Message to American Atheists

double.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

God doesn't grade on a curve, God judges perfect and imperfect. He doesn't compare you to the bum down the street who is beating his wife, He compares you to Jesus.

What about the Eskimo who knoes not of Jesus?

Hellfire, because he wasn't told about Jesus or how to behave like Jesus?

Why are you worried about them?

Worry about those who have heard about Jesus.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yeah, screw everyone else, right? Let them burn for eternity, let's concentrate on our 1st world comrades before those sick and dying who are having a bad time in this life. Incredibly moral.

Look

In order to be a Christian, this is what you have to believe:-

That's for a MINIMUM, A MINIMUM of 100,000 years, God watches human evolution with indifference, many dying in child birth or dying early of their teeth. Only then does he decide to introduce a "savior" in the less literate parts of the desert, so that he can sacrifice one human to save an entire species, and tell them how to have sex and who with.

6000 years? There's no debate. Seriously.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


For one that's nothing but straw men you're parading and burning, meaning = irrelevant. Secondly, there is enourmos debate today with thousands of men of letters flat out rejecting an old Earth timetable. Just because you have never read their books doesn't mean they do not exist.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

For one that's nothing but straw men you're parading and burning, meaning = irrelevant. Secondly, there is enourmos debate today with thousands of men of letters flat out rejecting an old Earth timetable. Just because you have never read their books doesn't mean they do not exist.

I have on several occasions been acquainted with the type of sources you use and how you use them.*

On this background I strongly doubt, that this post with 'enormous' debate including 'thousand men of letters' will make any impact on the overwhelming majority of the thread's readers.

You have once too often demonstrated intellectual and academic dishonesty, and your trigger-happiness with personal abuse when you're cornered doesn't exactly give you credibility.

* I still remember several of them. Can be presented on request.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Secondly, there is enourmos debate today with thousands of men of letters flat out rejecting an old Earth timetable.

Yes, it's a debate between actual geologists and apologists who happen to have degrees unrelated to geology who disagree with the old Earth. Please, show me a legitimate scientific source that actually rejects an old Earth.

Just because you have never read their books doesn't mean they do not exist.

Well, on matters of science I tend to read scientific papers, not books. If these 'men of letters' who disagree with the old Earth had any reason beyond "But the Bible says so!" they would publish academic papers on the subject. Of course, they don't have reasons. They have misunderstandings of actual science. They make silly claims about the Sun and the Moon and the Earth's magnetic field and all sorts of other things that they don't really understand.

reply to post by bogomil


Lol! Poisoning the well and appeal to numbers fallacies.

I'm supposed to take you serious?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Your opinions are irrelevant to me. My experience with you has only been with you refusing to review or address presented material.

You're the internet equivelant of a child putting his fingers in his ears while chanting "na na na na naaaaah, I can't hear yoooooouuuu!"

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Your opinions are irrelevant to me. My experience with you has only been with you refusing to review or address presented material.

Yes, I'm refusing to review eight hour video presentations and books in the middle of my academic year. You know, I would go through scientific publications if you could actually provide some. I've actually read a few for 'pleasure reading' this month alone. If your idea actually had any weight to it there would be published scientific material to support it.

If your sources which publish books and videos are actually of any worth they would be citing some sort of actual scientific research, which they aren't. They're just using misinterpretations and misunderstanding of science to jump to conclusions that are superficially intuitive yet entirely incorrect. And those conclusions are the same damn thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. So forgive me if, after 4 1/2 years at this I get a bit tired of addressing the same arguments repeatedly.

You're the internet equivelant of a child putting his fingers in his ears while chanting "na na na na naaaaah, I can't hear yoooooouuuu!"

So you'll just stick with insults.

I can hear you, I just don't feel like having to sit through hours upon hours of video when you could just take individual points from those videos and we could actually have productive discussions on them.

I'm here to discuss, not to get linked to YouTube.

Edit:
Oh, and the insult is kind of ironic when you say that my opinion is irrelevant to you.

So again, I ask you kindly: "Please, show me a legitimate scientific source that actually rejects an old Earth. "

Now, by legitimate scientific source I mean something that's actually following some sort of scientific rigor.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'm addressing one thing, then leaving you to your anti-Christian circle-jerk.

Well, on matters of science I tend to read scientific papers, not books. If these 'men of letters' who disagree with the old Earth had any reason beyond "But the Bible says so!" they would publish academic papers on the subject.

Journals like "Nature" or "Science"? These Journals push the Humanist religion. And many Creationist scientists HAVE published in secular science journals if they don't address origin-related topics. Those same journals refuse to allow any research whatsoever that doesn't agree with Naturalism's explanations. Scientists who rely on a Creation worldview do publish in the secular journals if they don't attack the golden calf of naturalistic Humanism.

Secondly, your "But the Bible says so!" comment is a ridiculous straw man.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

Lol! Poisoning the well and appeal to numbers fallacies.

I'm supposed to take you serious?

My suggestion is, that

a/ If you want to follow the standard science/logic 'academic' procedure and present material, method and results this way, you should acquire some knowledge about it before using it, and stick to it.

b/ If you want to use an alternative method, .....present it, so it will be possible to follow your chain of reasoning from the start. And should disputes arise, they would then be about the validity of this methods of yours, not your outcoming answers.

As it is now, most of your material, sources and conclusions are practically in-accessible (in the sense of being meaningless) for anyone not familiar with or accepting your methodology.

c/ Cut down on the rhetoric and semantic gymnastics. It's interfering with the quality of your argumentation, and does not make up for gaps in same argumentation.



I'm not suggesting, that you passively and humbly should submit to whatever systematic methodology (and it's results) you're up against. And I'm not suggesting, that you should be a paragon of polite language (as you know, I am often somewhat of an urchin myself).

This is about straight communication with true colours, instead of the increasing amount of IMAGINED character defects of your opponents in your posts.

reply to post by bogomil

This is about straight communication with true colours, instead of the increasing amount of IMAGINED character defects of your opponents in your posts.

Nothing was 'imagined' in regards to your post. It was premised upon two common fallacies of logic. And if you know anything about debate, any argument that is erroneous in part renders the entire argument invalid.

Layman's terms: Try again.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

This is about straight communication with true colours, instead of the increasing amount of IMAGINED character defects of your opponents in your posts.

Nothing was 'imagined' in regards to your post. It was premised upon two common fallacies of logic. And if you know anything about debate, any argument that is erroneous in part renders the entire argument invalid.

Layman's terms: Try again.

That's why I offered to bring up some of your former (mis)use of sources and your character-defamations, for which you have no basis. And where your IMAGINATION roams freely.

An offer you declined, and by indulging in pseudo-logic (debate-technique is NOT an expression of logic) by spreading words like 'fallacies' around you (formerly it was 'arbitrary', when you were hard pressed), you're not getting closer to any basic common communication platform.

It would also have been more 'true colours', if you had related to the essential suggestions in my post instead of concentrating on the more informal ending of it.

reply to post by bogomil

(debate-technique is NOT an expression of logic) by spreading words like 'fallacies' around you (formerly it was 'arbitrary', when you were hard pressed), you're not getting closer to any basic common communication platform.

It is however an expression of the reasoning of the individual submitting the fallacy. If their reasoning is erroneous, their entire argument is invalid. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is what it is.

No argument should be arbitrary, if arbitrariness is allowed then both sides can assert anything they want without having to have a rational reason for why they believe what they do. It's actually quite important, especially in an argument here in a thread. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Still have absolutely nothing?

Gotcha broski.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

(debate-technique is NOT an expression of logic) by spreading words like 'fallacies' around you (formerly it was 'arbitrary', when you were hard pressed), you're not getting closer to any basic common communication platform.

It is however an expression of the reasoning of the individual submitting the fallacy. If their reasoning is erroneous, their entire argument is invalid. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is what it is.

No argument should be arbitrary, if arbitrariness is allowed then both sides can assert anything they want without having to have a rational reason for why they believe what they do. It's actually quite important, especially in an argument here in a thread. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Still have absolutely nothing?

Gotcha broski.

edit on 16-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

It's arbitrarily to use 'arbitrary', when no arbitration has taken place. This is a fallacy, as fallacy is defined by me, by carefully choosing, editing and drawing a kind of syncretistic meaning out of arbitrarily chosen dictionaries, which suit my purposes best.

Anyone who can't understand this semantic nonsense I've just presented is ofcourse inferior to me, and thus I can declare myself a winner, because nobody is intelligent enough to understand me. And being a winner, which I ALWAYS am, and should anybody forget it, I'll point it out myself, my ideology, my thoughts and my whims also are winners.

I have thusly and effectively neutralized any messages contrary to my personal opinions, be they atheist, theist or anyone else I disagree with, because I from my superior position of semantic babblings don't have to bother about such insignificant details as real communication.

Neither is it important to present authentic material or things like that picked from ungodly, godly, biased and prejudiced sources.

Because I, Bogomil the megalomaniac, am the master of nonsense. Don't think you can surpass me even there

reply to post by bogomil


Ha.. the internet version of a temper tantrum.

I'm going to eat lunch, good luck with your rant.

Be mad!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

Ha.. the internet version of a temper tantrum.

I'm going to eat lunch, good luck with your rant.

Be mad!

edit on 16-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Be rational.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well I don’t get what your on about – put it down to English been my second language

I will have one more go at getting my point across

given that christians come across as a bunch of brain-bleached ass-hats, it is therefore a given that christian heaven (ie a place full of christians) would be an abysmal mind-deadening dump to end up in and I am glad such a place is not real

What is your first language? By the looks, I'd say it's American...
I think there's a perishingly slim chance of your ending up in what you think Heaven is.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


"Secondly, there are thousands of young-Earth, Bible-believing Christians in all those fields of study. What does that prove in regards to absolute truth? Nothing for either one of us, it's a retarded argument."

Thirdly, there are many Christians who, are all those ologists, and not Young Earth Creationists, who are in fact a tiny minority of all Christians.
To claim that we're all creationists who hate and reject science is simply atheists straw-manning.
Vicky