibles (written in any language) only increases the divides that already exist because of religion.

0/10

JohnnyC: The bible is not a book... it is a tool. It is used by the weak and willfully ignorant to exert control over even weaker and easily subjugated masses. They want them loyal, willing to give up their evergreen dollars into the donation bin, and fearful that any deviation from their "rules" results in their invisible friend being angry with them and denying them passage into "super happy fun good place". It doesn't matter what language it's written in or even who wrote it, every single version of these tools is designed for the sole purpose of using it to control others.

The really sad part is... if everyone who is all big into religion spent their time working to help their fellow man instead of praying, worshiping, and doing other religious crap, we would be a lot better off as a species. But they won't. They're all too busy looking down their noses at everyone who isn't a member of their exclusive club (church) and pretending they know something they don't to bother helping their fellow man just out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any goodness in their hearts).

Not to put too fine a point on it,

I got up to this point and then TMBG began singing in my head. Just as repetitive as the Persecution complex vs. Atheist religion fixation arguments but a little more peppy and joyful.

nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

It's pretty literal in Greek: It is easier for a camel to come through the aperture of a needle than a rich person (male) to go into the kindgom of God.

"come through" could be "go through" as well.

skyrous: Apparently this version is one of the very rare versions that include the first page it reads:


"To my darling candy

All people and places within this book are works of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or deceased is purely coincidental and completely unintentional."


"Groovy funky channel 27!"

Wow.

Careful, Fark atheists. Masturbation this intense could cause your wangs to catch fire.

Hey I found a copy of it:

Son of Thunder: Wow.

Careful, Fark atheists. Masturbation this intense could cause your wangs to catch fire.

I'd think anything that could give Christians a more accurate and complete representation of their God would be welcomed. This is what, one of the earliest known copies of the Bible?

//What do you mean parts of the life of Jesus were sacrificed to the gods of ecumenical politics?

meat0918: I'd think anything that could give Christians a more accurate and complete representation of their God would be welcomed.

Except that means their current representation isn't as accurate as possible, and that simply could not be the case. Faith.

I like old edition of bibles, because I like to know the proper ways to treat my slaves like god tells me.

It's all Greek to me!

Try the fish and tip your waitress!

heap: Darth_Lukecash: When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

consider for a moment that there are a section of people on this planet that think god wants them to cut their peckers to please him.

not getting into the 'you should/you shoudn't', or wanting to turn down the turtleneck direction w/ the thread - just something that's always overloaded my creepymeter. any god that told you to hack anything else off would be automatically assumed goofy, but this is just accepted as normal.

...and anyone who didn't hack off part of their genitals was idol-worshipping scum whom you could lie to, cheat, steal from, rape their women, enslave -- all with the blessing of god. More than that: it was a directive from god to do so.

Corvus: I like old edition of bibles, because I like to know the proper ways to treat my slaves like god tells me.

Don't forget how to treat your virgins and concubines! We shant omit these important details.

Skinkadink: We must protect the Christian megachurches!!

Otherwise hundreds of con-artist pastors will have to go back to ripping off old ladies at used car lots instead.

Religion = The ultimate grift.

If I had less morals and ethics, I would start my own "non-denominational" ministry, and attempt to rake in the bucks.

//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.
///Sorry for the threadjack...

Magorn: eyehate: Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.

Actually its really more Manichiest-Christ, unless you really want to blow your mind and read up on Mandeanism, which was a middle eastern mystery religion that very closely matched the practices that we ascribed to the Essene sect of Judaism and called their highest level initiates Nasoreans (enlightened teacher more or less). In their tradition both John the Baptist and Jesus were Nasoreans, but, here's the fun twist: John the Baptist was their most revered teacher and Jesus was reviled as basically their version of a Sith Lord who betrayed the order and turned to the dark side.


Interesting. But how could a man of peace (except when overturning merchants tables) be a Sith Lord? How did Jesus betray the order?


And to eyehate: why did Mithrains (Mithrites?) have such an obsession with Persians? Weren't persians considered pants-wearing feys, or was that just the greeks who had issues with them? and why would military dudes (brawn) be drawn to astrology (the inevitible/fate) instead of making one's own luck (brains)? or was there more to it than that?

meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

i did not know that. thank you, meat0918. but i also think i'm misunderstanding: why would atheists care?

there is no god/oversoul, therefore there is no mystical joining of two souls into one. it is just a legal contract. throw an 'Happy Contract' or 'Happy Civil Union' party. but leave the non-civil officiating and mumbo jumbo to the agnostics and theists.


why would athiests want to be an officiant? to 'marry' others?

meat0918: Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants?

Not exactly true. You can become ordained here (new window). Becoming ordained does not require you to have a belief in any god.

/my wife and I were married by an ordained minister of the Church of the Subgenius.

themirth: I got up to this point and then TMBG began singing in my head.

Haha... did they put a little birdhouse in your soul?

Bestbank Tiger: 0/10

Post you don't agree with ≠ troll

ExperianScaresCthulhu: meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

i did not know that. thank you, meat0918. but i also think i'm misunderstanding: why would atheists care?

there is no god/oversoul, therefore there is no mystical joining of two souls into one. it is just a legal contract. throw an 'Happy Contract' or 'Happy Civil Union' party. but leave the non-civil officiating and mumbo jumbo to the agnostics and theists.


why would athiests want to be an officiant? to 'marry' others?


I can think of a few reasons, most of which I would attribute to cultural carry overs.

There is not enough room at the courthouse to have all their friends witness it for one.

It is still special to some people, even if there isn't the whole spiritual part of it. You are attempting to spend the rest of your only life with this one person. Maybe you are doing it just for the tax benefits, but I doubt it.

The courthouse is also very impersonal.

Just a few reasons

JohnnyC: meat0918: Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants?

Not exactly true. You can become ordained here (new window). Becoming ordained does not require you to have a belief in any god.

/my wife and I were married by an ordained minister of the Church of the Subgenius.

My wife is now a Reverend of the Church of Universal Life. It was free. It's a farcical church imho, but the government is in no position to say what makes a church. They should probably be in no position to say what makes a minister either, but you need a recommendation from your congregation to become a marriage officiant in Oregon.

//She was upset that they didn't list the titles before she chose reverend. Goddess was available, as well as imam, rabbi, and druid.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: there is no god/oversoul, therefore there is no mystical joining of two souls into one. it is just a legal contract. throw an 'Happy Contract' or 'Happy Civil Union' party. but leave the non-civil officiating and mumbo jumbo to the agnostics and theists.

Well... even despite a lack of belief in a god, having a type of ceremony is often desired if for no other reason than for the individuals to make vows to each other in front of family and friends. For some people the whole "god" thing can easily be taken out of the equation and still have a marriage ceremony even if it is completely non-traditional. Also keep in mind that "marriage" is not a Christian exclusive event. Most cultures (even non so religious ones) have marriage ceremonies of some sort.

Con_Authority: Ha ha, your book is written in scriptio continua.


It's true, it is.

hahayourbookiswritt
eninscriptiocontin
uaifixedthatforyou

meat0918: My wife is now a Reverend of the Church of Universal Life. It was free. It's a farcical church imho, but the government is in no position to say what makes a church. They should probably be in no position to say what makes a minister either, but you need a recommendation from your congregation to become a marriage officiant in Oregon.

Cool! I'll look into that. Maybe I'll get ordained just for the fun of it. :D

that site is slow as shiaaat! I think i could master ancient hebrew before it loads.

meat0918: Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants?

That varies by state. In NYS, for example, you have to become a celebrant, but that can be achieved without being a minister of a church (and being a minister does not guarantee you celebrant status).

ExperianScaresCthulhu: why would athiests want to be an officiant? to 'marry' others?

Most states don't recognize a marriage unless a licensed officiant oversaw it and files the right paperwork. Yes, you could go to a JP, but then you don't get to throw a nice party and have a little ceremony like a regular wedding.

There's nothing religious about a graduation from public school, but people like a little pomp and circumstance anyway.

JohnnyC: Cool! I'll look into that. Maybe I'll get ordained just for the fun of it. :D

I got a ULC ordination in college. These days, very few states recognize an ordination itself, and require that you pass certain state requirements to perform things like marriages.

t3knomanser: I got a ULC ordination in college. These days, very few states recognize an ordination itself, and require that you pass certain state requirements to perform things like marriages.

Yeah... there's a couple of hoops I'd have to jump through here in Michigan (including a $20 fee). :)

t3knomanser: There's nothing religious about a graduation from public school, but people like a little pomp and circumstance anyway.

Exactly.

PC LOAD LETTER: nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

It's pretty literal in Greek: It is easier for a camel to come through the aperture of a needle than a rich person (male) to go into the kindgom of God.

Lets not forget the fact that this 'gates of heaven' people had to physically traverse through is complete bullshiat and no such area exists now or then.

meat0918: If I had less morals and ethics, I would start my own "non-denominational" ministry, and attempt to rake in the bucks.

//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

That's not true. I know atheists that a are member of the Universal life church who have married people.

And what do you mean "non-denominational"?

Are you aware there is such thing as "secular churches?"

Besides if you think atheists are all looking for a church to go to you really misunderstand what atheism about.

People who don't like football don't gather around on Sundays to talk about not watching football.

You kind of miss the whole point.

Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

esoteric.saudade: Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism?

Because atheism doesn't make indefensible claims about the world? Because, generally, when people demand evidence before they believe something, we consider it a positive trait, whereas believing something because you're supposed to is called "gullibility"? Because atheists weren't and aren't using their beliefs to justify slavery, racism, and all sorts of other forms of bigotry? Because atheists don't spam the airwaves with their, "For a small donation, your immortal soul can be saved!" scams? Because atheists don't run around telling people they're going to hell because they don't obey arcane rules in a specific way?

Seriously, what is there to ridicule in this stance: "There likely is no god, simply because there's no evidence to support that claim"? Not exactly a comedy gold mine. On the other hand, "We chop flesh off of people's dicks because god tells us to," is comedy gold. Mystical cannibalism is comedy gold.

I could go on. People bash religion because religion stands up, asking to get bashed. No one is entitled to their beliefs. Just because something is a deeply held belief does not protect it from ridicule. In fact, deeply held beliefs should be ridiculed. If your beliefs can't withstand ridicule, maybe they're not good things to believe in.

The reality is people mock religion because religion is ridiculous, and ridiculous things should be mocked.

t3knomanser: The reality is people mock religion because religion is ridiculous, and ridiculous things should be mocked.

Sums up religious threads on Fark.

Corvus: meat0918: If I had less morals and ethics, I would start my own "non-denominational" ministry, and attempt to rake in the bucks.

//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

That's not true. I know atheists that a are member of the Universal life church who have married people.

I should have qualified that with in Oregon. And my wife is now a member of that church so she can marry some friends of ours.

Corvus:And what do you mean "non-denominational"?

I mean one of the ways to bilk people out of money is by having a non-denominational Christian church. The kind that the "I'm spiritual, but not religious" Christians go too.

Corvus:Are you aware there is such thing as "secular churches?"

Besides if you think atheists are all looking for a church to go to you really misunderstand what atheism about.

People who don't like football don't gather around on Sundays to talk about not watching football.

You kind of miss the whole point.

I implied you had to be a religious minister according to the law (in Oregon). Secular is kind of the antithetical to religious.

And I don't have discussions about how awesome it is to not believe in god with my atheist friends. We talk about our kids, our favorite local beer, or how the economy is going.

I do get drawn into discussions with my family about why I am wrong, and why they think it is awesome to believe in god, and how I am scarring my children by not "educating" them about Jesus; despite the fact that we do educate them about what others believe in this world, we just don't add the "and you will burn for all eternity without mommy and daddy if you don't believe this" part.

esoteric.saudade: Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

Partly my fault, sorry.

However, pointing out that their are inconsistencies in the Bible is not religious bashing. Pointing out that many take it literally some of the time, and conveniently have a different interpretation when it suits them is not religion bashing.

//And we like our fundie strawmen around here TYVM.

esoteric.saudade: Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

I don't mock other religions, I mock people who use religion to push a political agenda and people who have no knowledge about their religion they say they follow.

People like "Christians" who seem to only follow the old testament.

And don't understand the "don't have gay sex" books also say things like you can't eat shell fish, or that you should stone women who marry who are not virgins.

See?

esoteric.saudade: Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

The reason why people pick on Christians is that it is the most repressive religion in the United States.

I am not saying that's a fault of "Christianity" it's the fault of the people who use Christianity as a tool for their political purposes.

Many Christians don't believe in forcing their religious beliefs on others, but the problems is many Christians in America do and the good ones get wrongly blamed for what the bad ones do.

Just like all Muslims get blamed for what a very tiny percentage of what bad Muslims do.

You only notice the a-holes.

Corvus: You only notice the a-holes.

Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist...

esoteric.saudade: Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

welcome to Fark

meat0918: although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist...

....trying to resist obvious joke....

/gere
//gerbil

esoteric.saudade: Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism?

Atheism is simple... it's a lack of belief in any sort of god/invisible man/woman/whatever that made the world. What could you belittle them for? Not believing that there is an invisible sky god thing that made all of us? Well... feel free. I really don't mind.

As to why some of us resent Christianity in particular, well here are a few of the reasons I don't like Christianity:

Christians have this nasty tendency to try and dictate to everyone what they can and can't do based on rules for their religion. At times in my life I have been both physically and verbally assaulted by Christians simply because I didn't believe what they believe. I also get sick and tired of their fear mongering...

Fear mongering? How can I say that? Well... Christianity operates under a system that promotes fear of punishment. If you do not follow their rules, you're told you will suffer and burn for eternity. If you do not follow their path, they believe you can not be a good person. Neither of which is true. One does not need rules dictated by religious men to be a good person (although Christians claim that their rules were passed down by a god, they actually wrote these rules themselves and continue to make up new ones as they go along). Individuals are plenty capable of being good people without any religious belief at all. Yet Christianity claims otherwise and is more than happy to point the finger at anyone who doesn't subscribe to their club and persecute them for it or at the very least try to instill a sense of fear in them ("You're going to burn in hell!")...

Also consider how many wars have been fought over religion and in particular Christianity. How many people disposed from their homes because some Christian decided that some particular chunk of land is "holy" and belongs to them? How many gay kids ostracized by their families because religion tells them there is something wrong with their sexual preference? How many young girls are ostracized by their family because they got pregnant out of wedlock? How many people tortured in the name of your religion? How many people killed in the name of your religion? Too many... that's how many.

We put up with their pushy billboards, their fear mongering, their wars, their murderers, their bullies, their attempts to dictate laws based on their religion, their condemnations, their bigotry, their hate speech, their racism, and all the other crap Christians pull. Yet somehow you think a bit of contempt for religion and Christianity in particular is unwarranted... THAT is truly sad.

Seriously... let me know when your invisible sky god friend is going to come down and personally apologize for all the shiat he has "told" and "allowed" his followers to do for the last couple thousand years. Of course, finding "Him" might be a bit difficult outside of your own imagination. And if that ever does happen I'll happily apologize for doubting your faith.

nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

The way my old pastor told it, the gate was the only night-time gate open, therefore extremely narrow and short, designed to allow only one person at a time through. SO the only way a camel could go through was by removing all of its burdens (possessions) and crawling on its knees (praying).

So a rich man would have to give up everything and become humble and THEN he could get to heaven.

meat0918: Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist..

One of the biggest assholes I've ever met was actually a (former) Buddhist monk.

nunoyo: I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

It's basically exactly what the text says, people just tend to try to rationalize it because it makes them uncomfortable. The whole "gate in Jerusalem" thing is utter bullshiat, there's no evidence a gate existed. The "mistranslation of the word for rope" is also crap. Passing a large animal (such as an elephant) through a needle is a Talmudic expression for "something that's really farking hard". So Jesus is most likely just appropriating an adage that existed at the time.

meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.
///Sorry for the threadjack...

You might want to look into that, sparky. What the requirements are for marriage officiants vary from state to state. In NY a judge can officiate and there is nothing that would preclude an atheist from being a judge.

roadmarks: meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.
///Sorry for the threadjack...

You might want to look into that, sparky. What the requirements are for marriage officiants vary from state to state. In NY a judge can officiate and there is nothing that would preclude an atheist from being a judge.

He's wrong. Judges, County Clerks, and Justices of the Peace can all perform weddings in Oregon.

attackingpencil: meat0918: Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist..

One of the biggest assholes I've ever met was actually a (former) Buddhist monk.

Yeah, I've met some asshole Buddhist nuns.

t3knomanser: attackingpencil: meat0918: Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist..

One of the biggest assholes I've ever met was actually a (former) Buddhist monk.

Yeah, I've met some asshole Buddhist nuns.

Wouldn't that be b*tchy? Men are assholes, women are b*tches and all?

/or is asshole a gender-neutral term, despite the way it's usually used?

meat0918: Son of Thunder: Wow.

Careful, Fark atheists. Masturbation this intense could cause your wangs to catch fire.

I'd think anything that could give Christians a more accurate and complete representation of their God would be welcomed. This is what, one of the earliest known copies of the Bible?

//What do you mean parts of the life of Jesus were sacrificed to the gods of ecumenical politics?

It is welcomed. I'm married to a pastor who is also working on her MA in theology, and her reaction to this news was enthusiastically positive. My comments were a reaction to the tone of this thread. Every religion thread at Fark brings out the haters, but this one seems a bit above and beyond to me. We're talking about an advancement in scholarly attention to a 1,600-year-old manuscript (as PC LOAL LETTER pointed out, a significantly good thing no matter what one's religious persuasion or lack thereof), but the early comments in this thread were disproportionately populated with Farkers going to great lengths to tell the world that all Christians are their intellectual and moral inferiors. At what point does one remove the stick from one's rectum and acknowledge the goodness of advancing historical research without using it as an excuse for posturing?

attackingpencil: roadmarks: meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.
///Sorry for the threadjack...

You might want to look into that, sparky. What the requirements are for marriage officiants vary from state to state. In NY a judge can officiate and there is nothing that would preclude an atheist from being a judge.

He's wrong. Judges, County Clerks, and Justices of the Peace can all perform weddings in Oregon.

Right, and nothing wrong with that. My point is all a religious person has to do is claim to be a minister. No election to go through, no interview process, just pop by the county office and get your legal ability to marry someone. I'd like to see an openly atheist person be elected to one of these positions to start.

It's a farce is what it is, given that all it takes to be ordained a minister is 5 minutes of your time online, regardless of what you believe.

eqtworld 2009-07-06 02:47:58 AM
I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

You lack of knowledge is apparent; there aren't many serious Christians that are NOT 'well aware' of the rather minor inconsistancies you want to trumpet.

What you gloss over are the consistancies - about 97% if I remember correctly.

Haters are everywhere; why don't you talk about Mohammed taking a nine year girl for a 'bride'?

meat0918: //Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

That depends on the state. In AK anyone can officiate a marriage as long as they notify the courthouse of the intent and get the little piece of paper that says, "You are a marriage commissioner."

mfaby: What you gloss over are the consistancies - about 97% if I remember correctly.

For the biblical literalists (there are a few around here) they deny (or more probably are ignorant of) that 3% of inconsistencies exist. To that subset of Christians, the Bible is infallible; even the contradictory parts. That is what we ridicule.

Corvus: And don't understand the "don't have gay sex" books also say things like you can't eat shell fish, or that you should stone women who marry who are not virgins.

And your wife and daughter should go sit in the menstruation tent and not touch/prepare food while they're bleeding.

And that whole easily identifiable part about not coveting things your neighbor has.

mfaby: You lack of knowledge is apparent; there aren't many serious Christians that are NOT 'well aware' of the rather minor inconsistancies you want to trumpet.

Actually, since close to 50% of the American population seems to believe in a 6000 year old divinely created earth, I am curious to know how many "serious" Christians you happen to know.

The reason why I point this out is that there are 2 different creation stories right on the first two pages of the bible, which means that 50% of the American population seems to be unaware of this fact.

What you gloss over are the consistancies - about 97% if I remember correctly.

Consistencies regarding...? Creation? The Flood? The 10 commandments? Jesus's Birth? Jesus's Death? Resurrection? All of those are very inconsistent between books, or sometimes within books.

Haters are everywhere; why don't you talk about Mohammed taking a nine year girl for a 'bride'?

When religion is criticized by atheists, the atheists usually criticize the religion they are most familiar with. Skeptics in India are being attacked because they go after Hinduism, when the Hindus think the skeptics should be attacking Christianity. Do you see how that works?

And please, most of us aren't haters. After all, we don't hate Santa, the Easter Bunny, pookas, leprechauns and God, all for the same reason.

maddogdelta: When religion is criticized by atheists, the atheists usually criticize the religion they are most familiar with

Uh, maybe in your stilted world. But in mine, we criticize the very IDEA of religion. It just so happens that most of the stupid shiat in this world is perpetrated by induhviduals closely associate with the major religious movements, but from my perspective, all religious movements suck and should just go away forever.

meat0918: Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist...

...though there are any number who claim to splash a little Buddhism into their Create-Your-Own-Philosophies...

Apparently they don't splash much of the contemplative, introspective sort. ;-)


t3knomanser: Yeah, I've met some asshole Buddhist nuns.

Are their nuns hot, too?


maddogdelta: And please, most of us aren't haters. After all, we don't hate Santa, the Easter Bunny, pookas, leprechauns and God, all for the same reason.

Speak for yourself. Leprechauns are annoying little pissants!

Close2TheEdge: maddogdelta: When religion is criticized by atheists, the atheists usually criticize the religion they are most familiar with

Uh, maybe in your stilted world. But in mine, we criticize the very IDEA of religion. It just so happens that most of the stupid shiat in this world is perpetrated by induhviduals closely associate with the major religious movements, but from my perspective, all religious movements suck and should just go away forever.

So, when someone challenges you on your stance, and asks you to name just 1 silly story that comes out of religion, you pick one of thousands from your incredibly encyclopedic memory? Or to you automatically grab, for example, the zombie who was his own dad story? My point is that if you read the previous statement, it was obviously a butt hurt Christian telling the atheists to go pick on someone else. My Hindu example actually comes from the December 2008 issue of the Austin Atheist ^{(^)}.

So, no, it's not just in my "stilted world". It's called human nature and reality. Get familiar with it.

Son of Thunder: At what point does one remove the stick from one's rectum and acknowledge the goodness of advancing historical research without using it as an excuse for posturing?

NEVAR! Don't you know all religions are evil and must the extinguished because it makes people dumb and stuff? And like... Less beer for Money or something something.

\Super Egoism Rocks!

PC LOAD LETTER: nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

It's pretty literal in Greek: It is easier for a camel to come through the aperture of a needle than a rich person (male) to go into the kindgom of God.

Except that the argument I'd heard was that the word used means 'camel', but was also a slang term for a boating line, a thick hempen rope. (remember he was hanging around with a lot of sailors at the time) In order to get it through a needle, you'd have to unravel it quite a bit - thus it conveys the same meaning as the other analogies, but (at least in my mind), much more elegantly. It's far easier to imagine unraveling a thick hemp rope down to a thread in order to get it through a needle than any of the other tortured camel analogies. I don't think it really matters which analogy you're using, though, as long as the correct message is conveyed (don't focus on earthly wealth).

Magorn: eyehate: Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.

Actually its really more Manichiest-Christ, unless you really want to blow your mind and read up on Mandeanism, which was a middle eastern mystery religion that very closely matched the practices that we ascribed to the Essene sect of Judaism and called their highest level initiates Nasoreans (enlightened teacher more or less). In their tradition both John the Baptist and Jesus were Nasoreans, but, here's the fun twist: John the Baptist was their most revered teacher and Jesus was reviled as basically their version of a Sith Lord who betrayed the order and turned to the dark side.

Eyehate and Magorn: Enclosed is 0 dollars, no SASE, and a request to be subscribed to your newsletters.

untaken_name: I don't think it really matters which analogy you're using, though, as long as the correct message is conveyed (don't focus on earthly wealth).

The only people I've heard these kinds of arguments from are well off people. Rev's Dollar and Tilton, the guys who try to tell you that god will make you rich, use it all the time. It sounds like the standard mealy mouthed way to use the bible to give you justification to do whatever you want (Calling Fred Phelps to the thread!) that all "people of faith" tend to do.

After all, if they really took their book seriously, they would sell all their possessions and beg for their dinners. ^{(^)}

t3knomanser: Because atheism doesn't make indefensible claims about the world?

such as:
-abiogenesis
-chemical evolution
-the big bang (self caused)
-common ancestry
-there is no God {----- you might wanna think about this one

t3knomanser: whereas believing something because you're supposed to without direct evidence is called "gullibility" faith?

FTFY

Also if you think you don't use faith, you shoulld review the previous comment...

t3knomanser: Because atheists weren't and aren't using their beliefs to justify slavery, racism, and all sorts of other forms of bigotry?

Atheists are such honorable and noble people who only contribute to the true Eutopian creation of society. Perhaps we should review some history to support your claim?

t3knomanser: People bash religion because religion stands up, asking to get bashed of their guilty conscience.

/and because strawmen are so easily defeated

FTFY

t3knomanser: The reality is people mock religion things they do not understand

FTFY

cthellis: Speak for yourself. Leprechauns are annoying little pissants!

That's why you need to hang out with pookas. They are much more pleasant.

I drunk what: t3knomanser: Because atheism doesn't make indefensible claims about the world?

such as:
-abiogenesis
-chemical evolution
-the big bang (self caused)
-common ancestry
-there is no God {----- you might wanna think about this one

You're so cute when you lie. Do you know that telling falsehoods will get you sent to hell? At least according to the book you claim to follow....

What's that? Oh, right, that is one of the icky parts you ignore. You have been shown documented, peer reviewed evidence which has been challenged and met the challenge of over 150 years of research for the first 4 points above. The fifth, you have been asked to present evidence for, and you have advanced absolutely none.

So, I would like you to answer this question. Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

maddogdelta: So, I would like you to answer this question. Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" - Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." - Phillip E. Johnson, Discovery Institute

They want a theocracy. They know it, we know it, so they are forced to lie about it in order to get the general population behind them.

maddogdelta: You're so cute when you lie.

do i look this cute :{ ?

/:{
//:{

maddogdelta: So, I would like you to answer this question. Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

what do ya mean "still" beat my wife?

maddogdelta: You have been shown documented, peer reviewed evidence which has been challenged and met the challenge of over 150 years of research for the first 4 points above.

should I just take your word for this statement or should I get a 2nd opinion?

maddogdelta: The fifth, you have been asked to present evidence for, and you have advanced absolutely none.

Link (new window)

And now some fun with out of context quotes by Mr. Johnson

"..fear freedom of thought because... that sets people free" - Phillip E. Johnson

maddogdelta: What's that? Oh, right, that is one of the icky parts you ignore. You have been shown documented, peer reviewed evidence which has been challenged and met the challenge of over 150 years of research for the first 4 points above. The fifth, you have been asked to present evidence for, and you have advanced absolutely none.

So, I would like you to answer this question. Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

not to piss on your parade mdd, but you want to know what else was "peer reviewed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories (pops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_scientific_theories (pops)

Personally, I think it's ridiculous for you and other atheists to compare various 2000+ yr old incomplete, translated, subsets of text intended in many cases to document history, or act as a parable to "science". But is that really all religion is to you? I know it is for "fundamentalists" But Seriously. Is that the farking best you've got?

And personally, I believe in evolution and science. But I understand that science doesn't disprove theism. And I accept that the concept of a transcendental "God" or "Diety" capable existing outside of physical reality and spacetime isn't a "threat" to rationality since we consistently show through science that we really don't have a complete understanding of "physical existence" much less reality.

My points are from a mathematical representation of existence and reality, and a cosmological perspective and the fact that I understand as recently self aware "talking meat", we're not at any kind of apex in terms of understanding reality, existence, the universe, or even causality. We just keep moving the bug questions or creating new ones.

If you've got issues with aspects of religion or religious dogma, fine knock your ass out. I probably have a lot of the same issues you do. But I also have issues with lame ass indoctrinated atheist rhetoric and dogma also and the similar types of bullshiat they play on the internet and elsewhere.

maddogdelta: Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

the same reason why atheists-"evolutionists" have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth...

They want an atheocracy. They know it, we know it, so they are forced to lie about it in order to get the general population behind them.

:{ :{ :{

I drunk what: should I just take your word for this statement or should I get a 2nd opinion?

You are really sounding like Ray Comfort. He gets told dozens of times with every blog post he makes, yet he still spouts the same crap daily.

You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the "My Fark" tab up there ^ and click on it. Go to almost every thread you have posted in, and you will find links to documentation, videos etc where people are trying to point out your misconceptions to you.

You will notice one common thread. You always seem to say "I'll check that out later" or something similar. And then, sometimes in the very next thread, you post your same misconception.

Which means that you are either lying about not having seen any evidence, or you are deliberately ignoring it and pretending it's not there.

I drunk what: maddogdelta: The fifth, you have been asked to present evidence for, and you have advanced absolutely none.

Link (new window)

Still waiting.

kerpal32: not to piss on your parade mdd, but you want to know what else was "peer reviewed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories (pops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_scientific_theories (pops)

Behold! Science at work!

//I don't know and you don't either, now lets go grab a beer. I'm buying the first round.

I drunk what: the same reason why atheists-"evolutionists" have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth...


Could you point out the lie then? For example, could you highlight the falsification in, say, the peer reviewed literature demonstrating through DNA evidence of common descent? Or, could you possibly point out the falsehood of the peer reviewed literature demonstrating natural selection?

Because there is something in it for you if you can. It's called the Nobel Prize. You show evolution is incorrect through repeatable experiment or observation and you get the prize, megabucks, fame, a prestigious university position, etc. It's there.

What is cool, is that plenty of biologists have gone for it. And they all failed. Since you are so sure that we are lying about any of the top four points you posted above, all you have to do is come up with the evidence, write your paper, and watch the prizes and the money roll in.

Are you up for it? We'll be watching.

kerpal32: I probably have a lot of the same issues you do.

such as? I'd really like to hear more of your religious views and less of why atheists are such willfully stupid hypocrites, I don't think there is really any more debate there

for example, are you a fan of ninjakirby's conspiracy theories? do you think most of his skepticism is justified?

perhaps none of us really have a clue and it would be better to play the "agnostic" card, and call it a day?

do you think any religion is even close? or that you just find little bits and pieces of this or that one that has any merit?'

would you care to share any constructive criticism in anything I've suggested or believe?

maddogdelta: You're so cute when you lie.

maddogdelta: Could you point out the lie then?

maddogdelta: Still waiting.

I drunk what: such as? I'd really like to hear more of your religious views and less of why atheists are such willfully stupid hypocrites, I don't think there is really any more debate there

for example, are you a fan of ninjakirby's conspiracy theories? do you think most of his skepticism is justified?

perhaps none of us really have a clue and it would be better to play the "agnostic" card, and call it a day?

do you think any religion is even close? or that you just find little bits and pieces of this or that one that has any merit?'

would you care to share any constructive criticism in anything I've suggested or believe?

The fanaticism and fundamentalist intolerance it propagates, bigotry, the tendency of people to focus on ritual and dogma, "missing the point" as St. Ignatius of Loyola and many sociologists/psychologists/neurobiologists since noted.

All of the same things you see with some atheists too. And I could go into the specifics of why. It's more to do with human nature than religion.

Does that answer the rest of your questions about certain other "Farkers"?

maddogdelta: You always seem to say "I'll check that out later" or something similar.

something like:

maddogdelta: Still waiting.

/oh and a small psych. side note, a dead giveaway of bias is using always/never when you are describing another person
//unfortunately you always have a bad attitude and will never figure this out...
/// :{

maddogdelta: Which means that you are either lying about not having seen any evidence, or you are deliberately ignoring it and pretending it's not there.



maddogdelta: You show evolution is incorrect through repeatable experiment or observation and you get the prize

perhaps I could start by providing the correct definition?

or maybe you'd just prefer to engage in

maddogdelta: For example, could you highlight the falsification in, say, the peer reviewed literature demonstrating through DNA evidence of common descent?

just so we're clear, I'm very comfortable with the idea that all dogs came from a dog-like thing, i suppose it's even theoretically possible that cats and dogs came from some catdog-like thing...though I think this is where the "science" starts getting a bit fuzzy, but more to the point I presume your claim of common ancestry is more along the lines of saying that hummingbirds, whales, geckos, pineapples, mushrooms, virus, bacteria and humans all share the same ancestor? ...a rock.

could you please provide the peer reviewed science that has proven this? I'll even settle for 98% sure...

I may need some time to respond, once you provide this material, so I can get a 2nd (professional) opinion from someone who knows what they are talking about...

:{

I drunk what: /oh and a small psych. side note,

Did you have a PE in psychology, now? I thought all fields of study were based on guesswork except for engineering.

Apparently, you are unaware what a logical fallacy is, because you can't properly recognize a false dichotomy. By pointing out that you have been presented with evidence which you have either read, or not, I am merely pointing out a binary statement. You either read the items you were presented, or you did not.

How is that a false dichotomy?

I drunk what: perhaps I could start by providing the correct definition?

All right then. You can present to the world the correct definition of evolution. We anxiously await your pronouncement.

I drunk what: just so we're clear, I'm very comfortable with the idea that all dogs came from a dog-like thing, i suppose it's even theoretically possible that cats and dogs came from some catdog-like thing...though I think this is where the "science" starts getting a bit fuzzy, but more to the point I presume your claim of common ancestry is more along the lines of saying that hummingbirds, whales, geckos, pineapples, mushrooms, virus, bacteria and humans all share the same ancestor? ...a rock.

Would you care to give me the name of the scientist who has made the claim that all life has descended from a rock? Because that would be cool, because we could, you know, verify your statement.

Allow me to, again, present a couple of videos. These are much shorter than anything you need to read, and all of the statements they make, if you wish, can be tested for their veracity. Keep in mind, they are only presenting the results of over 150 years of scientific research. If you wish to verify every statement they make, you are free to do so. But that is time consuming.

But, if you are going to state that what they say is a lie, then be prepared to defend your statement, because any scientifically minded person in this thread can probably find the evidence based research they have based their statements on.

First, is a person who has a username of aaronra. He has a whole series of videos entitled "__ Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" (replace __ with 1st through 15th). In the "Sixth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" he actually discusses the definition of the word "evolution", what evolution is, and what it isn't. Feel free to watch the whole series. The 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism actually discusses in more depth the fossil record and how we know what we know.

Here is potholer54, with his Theory of Evolution made easy. This one actually talks about other evidence, aside from the fossil record for evolution. You know, DNA, the stuff you will count on to prove your innocence if you are ever falsely accused of a crime.

I drunk what: I may need some time to respond, once you provide this material, so I can get a 2nd (professional) opinion from someone who knows what they are talking about...

Make sure you get a professional, not your preacher. Might I recommend a local college or university? Their biology department is very helpful.

I drunk what: ust so we're clear, I'm very comfortable with the idea that all dogs came from a dog-like thing, i suppose it's even theoretically possible that cats and dogs came from some catdog-like thing...though I think this is where the "science" starts getting a bit fuzzy, but more to the point I presume your claim of common ancestry is more along the lines of saying that hummingbirds, whales, geckos, pineapples, mushrooms, virus, bacteria and humans all share the same ancestor? ...a rock.

could you please provide the peer reviewed science that has proven this? I'll even settle for 98% sure...

And here is aaronra again, with his 10th foundational falsehood of creationism, going a little more in depth regarding classification of living things, and that dastardly atheist, Carl Linneaus, who first came up with the methods we use to classify living things.

I drunk what: could you please provide the peer reviewed science that has proven this? I'll even settle for 98% sure...

I may need some time to respond, once you provide this material, so I can get a 2nd (professional) opinion from someone who knows what they are talking about...

:{


And Arronra again, talking about speciation.

maddogdelta: Did you have a PE in psychology, now?

would a GED be sufficient? then again, does it really require one? this is middle-school stuff...

/did you have a PE in English, now?

maddogdelta: How is that a false dichotomy?

Look, I spelled it out for you. Either you are being willfully ignorant or you're lying about understanding it.

Here's what you actually said:

maddogdelta: You will notice one common thread. You always seem to say "I'll check that out later" or something similar. And then, sometimes in the very next thread, you post your same misconception.

Which means that you are either lying about not having seen any evidence, or you are deliberately ignoring it and pretending it's not there.

and here's the "clever" twist:

maddogdelta: You either read the items you were presented, or you did not.

/nk would be so proud
//keep practicing

Like I said, Either you understand it or you do not.

maddogdelta: All right then. You can present to the world the correct definition of evolution. We anxiously await your pronouncement.

Evolution - things change and can become different forms of things, but things cannot naturally become other things

now it's your turn

what is the definition of "thing" ?

/the burden is on you!!1!
//also what is "naturally"?...
///double burden on you11!1

maddogdelta: He has a whole series of videos entitled

I'll check that out later...since you know I can't watch vids (blocked by network) at work.

ZOMG!!1!11 ur a proffett

maddogdelta: You always seem to say "I'll check that out later" or something similar.

/*makes a note for next thread*
//*must post same misconception*

maddogdelta: You know, DNA, the stuff you will count on to prove your innocence if you are ever falsely accused of a crime.

You know, DNA, the same stuff that can be planted to frame you for a crime.

/Oh noess
//real life?!?
///i hope no humans are involved

I drunk what: Evolution - things change and can become different forms of things, but things cannot naturally become other things

now it's your turn

what is the definition of "thing" ?

1) You are the one who came up with the definition, you define your terms.

2) But if you insist on my definition:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Or...
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Both of these quotes were presented here ^{(^)}...

You see, here is the problem. When I want information on a specific topic, I usually look to someone who has a better chance of knowing about it than I do. That's why, when I have a question in biology, I ask a biologist, not a preacher.

You know, DNA, the same stuff that can be planted to frame you for a crime.

Which is why the supreme court just ruled that a defendant now can challenge the veracity of a lab report in court.

Although, planting DNA is a more difficult trick than, say, planting a firearm. Which is why your lawyer needs to be smart enough to attack the chain of evidence. However, if the chain of evidence is unassailable, then the DNA will be genuine, and the analysis of that DNA will demonstrate your innocence.

Isn't that good to know! All because evolution is real and works!

Unless, you want to tell the court that you don't believe in evolution.

/*makes a note for next thread*
//*must post same misconception*

**sigh**

Since I don't have every one of these threads bookmarked, I can't instantaneously point you to threads where you promised, cross your heart and hope to die, to look at evidence which was presented. I just don't have the link to them.

On the other hand there are farkers who have put you on ignore because you kept promising to look, then you didn't, then you kept posting the same ignorant twaddle. I made the assumption that perhaps you were a little more intelligent than they gave you credit for, if for no other reason that I have a certain amount of respect for people who can attain a Professional Engineering certification. I wish you wouldn't try so hard to prove me wrong.

On the other hand, I probably won't put you on ignore because creationist falsehoods must be countered, at every turn, simply so that people reading these threads don't get the wrong impression that creationists are somehow "right" if science doesn't reply.

happycatsigma: On the other hand, I probably won't put you on ignore because creationevolutionist falsehoods must be countered, at every turn, simply so that people reading these threads don't get the wrong impression that creationevolutionists are somehow "right" if science doesn't reply.

I see we have similar goals...

maddogdelta: On the other hand, I probably won't put you on ignore because creationist falsehoods must be countered, at every turn, simply so that people reading these threads don't get the wrong impression that creationists are somehow "right" if science doesn't reply.

You keep at it, because I know I'm tired of inane babble from idiot creationist trolls.

btw are you getting any of my jokes?

/is anyone getting them?
//i'm gunna be bummed if they are all missed

meat0918: You keep at it, because I know I'm tired of inane babble from idiot creationist trolls.

0/10

I drunk what: happycatsigma: On the other hand, I probably won't put you on ignore because creationevolutionist falsehoods must be countered, at every turn, simply so that people reading these threads don't get the wrong impression that creationevolutionists are somehow "right" if science doesn't reply.

I see we have similar goals...

I'm sure you are ready to elucidate "evolutionist falsehoods". I have already pointed you to videos elucidating 15 foundational falsehoods of creationism, in which every statement can be checked against current scientific research to determine whether the speaker is telling the truth or talking out of his butt.

Do you have a similar set of videos for creationism? Or at least videos which are not thoroughly debunked in series such as "Why do people laugh at creationists"? ^{(^)} (30 videos and counting)

maddogdelta: I'm sure you are ready to elucidate "evolutionist falsehoods". I have already pointed you to videos elucidating 15 foundational falsehoods of creationism, in which every statement can be checked against current scientific research to determine whether the speaker is telling the truth or talking out of his butt.

Do you have a similar set of videos for creationism? Or at least videos which are not thoroughly debunked in series such as "Why do people laugh at creationists"? (^) (30 videos and counting)

I only recently saw the banana as proof of god video... It was hard to watch, given the current yellowy goodness is the direct result of man's domestication and hybridization of the wild banana.

maddogdelta: I have already pointed you to videos

it is appreciated, and you know why

I will have a look at them

maddogdelta: Do you have a similar set of videos for creationism?

rather slim pickens, I concur

I wish you'd quit reminding how much this "side" drags their feet...

I also wish that whenever one does present some half-way intelligent stuff that they wouldn't also include all of their wharrgble with it

I think we got too many people trying to be Jack-of-all-trades?

meat0918: I only recently saw the banana as proof of god vide

You need to see the version done by theDarwinFinches. ^{(^)}..

maddogdelta: Since I don't have every one of these threads bookmarked, I can't instantaneously point you to threads where you promised, cross your heart and hope to die, to look at evidence which was presented. I just don't have the link to them.

Here's a sampling. I have him muted so I can't see the garble, but a quick scan of three or four clicks showed numerous examples of people such as myself going through the efforts

He's simply a very dumb person, and he's proud of that fact. Not much more to say really.

maddogdelta: Allow me to, again, present a couple of videos.

very informative, logical and reasonable

/i watched all of them
//and skimmed over your page of text

yes the banana bit is solid evidence that we are way behind in the argument department

/ditto for crocoducks

I'm formulating a new theory that I know neither side is going to like, but I'll share it anyway... soon

maybe next thread, maybe this one (if still open)

ninjakirby: maddogdelta: Since I don't have every one of these threads bookmarked, I can't instantaneously point you to threads where you promised, cross your heart and hope to die, to look at evidence which was presented. I just don't have the link to them.

Here's a sampling.

google has a Fark search? neato

ok, so maybe you guys to point me out an example

of where stuff (preferably video) was offered to me, I said I'd look into, then in the next thread I clearly did not review the material OR just dismissively "watched" it but ignored every good point made and then continued to repeat the mistakes I should have learned by watching said video...

btw is it possible that after watching some material I heard some good points and some not-so good and felt like it really didn't even address an exact point that you thought you were making?

or even worse just that I perhaps just don't agree with everything that is given to me as "conclusive arguments"

here's an example (fairly recent):

I stated that I'm still undecided as to Kent Hovind's view of young earth and Hugh Ross's old earth view. I think each made some good points here and there, but the issue still seems a bit fuzzy as far as "conclusive" details.

So I just honestly state that I could go either way at this point.

However one day some dude, (who is a crazy Hovind fan) shows me a video that he feels is the final proof that Hovind is 110% right! and shares the video with me, then I watch it and recognize a few good points made but still don't see any final conclusive evidence like that dude does, and so I say, I'm still not seeing it definitely one way or the other

so then the dude freaks out and says obviously you didn't watch it OR ELSE you'd agree with me!!!

and then some TOOL stops by and says, SEE?! I told you he won't listen, even after we try and try to explain things to him, but he's obviously just to dumb willfully ignorant, what more is there to say?

so the moral of the story

if you have A particular point that you wish to discuss, then clearly state it, and I'll try my best to be open-minded and respond

otherwise you can toss around your broad sweeping accusations concerning extremely ambiguous topics that can get into all kinds of strange tangents, and justify whatever you want to believe

of course if you are an overly biased hate-filled tool then it won't really matter anyway, since your mind is already made up, not much more to say really.

kerpal32: And personally, I believe in evolution and science. But I understand that science doesn't disprove theism. And I accept that the concept of a transcendental "God" or "Diety" capable existing outside of physical reality and spacetime isn't a "threat" to rationality since we consistently show through science that we really don't have a complete understanding of "physical existence" much less reality.

To me your explanation simply means "we dont have the tools to understand yet".

To you it means ... god?

Sounds like god of the gaps to me.

You should add this to your link collection.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

maddogdelta: And here is aaronra again, with his 10th foundational falsehood of creationism,

ok this one had a bunch of, huh wuuut? stuff in it

so don't yell at me later for not being able to teach a class on the material covered...

guyinjeep16: To me your explanation simply means "we dont have the tools to understand yet".

To you it means ... god?

Sounds like god of the gaps to me.

Sorry, but no it "God of the Gaps" But you do love to quote Dawkins like some evangelical witness.

Seems like you have issues anyway given the past 8 months of educating you on all the things you were wrong about with regard to science (much like zamboro and skinnyartist, you both get your lame rhetoric from the same place), the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics, the limits of logical positivism, what science is, and the fact that you just different philosophical view and a boatload of intolerance and hate.

You're so indoctrinated it's expected you'd come back with some weak ass rhetoric like that. Shall we cover all the crap you didn't know before you started acting like an intolerant asshole on Fark?

So for your continued enlightenment, let's recap what you don't know or won't admit to once again.
- what is science (you initially said it had to be empirically testable and provide value in a physical / naturalistic sense -- wrong)
- philosophy of science (you run to science as a shield for your atheist views and turn to scientism and in doing so turn atheism into a religion)
- you don't understand or won't accept the demarcation of science and religion
- the limits of logical positivism
- key points under the philosophy of science including falsification, trying to disprove non-falsifiable arguments, creating dogmas of empiricism, and creating self-refuting arguments under foundationalism, scientism and physicalism.
- much much more

and
- science (including pure mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics) doesn't invalidate theism
- atheism is a philosophical position
- if you extend it to the belief it has authority over other philosophies based on logical positivism, strict reductionism and materialism, you create the same self-refuting arguments as any religion and you violate the tenets of the philosophy of science
- science and religion are not mutually exclusive or in direct opposition
- there is a process for demarcation
- not everything supernatural = theism (seems odd you don't get that one), and making inane references to unicorns as a framework for your argument just makes you look like an arrogant atheist asshole to 95% of the world's population.
- some atheists on Fark are just dicks full of anti-theistic hatred
- you seem shocked when people are dicks back at you for being a thuggy dick on the internet about your philosophical views
- there are an equal number of fark atheists who are complete farking hypocrites about this
- there has been a lot of advancement in the philosophy of science since Occam, Hume and Kant, but most Fark atheists (including you) haven't got a farking clue about it
- Most Fark atheist trolls don't seem to understand the limits of logical positivism (like you) and they're really just "pretty little hate machines" (like you) or have been indoctrinated themselves (like you).

- the philosophical concept of a God existing outside of empirical method is a matter of faith, not "rationalization", but neither atheism nor science provides any insight as to "why" the universe goes to the bother of existing. It only insists we don't ask why.
- stamping your feet and demanding empirical proof of the existence of "God", "Gods" or "Deities" is as batshiat irrational as any religious fundamentalist. And being a anti-theistic ickhead on Fark doesn't make your argument for atheism.

and
- being optimistic about advancements in science has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone believing it to be God. I plead not for the suppression of reason, but for a due recognition of that in us which sanctifies reason."
~Ghandi

I don't think you understand that atheism ≠ science, no matter how much you claim to understand this.

/basically you sound like a narrow-minded indoctrinated tool. You remind me of that study Zamboro loves to cite about atheists IQ's. But you and he are both too ignorant to understand what the study's co-author says about the data....

I get a laugh that he loves to quote it, but hasn't a clue what Helmuth Nyborg (the study's co-author) said about the study, or what the data really says. The 5 points difference on average is one thing. Indicating yes, people of lower intelligence do tend to have religious or spiritual beliefs. Not surprising.

However he ignores that Wordsum scores for atheists are relatively clustered at 0-1 correct answers and 9-10 correct answers. The standard deviation value is widest for them. While 12.2% of all respondents who answered the question on the certainty of God's existence scored either 9 or 10 on the Wordsum test, 21.2% of atheists did. Conversely, while only 2.5% of all respondents scored 0 or 1 on the Wordsum test, 10.3% of atheists did. So atheists, more than others, seem to come in two distinct varieties--the hyperintelligent empiricist, and the dumb, vicious social outcast.

Survey says: you're not a scientist, but you do have a predisposition for being an intolerant thug on the internet.

kerpal32: the hyperintelligent empiricist

there are some "clever" ones, I concur

/spiteful hate-filled tools
//but clever

they tend to refer to engineers as dumb...

/their cauliflowers are so mighty

I drunk what: kerpal32: the hyperintelligent empiricist

there are some "clever" ones, I concur

/spiteful hate-filled tools
//but clever

they tend to refer to engineers as dumb...

/their cauliflowers are so mighty

you missed the point..... it's the dumb, vicious social outcast looking for a sense of elitism and a self-rationalized moral imperative who are as easily indoctrinated as any "religious fundamentalist" that are just as much a concern as any "religious fundamentalist" (or fanatic).

kerpal32, just a quick question. What do you do to unwind?

//I was also going to ask what you believe, but I re-skimmed the thread and found my answer.

meat0918: kerpal32, just a quick question. What do you do to unwind?

//I was also going to ask what you believe, but I re-skimmed the thread and found my answer.


Spending time with my wife going to the symphony, concerts (various - blues, jazz, classic rock, etc. though I stopped liking music that just "screams at you" some time back), gardening (orchids), playing with my telescope, getting home occasionally to park my ass for a week doing nothing, or doing nothing, or watching the surfers while doing nothing, or going to my favorite restaurants when home (if you ever get the opportunity, try Pacific's Edge (pops)), skiing though it's getting harder, dinners with friends, ball games, hitting the occasional bucket or short course, other stuff.

you?

Spending time with my wife and kids, gardening(veggies), reading(both non-fiction and fiction), fishing (although I'm outfit for bass and I'm in fly fishing for trout country now), trying new sushi, fooling around on the guitar, the occasional video game, and soon to attempt wine and beer making

I forgot cooking, I can believe I forgot cooking. I love cooking.

meat0918: I forgot cooking, I can can't believe I forgot cooking. I love cooking.

That's it, bedtime.

kerpal32: - philosophy of science (you run to science as a shield for your atheist views and turn to scientism and in doing so turn atheism into a religion)

I never said this, again you are lying. Not everything is testable, why would you even have a conversation with someone who said that "everything has to be testable"??? The more and more you talk, the more I realize that you are here simply to name call and make things up simply because you are so angry at atheism.


kerpal32: - philosophy of science (you run to science as a shield for your atheist views and turn to scientism and in doing so turn atheism into a religion)

My view is from a logical perspective. This is what my beliefs follow.
I dont care about atheism, I care about the truth.

You are here to bash people whom say that god doesnt have to exsist.

You are the liar here, making things up at every turn.

Everything you say about me is misquoted, an outright lie, or simply made up, or shows udder and complete lack of understanding who you are talking too.

I answered you some 18, eighteen times, that right 18 times!!! On my views about mathematics and regards to being a science. Congrats for finally reading and understanding that one, you finally didnt bring it up with this response. So I figure in about 1500 posts or so you might actually understand where I am coming from.

Is it with this rigor that you practice science?

If so you are a complete failure.

Is it the goal of mosts thiests who practice science to warp philosophical views until god can be inserted?

You are a master of confusion , and you dont know yourself what side is up. Nothing you say has any credibility here.

Do yourself a favor and ask me what I believe someday.

You dont act like a christian, but hopefully you are working on that.

I dare you to come with just one response witout name calling, playing the victim or being a complete dickhead.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: To me your explanation simply means "we dont have the tools to understand yet".

To you it means ... god?

Sounds like god of the gaps to me.

Sorry, but no it "God of the Gaps" But you do love to quote Dawkins like some evangelical witness.

Seems like you have issues anyway given the past 8 months of educating you on all the things you were wrong about with regard to science (much like zamboro and skinnyartist, you both get your lame rhetoric from the same place), the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics, the limits of logical positivism, what science is, and the fact that you just different philosophical view and a boatload of intolerance and hate.

You're so indoctrinated it's expected you'd come back with some weak ass rhetoric like that. Shall we cover all the crap you didn't know before you started acting like an intolerant asshole on Fark?

So for your continued enlightenment, let's recap what you don't know or won't admit to once again.
- what is science (you initially said it had to be empirically testable and provide value in a physical / naturalistic sense -- wrong)
- philosophy of science (you run to science as a shield for your atheist views and turn to scientism and in doing so turn atheism into a religion)
- you don't understand or won't accept the demarcation of science and religion
- the limits of logical positivism
- key points under the philosophy of science including falsification, trying to disprove non-falsifiable arguments, creating dogmas of empiricism, and creating self-refuting arguments under foundationalism, scientism and physicalism.
- much much more

and
- science (including pure mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics) doesn't invalidate theism
- atheism is a philosophical position
- if you extend it to the belief it has authority over other philosophies based on logical positivism, strict reductionism and materialism, you create the same self-refuting arguments as any religion and you violate the tenets of the philosophy of science
- science and religion are not mutually exclusive or in direct opposition
- there is a process for demarcation
- not everything supernatural = theism (seems odd you don't get that one), and making inane references to unicorns as a framework for your argument just makes you look like an arrogant atheist asshole to 95% of the world's population.
- some atheists on Fark are just dicks full of anti-theistic hatred
- you seem shocked when people are dicks back at you for being a thuggy dick on the internet about your philosophical views
- there are an equal number of fark atheists who are complete farking hypocrites about this
- there has been a lot of advancement in the philosophy of science since Occam, Hume and Kant, but most Fark atheists (including you) haven't got a farking clue about it
- Most Fark atheist trolls don't seem to understand the limits of logical positivism (like you) and they're really just "pretty little hate machines" (like you) or have been indoctrinated themselves (like you).

- the philosophical concept of a God existing outside of empirical method is a matter of faith, not "rationalization", but neither atheism nor science provides any insight as to "why" the universe goes to the bother of existing. It only insists we don't ask why.
- stamping your feet and demanding empirical proof of the existence of "God", "Gods" or "Deities" is as batshiat irrational as any religious fundamentalist. And being a anti-theistic ickhead on Fark doesn't make your argument for atheism.

and
- being optimistic about advancements in science has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone believing it to be God. I plead not for the suppression of reason, but for a due recognition of that in us which sanctifies reason."
~Ghandi

I don't think you understand that atheism ≠ scie ...

kerpal32: Survey says: you're not a scientist, but you do have a predisposition for being an intolerant thug on the internet.

You: "I will prey upong the miss-understandings of man to insert theism"

Me: "I dont presume to know if there is a god or not. But inserting one doesnt make any sense so I am not going to do it. That is for every inividual to find ot for themselves and has no place in science."

You are right about one thing: Athiesm has nothing to do with science, and it has alot less to do with what we are talking about than you understand.

You are the one stuck on atheism.
You claim that science has no say either way on theism, yet you continuously point out areas in science where theism is a possibility.

You are doing it wrong, and at the most basic level.

Its easy to see who the real scientist is here.

guyinjeep16: I never said this, again you are lying. Not everything is testable, why would you even have a conversation with someone who said that "everything has to be testable"???

Actually you did multiple times for months until it was pointed out to you that much of science isn't empirically testable, is actually based on non-logical axioms, and doesn't have to provide some "value" as you kept insisting. Just like skinnyartist.

We even had a long thread with abb3w where he corrected you also. You've simply chosen to ignore it and deny it ever happened. But it took several months of repeatedly enlightening you on your fallacies and complete ignorance on all those points outlined above to get you to where you are today.

Along with the insistence that every time I pointed out the limits of science and demarcation of science and religion and other aspects noted above you screamed I was interjecting "theism" into science.

As to WHY you insisted this, it was most likely out of ignorance on your part and some indoctrinated bigotries or some deep seated hatred and resentment for religion and/or theism.

Which could explain why you're in all the threads even remotely touching on religion.

Regardless of how much you insist otherwise, I don't think you understand that atheism ≠ science. Even if you are "super-duper optimistic about it".

And pointing that out, or that there are demarcations isn't an attack on atheism or science.



On sad note - I just found out Donald Coyne passed away in October. Sad news. Wonderful man. Great Physicist. Certain fanatic Farker's would have hated him, because he regularly asked "why" reality is the way it is before looking at how it behaves the way it does.

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/messages/text.asp?pid=2532 (pops)

http://scipp.ucsc.edu/personnel/profiles/coyne.html (pops)

guyinjeep16: I dont care about atheism, I care about the truth.

sure you do.... as well as imposing your "non-beliefs" on others. Why else are you in this thread?

I drunk what: I heard some good points and some not-so good

When you say "not so good", do you mean "issues which I personally disagree with', or do you mean "issues which have been demonstrated being untrue due to observation/experiment". Because if it is the latter, you have a Nobel Prize waiting, just publish the experiment.

If it is the former, well, the universe doesn't really care if you agree with it or not. You can throw yourself off a tall building and yell loudly how much you don't believe in gravity, but that won't stop you from going splat.

And your theory, here is a hint. It first has to work as well in prediction and explanation as anything it is replacing. For example, quantum mechanics superseded Newtonian mechanics because 1) it described the microscopic world better than Newtonian mechanics 2) when applied to larger scale environments it predicted everything Newtonian mechanics did, just with scarier math. So we still teach Newtonian mechanics, even though it has been superseded, because the math is easier to work, and you don't get any more accuracy using QM to track a rocket.

After your theory works just as good at explanation/prediction as evolution, then it needs to go a step further, and explain/predict things which cannot be predicted using current ideas in evolution.
BTW, this has already happened at least twice that I know of (I'm not a professional biologist). Darwin proposed natural selection. Mendel figured out genetics, which was a much more precise way to make predictions regarding evolution than what Darwin proposed. Afterwards, other biologists determined that there were more factors involved in changing populations than natural selection, and they developed the model for genetic drift ^{(^)}.

So, your theory needs to take into account the predictions/explanations made by Darwin, Mendel, Wright, Fisher, Hardy, and Weinberg (and others, again, I'm not a pro at this). Then go further.

If you can do all that, you will get the Nobel prize.

Good luck.

kerpal32: Why else are you in this thread?

I'm mainly here for the religion discussions, I wish somebody would tell maddogdelta...

/i think he's under the impression that I'm debating "evolution"?
//or competing for a noble prize??

I'd rather figure out which is the one true religion

any takers?

I'll just leave this here

(a) Catholic
(b) Mormon
(c) Jehovah's witness
(d) Protestant
(e) Branch Davidian
..
..

OR if you prefer

(1) Christian
(2) Muslim
(3) Jew
(4) Hindu
(5) Buddhist
..
..
..

maddogdelta: So, your theory needs to take into account the predictions/explanations made by Darwin, Mendel, Wright, Fisher, Hardy, and Weinberg (and others, again, I'm not a pro at this).

I guess freethoughtpedia doesn't like spiteful hate-filled bias?

ninjakirby: maddogdelta: So, your theory needs to take into account the predictions/explanations made by Darwin, Mendel, Wright, Fisher, Hardy, and Weinberg (and others, again, I'm not a pro at this).


lmao. "freethoughtpedia". awesome. No, there's no theme with you guys in these threads at all huh.....? lol.

I'm looking forward to the day when the word "belief" will be outlawed and the only things that people can think about without being emotionally abused or physically attacked are that things Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris say are the ultimate "truth" (quoting guyinjeep16), and cannot be questioned. Ever. This is called "Free Thought." It'll probably happen about the time I'm ready to check out anyway, based on the behaviour and average age of the members of the "clique".

/laughing my ass off imagining someone like guyinjeep16 ranting like he does at David Bohm. Or imagining David Bohm looking at guyinjeep16 right now and laughing his ass off. Either way, it's a treat. You'd have to look at it from a different philosophical and scientific perspective to appreciate it.

I drunk what: kerpal32: Why else are you in this thread?

I'm mainly here for the religion discussions, I wish somebody would tell maddogdelta...

/i think he's under the impression that I'm debating "evolution"?
//or competing for a noble prize??

I'd rather figure out which is the one true religion

any takers?

I'll just leave this here

(a) Catholic
(b) Mormon
(c) Jehovah's witness
(d) Protestant
(e) Branch Davidian
..
..

OR if you prefer

(1) Christian
(2) Muslim
(3) Jew
(4) Hindu
(5) Buddhist
..
..
..

I know I'm not supposed to feed you, but I must ask, because I'm curious. How do you manage to rule out only Catholicism, but everything else is still in the running?

And then of course, the real question, why do you assume there is one true religion to be found?

I drunk what: I guess freethoughtpedia doesn't like spiteful hate-filled bias?

no, they only like to reserve usage _TM / ® for themselves.

Honestly though, if it keeps these clowns the hell off of Fark with their trolling and hate, I think it's great that they have forums over there....

nunoyo: I know I'm not supposed to feed you

-.- we can come back to this

/-.-

nunoyo: How do you manage to rule out only Catholicism

i'm very glad you asked, I HATE when people assume and then yell at me because of their assumptions (usually heavily biased)

1. the list is my latest "schtick" to scientifically determine the one true religion throught the process of elimination.

2. I really wanted to cross that one off because as many have mentioned before, I really do beat up on the Cats too often. :( not on purpose

3. I didn't strike it off until I gave ample consideration for or against the argument. But it is possible that I did this too quickly, I'd be happy to unstrike it if you wish to defend it?

4. Perhaps I should keep the lists titled to avoid confusion?

how about this:

The One True Religion
1. 2. 3. 4. etc...

OR

The One True Christian Church
a. b. c. d. etc...

nunoyo: but everything else is still in the running?

because I'm still IN the process of eliminating, AND I have not yet addressed the other choices (aka found someone willing to defend a particular item)

(though nk almost participated in a decent Vs. Mormon match)

/he's such a tease

what I'd REALLY like to do is find a person who actually believes each stance so I can argue with them, not someone who is just filling the empty spot, though I did appreciate nk's effort

nunoyo: why do you assume there is one true religion to be found?

because i'm one of those nutjobs that believes that Truth is absolute, and furthermore that it is possible to find it (if we look hard enough)

I also assume there is one true science, etc...

(which is WAY easier to find)

/so I guess I enjoy the challenge

I drunk what: i'm very glad you asked, I HATE when people assume and then yell at me because of their assumptions (usually heavily biased)

1. the list is my latest "schtick" to scientifically determine the one true religion throught the process of elimination.

2. I really wanted to cross that one off because as many have mentioned before, I really do beat up on the Cats too often. :( not on purpose

3. I didn't strike it off until I gave ample consideration for or against the argument. But it is possible that I did this too quickly, I'd be happy to unstrike it if you wish to defend it?

I was more just curious as to your specific reasons for striking of Catholicism. Not looking to defend it, just curious.

I drunk what: because i'm one of those nutjobs that believes that Truth is absolute, and furthermore that it is possible to find it (if we look hard enough)

Why do you assume that the absolute truth is fully packaged in some religion? Why not just try to figure out what you think is true, and fark the labels?

nunoyo: just curious.

before we proceed, do you care to defend or retract this implication-accusation?:

nunoyo: I know I'm not supposed to feed you

kerpal32: Honestly though

word

/to yo mammy

so you live in the bay area?

I drunk what: before we proceed, do you care to defend or retract this implication-accusation?:

Nope. Just curious. For real. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's Catholicism specifically, I just want to know what sort of factors got one ruled out.

nunoyo: Nope.

perhaps a small communication problem has occurred, nunoyo: I know I'm not supposed to feed you

sounds like you're calling me a troll, maybe I misunderstood? I was simply asking if you wished to defend it? bygones...let's skip it

nunoyo: Not looking to defend it, just curious.

I'll see your curiousity and and raise you...do you think any religion is correct or that they are all wrong?

nunoyo: Why do you assume that the absolute truth is fully packaged in some religion?

do I? I think absolute truth manifests itself in many forms. such as religion, science, etc... I'm merely focusing on the religious perspective, I think there are plenty of others that focus on the alternates.

nunoyo: Why not just try to figure out what you think is true, and fark the labels?

not sure what you mean here, ??

nunoyo: I just want to know what sort of factors got one ruled out.

the main factor (I suppose) would be whether or not the proposed belief 'holds water'

i was also attempting to remove some of the strawmen that pop up time and again in these threads (or in life)

for example:

someone would say Christians are a hypocritical bunch of liars and here is why.......

then I'd come along and suddenly have to defend this accusation

meanwhile in the original statement the person was actually referring to Catholics and incorrectly substituted the word with "Christians"

so if people are going to accuse Christians of something I was trying to clarify who should be using that title

here's a simple illustration:

I am a Japanese jet-pilot! [not true]

Does saying this make it true? should all errors I commit be attributed to Japanese jet-pilots?

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: I never said this, again you are lying. Not everything is testable, why would you even have a conversation with someone who said that "everything has to be testable"???

Actually you did multiple times for months until it was pointed out to you that much of science isn't empirically testable, is actually based on non-logical axioms, and doesn't have to provide some "value" as you kept insisting. Just like skinnyartist.

We even had a long thread with abb3w where he corrected you also. You've simply chosen to ignore it and deny it ever happened. But it took several months of repeatedly enlightening you on your fallacies and complete ignorance on all those points outlined above to get you to where you are today.

Along with the insistence that every time I pointed out the limits of science and demarcation of science and religion and other aspects noted above you screamed I was interjecting "theism" into science.

As to WHY you insisted this, it was most likely out of ignorance on your part and some indoctrinated bigotries or some deep seated hatred and resentment for religion and/or theism.

Which could explain why you're in all the threads even remotely touching on religion.

Regardless of how much you insist otherwise, I don't think you understand that atheism ≠ science. Even if you are "super-duper optimistic about it".

And pointing that out, or that there are demarcations isn't an attack on atheism or science.



On sad note - I just found out Donald Coyne passed away in October. Sad news. Wonderful man. Great Physicist. Certain fanatic Farker's would have hated him, because he regularly asked "why" reality is the way it is before looking at how it behaves the way it does.

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/messages/text.asp?pid=2532 (pops)

http://scipp.ucsc.edu/personnel/profiles/coyne.html (pops)



How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.


You dont understand what you read, and you are a liar.

Show me where I said everything had to be emperically testable- you clown.

nunoyo: Nope. Just curious. For real. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's Catholicism specifically, I just want to know what sort of factors got one ruled out.

Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to his religions claims, and then uses the results as his rubric.

ninjakirby: Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to his religions claims the Bible which all "christians" claim to use as their history-constitution-rulebook, and then uses the results as his rubric to decide which claims are valid.

FTFH

you'll have to excuse him, he suffers from severe bias and spite-filled hatred

/and has a nasty habit of speaking FOR others...

furthermore I attempt to fish out (not troll) each person from religion X or Y and see if they even know what they claim to believe...and then defend it

in a few exercises I noticed I was actually informing them (of their beliefs) for the first time

0.0

the previous post is only referring to "christian" vs "christian" debates,

the religion X vs religion Y discussion gets a little more complicated, since both sides don't agree on a single source

luckily many religions don't specifically claim anything and are presented in self-conflicting styles that often speed up the process. but i like i said, a bit more complicated

I drunk what: ninjakirby: Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to his religions claims the Bible which all "christians" claim to use as their history-constitution-rulebook and which IDW interprets however he feels like, and then uses the results as his rubric to decide which claims are valid conflict with his personal interpretation and are therefore "invalid."

To be fair, he might share similar interpretations with other people.

Still has no objective method of comparison, of course.

cthellis: To be fair

would you care to provide an example according to the corrections you made?

/to be fair

cthellis: I cthellis what: ..which IDW interprets however he feels like using all the standard rules of logic, reason and language, and then uses the results to decide which claims conflict with his personal interpretation those standards and are therefore "invalid"..

so much work, just to speak for myself...

guyinjeep16: How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.

Yes, I could picture you screaming at David Bohm that he's "interjecting theism in science!!!". Are you even familiar with his philosophical implications and interpretations of quantum "phenomenon"?

Obviously not. But you're super duper optimistic, aren't you.

/FYI --- even Einstein considered it "spooky".

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.

Yes, I could picture you screaming at David Bohm that he's "interjecting theism in science!!!". Are you even familiar with his philosophical implications and interpretations of quantum "phenomenon"?

Obviously not. But you're super duper optimistic, aren't you.

/FYI --- even Einstein considered it "spooky".

You are all about the supernatural arent ya?

Many things are outside our comprehension, and many things that are well understood now, once were.

Is that all you got?

guyinjeep16: kerpal32: guyinjeep16: How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.

Yes, I could picture you screaming at David Bohm that he's "interjecting theism in science!!!". Are you even familiar with his philosophical implications and interpretations of quantum "phenomenon"?

Obviously not. But you're super duper optimistic, aren't you.

/FYI --- even Einstein considered it "spooky".

You are all about the supernatural arent ya?

Many things are outside our comprehension, and many things that are well understood now, once were.

Is that all you got?

Is that all you think there is? Not like you have any clue what I'm actually talking about at all. Much like you have no clue what science is. All you have is you ramblings about being able to "predict" phenomenon, tools and optimism.

/admit it, you have no clue what I'm really discussing here.

BTw - you're obviously well versed in rhetoric and able to quote Dawkins, but have you read anything about science and the philosophy of science that wasn't from some atheist ideological perspective?

I'm betting not. You don't seem capable.

/$5 says you never read anything of Bohm's (probably never heard of him), or if you did, nothing beyond the the rote formulation of mathematical theory.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: kerpal32: guyinjeep16: How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.

Yes, I could picture you screaming at David Bohm that he's "interjecting theism in science!!!". Are you even familiar with his philosophical implications and interpretations of quantum "phenomenon"?

Obviously not. But you're super duper optimistic, aren't you.

/FYI --- even Einstein considered it "spooky".

You are all about the supernatural arent ya?

Many things are outside our comprehension, and many things that are well understood now, once were.

Is that all you got?

Is that all you think there is? Not like you have any clue what I'm actually talking about at all. Much like you have no clue what science is. All you have is you ramblings about being able to "predict" phenomenon, tools and optimism.

/admit it, you have no clue what I'm really discussing here.

Wave function, doesnt matter the distance, entanglement between the two determines the others fate, something to that effect...

kerpal32: BTw - you're obviously well versed in rhetoric and able to quote Dawkins, but have you read anything about science and the philosophy of science that wasn't from some atheist ideological perspective?

I'm betting not. You don't seem capable.

/$5 says you never read anything of Bohm's (probably never heard of him), or if you did, nothing beyond the the rote formulation of mathematical theory.

I have been grappling with the idea of not calling myself an atheist for some time now, due to my personal beliefs, which are undoubtedly spritual, but still probablity based.

My best friend is an Atheist, my other 3 closest friends have no doubt that god exsists and are devout christians.

kerpal32: BTw - you're obviously well versed in rhetoric and able to quote Dawkins, but have you read anything about science and the philosophy of science that wasn't from some atheist ideological perspective?

I'm betting not. You don't seem capable.

/$5 says you never read anything of Bohm's (probably never heard of him), or if you did, nothing beyond the the rote formulation of mathematical theory.

I have been to Dawkins site ONCE. I have not read his book, I skimmed through it and got the jist. It was nothing new to be honest.

guyinjeep16: Wave function, doesnt matter the distance, entanglement between the two determines the others fate, something to that effect...

great, you understand some of the rote aspects. But again, nothing about the Bohm (or others) and philosophy....

All you do is keep insisting anytime anyone points out the limits of science, logical positivism, the actual philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics and all those other aspects I noted that they MUST be imposing "theism" into science. You're like a modern day fundamentalist crying "witch!" Or "God of the Gaps!" rhetoric by "recently self aware talking meat" who are pushing their own agenda and can't admit atheism is just a philosophical position.

One of the things I object to is people with agendas presenting science to non-scientists in this manner as if we've reached some apex. When in reality, at some point we're likely to re-write a lot of what we think we "know" as predictive models of phenomenon, or find there's much more we didn't realize.

Because there's so much we don't know and understand. And being "super duper optimistic" that science will figure it out like replacing religion with science. But you haven't taken time to understand what science is, what the philosophy of science is from multiple views, and you certainly don't understand the philosophy of mathematics. And all those other things I pointed out to you. Even after spending months pointing it out to you and you now being able to play little semantic bullshiat games around it. You still don't get it. And abb3w even agreed, you didn't get it. I think you've just learned to parrot rhetoric.

I also question your motives. I've never once promoted theism. I've only defended it against people like you who seem to think atheism = science.

Back to Bohm and others....., what about competing theories, especially if you look at it without the emergence of time as a non-commutative space of infinite dimensions and how it affects nonlocality. What it time were a figment of your imagination....?

what if gravity were variable and shielded?

You haven't read Bohm and others on philosophy (and the philosophy of science), or you'd understand what I'm pointing out regarding nonlocality, non-commutative space and entanglement. What if it operates on a larger scale than quantum space or half a Planck length?

I have friends who are atheists. You've attacked me, said I don't know any atheists, said I promote theism in science, said I must be a creationist or ID'er, said I'm not a scientist, and all sorts of other rude bullshiat. And you wonder WHY I think you're an idiot with no farking clue about any of the things I outlined above? Hell, you're such a puss you couldn't even admit what you don't know or understand, even when abb3w said so in another thread just this evening. One in which your thuggy little clique pulled their usual bullshiat.

you're not worth the effort because you can't be honest with yourself, much less anyone else. And it shows.

Quick - scream witch! I mean theism!

The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm.
~Sir John Jeans

Go back to your little clique.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Wave function, doesnt matter the distance, entanglement between the two determines the others fate, something to that effect...

great, you understand some of the rote aspects. But again, nothing about the Bohm (or others) and philosophy....

All you do is keep insisting anytime anyone points out the limits of science, logical positivism, the actual philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics and all those other aspects I noted that they MUST be imposing "theism" into science. You're like a modern day fundamentalist crying "witch!" Or "God of the Gaps!" rhetoric by "recently self aware talking meat" who are pushing their own agenda and can't admit atheism is just a philosophical position.

One of the things I object to is people with agendas presenting science to non-scientists in this manner as if we've reached some apex. When in reality, at some point we're likely to re-write a lot of what we think we "know" as predictive models of phenomenon, or find there's much more we didn't realize.

Because there's so much we don't know and understand. And being "super duper optimistic" that science will figure it out like replacing religion with science. But you haven't taken time to understand what science is, what the philosophy of science is from multiple views, and you certainly don't understand the philosophy of mathematics. And all those other things I pointed out to you. Even after spending months pointing it out to you and you now being able to play little semantic bullshiat games around it. You still don't get it. And abb3w even agreed, you didn't get it. I think you've just learned to parrot rhetoric.

I also question your motives. I've never once promoted theism. I've only defended it against people like you who seem to think atheism = science.

Back to Bohm and others....., what about competing theories, especially if you look at it without the emergence of time as a non-commutative space of infinite dimensions and how it affects nonlocality. What it time were a figment of your imagination....?

what if gravity were variable and shielded?

You haven't read Bohm and others on philosophy (and the philosophy of science), or you'd understand what I'm pointing out regarding nonlocality, non-commutative space and entanglement. What if it operates on a larger scale than quantum space or half a Planck length?

I have friends who are atheists. You've attacked me, said I don't know any atheists, said I promote theism in science, said I must be a creationist or ID'er, said I'm not a scientist, and all sorts of other rude bullshiat. And you wonder WHY I think you're an idiot with no farking clue about any of the things I outlined above? Hell, you're such a puss you couldn't even admit what you don't know or understand, even when abb3w said so in another thread just this evening. One in which your thuggy little clique pulled their usual bullshiat.

you're not worth the effort because you can't be honest with yourself, much less anyone else. And it shows.

Quick - scream witch! I mean theism!

The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm.
~Sir John Jeans

Go back to your little clique.

What if blue were white, up was down?

What if , what if?

You deal in philosophy, which is fine.

I question what practical uses you do deal with. I deal with them in Meteorology and Aviation, and so far so good.

I start teaching a meteorology class this fall. Ill leave the philosophy of "what if" to you.

Keep me posted.

kerpal32: One of the things I object to is people with agendas presenting science to non-scientists in this manner as if we've reached some apex. When in reality, at some point we're likely to re-write a lot of what we think we "know" as predictive models of phenomenon, or find there's much more we didn't realize.

WOW !! -what insight! You mean science will continune to work as it always has?!?! Amazing!!! Thanks for enlightening us all!

Science will continue on as it always has, a self correcting always changing, study of the natural world.

Now what were you trying to really say here?

kerpal32: I also question your motives. I've never once promoted theism. I've only defended it against people like you who seem to think atheism = science.

Still stuck on this are ya?

Athiesm is simply point at which I try to start.
To start with nothing, and then learn without bias, is the way to truth. Atheism is simply starting with nothing.

You are suggesting I start with ... what exactly?

What view do you start your research with? From what viewpoint??

kerpal32: Hell, you're such a puss you couldn't even admit what you don't know or understand, even when abb3w said so in another thread just this evening. One in which your thuggy little clique pulled their usual bullshiat.

I dont know what others said, I do know that everything is not empirically testable. Never said that it was.
Try again.

kerpal32: The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm.
~Sir John Jeans

So what? What looks like the desing of a mind to one, looks like the working of the natural world to another.

My personal beliefs? I think that our thoughts as we have them shape and mold the universe, so in sense I agree with the quote you posted. They seem to be in line with universal laws of attraction.

But you know what? The universe doesnt care what I believe (I cant prove that it does anyway) so it has no place in science, and the quote and what I believe have no say scientifically.

guyinjeep16: kerpal32: The stream of human knowledge is impartially heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of this realm.
~Sir John Jeans

So what? What looks like the desing of a mind to one, looks like the working of the natural world to another.

My personal beliefs? I think that our thoughts as we have them shape and mold the universe, so in sense I agree with the quote you posted. They seem to be in line with universal laws of attraction.

But you know what? The universe doesnt care what I believe (I cant prove that it does anyway) so it has no place in science, and the quote and what I believe have no say scientifically.

I should clarify... I believe this to be true and believe that as we progress it will prove to be more and more true, that our thoughts shape and control the universe, and that everything is linked vibrationaly. Like atracts like, ect...

But there is a fine line of what we believe to be true and what is true.

I drunk what: I'd really like to hear more of your religious views and less of why atheists are such willfully stupid hypocrites



maddogdelta: That's why you need to hang out with pookas. They are much more pleasant.

Only to someone who has tried both being oh-so-clever and oh-so-pleasant and settled firmly on and mastered the latter. Whichever the mortal be inclined to, a pooka will strive its utmost to outdo.

kerpal32: I understand that
kerpal32: I could go into the specifics of why



I drunk what: but more to the point I presume your claim of common ancestry is more along the lines of saying that hummingbirds, whales, geckos, pineapples, mushrooms, virus, bacteria and humans all share the same ancestor? ...a rock cell.

FTFY. For "rock", you need to go back a bit further, and include "virus" and "crystal".

maddogdelta: I thought all fields of study were based on guesswork except for engineering.

Engineering has even more guesswork than Science.

maddogdelta: First, is a person who has a username of aaronra.

Cool; I was wondering who the hell aaronra was.

maddogdelta: You either read the items you were presented, or you did not.



I drunk what: /is anyone getting them?

Do you want to count those who consider you a joke?

kerpal32: I don't think you understand



kerpal32: it's the dumb, vicious social outcast looking for a sense of elitism and a self-rationalized moral imperative who are as easily indoctrinated as any "religious fundamentalist" that are just as much a concern as any "religious fundamentalist"

Not half the concern as warranted for those who don't give a damn about elitism or imperative, however.

I drunk what: I think absolute truth manifests itself in many forms. such as religion, science, etc...

Science isn't in the business of "absolute truth"; at best, Science wants "good enough for Engineering purposes".

kerpal32: . And abb3w even agreed, you didn't get it. I think you've just learned to parrot rhetoric.

Lamentably, I'll still agree with this assessment... although the ongoing ability to learn hasn't been ruled out.

guyinjeep16: I do know that everything is not empirically testable. Never said that it was.
guyinjeep16: I believe that all things can eventually be tested scientifically.

So, what other forms of scientific testing do you recognize that are not empirical?

guyinjeep16: more and more true

If you can handle set theory, I suggest you find a book which covers construction for Boolean lattices; Wikipedia has CliffNotes/SparkNotes grade coverage at best. TRUE is (as I understand) a lattice maximal element, so "more and more TRUE" is conceptually sloppy.

guyinjeep16: But there is a fine line of what we believe to be true and what is true.

No, it's far too fuzzy to be a "line". Although a topologist might be able to give a different interpretation and axiom schemata for "line" where "fuzzy" works....

cthellis: I drunk what: ninjakirby: Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to his religions claims the Bible which all "christians" claim to use as their history-constitution-rulebook and which IDW interprets however he feels like, and then uses the results as his rubric to decide which claims are valid conflict with his personal interpretation and are therefore "invalid."

If I'm reconstructing this correctly, I drunk what just admitted to using the Bible as his ruler to judge the validity of other religions?

Is that correct?

Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to the Bible which all "christians" claim to use as their history-constitution-rulebook and then uses the results to decide which claims are valid.

Cause if there has ever been a time for this, this is it: