10 reasons why Christianity is wrong...

[Arbo]

http://trevorburrus.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/05/1345329-10-reasons-why-christianity-is-wrong

Starting with #10:


10. It is Absurd: This may seem like I am re-stating what this list sets out to show. However, this is misleading. When someone comes to us with an extravagant claim the most common reason we may discount the claim is because, to put it curtly, we find it absurd. The reason why the majority of people don't believe in Scientology, reincarnation, Mormonism, Greek Gods, etc. is not because they have extensively researched the historicity and veracity of the claims, it is because they don't believe such things happen in the world. In other words, common sense tells us that when someone claims the absurd almost anything is more likely to be the case (i.e. they are lying, they are delusional, they are relying on misinformation) than for the absurdity to be real. Men do not miraculously heal the sick, raise the dead, cure the blind, and rise from the grave. The claims of Christianity are prima facie absurd. The burden of proof is on them.

Comments on #10?

[Thunderknuckles]

http://trevorburrus.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/05/1345329-10-reasons-why-christianity-is-wrong

Starting with #10:



Comments on #10?[/FONT][/COLOR]
All religions is based entirely on faith. You either have it or you don't
Why even argue about Christianity, or any other religion for that matter?
You and manyothers think Christinaity is absurd. OK, cool. Move along.

[Arbo]

All religions is based entirely on faith. You either have it or you don't
Why even argue about Christianity, or any other religion for that matter?
You and manyothers think Christinaity is absurd. OK, cool. Move along.

It's ok to slam one religion but not ok to discuss if a different one is bogus? Interesting...

How about point #9:



9. Jesus Has Not Returned: This, also, may seem a soft point. However, for 2000 years--80 generations--a substantial number of every single generation of Christians has whole-heartedly believed that Jesus' return was imminent. This often included exact dates that, when they came to pass, did not cause the believers to toss their erroneous ideologies aside. And this perennial incorrectness goes back to the beginning. One can only understand the earliest Christians--the generation immediately following Jesus' death--as a group who were expecting Jesus to return at any moment (I Thess 4:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%204:15-17%20;&version=31;)). Why did they believe this? Because, on more than one occasion, Jesus unequivocally said so (Mark 9:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:1;&version=31;),Matthew 26:64 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2026:64;&version=31;), Mark 13:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:30;&version=31;)). Christians have proven to be resolutely imperturbable and incorrigible to their continued failures.

[Thunderknuckles]

It's ok to slam one religion but not ok to discuss if a different one is bogus? Interesting...

How about point #9:
I don't slam any other religions for its tenets. Others might, but what does it matter?
As for #9, see my first post.

It sounds like you are trying to convince Christians to change their beliefs. Why not just go door to door and hand out pamphlets :p

[revelarts]

LOL!

10 "reasons"??? why Christianity is blah blah.

"#10 "its Absurd"
LOL

if that was a reason i could give in debates and sit down that'd be great.
"It's absurd that people don't follow the constitution. thats the 'reason' why your WRONG."
"It's absurd that people would think the republicans or democrats are working for the people don't you seee."

I though reasons had to do with facts and proof and logical deductions, reasonable conclusions from the same.
But it seems like wild comparisons, vague generality, lame scoffing and assertions stand in for "reason" in some circles.

a few years ago people were telling me "It's absurd that the US gov't listens in on every phone call. BAH, tinfoil, scoff, mock, tsk tsk, i'm a normal wise human being but your an well meaning idiot, we all Know it's ABSURD!"
today we all know better. It's supposed absurdity didn't make it less of a fact.
the ASSERTION that something is absurd is not a reason, not even close. Not even on the same planet as reason.
It only shows the presuppositional mind set of the the person making the contentless comment.

[tailfins]

I don't have much time, so I will just say this: You have posed a question based in the study called "Christian Apologetics". Multiple semester study exists on the topic. It's obviously not something to be answered in a single forum post.

[Arbo]

I don't slam any other religions for its tenets. Others might, but what does it matter?
As for #9, see my first post.

It sounds like you are trying to convince Christians to change their beliefs. Why not just go door to door and hand out pamphlets :p

It is noted that some come out to say that such discussions should not occur, or that nobody need believe in a religion so why question it, or defend christianity. But they don't do the same when it is other religions that are being pointed at.

Exposes the hypocrisy, eh?

#8:


8. God Doesn't Care: Most people believe in God. And, when asked why they believe in God, the most common answer is taken from the argument from design: the universe is too ordered and beautiful to have arisen without an intelligence behind it. Whether or not this is true, this claim has little to do with Christianity. Christianity claims that God not only created the world but also takes an active part in its management, in our moral choices, and in our fates. In other words; He cares. It is this conception of God that bends credulity to the breaking point. God as essence--that is a "first cause" God or a "higher power" God--is a far less difficult concept than God as being. First of all, according to centuries old Christian dogma, God is immutable. In other words He is a static, non-changing "being" that cannot create new beliefs, make inferences, or adjust desires. Secondly the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent "being" having desires borders on the nonsensical. If all things are known--all that ever was, is, or will be--what would be the point of desiring anything? This is not just a simple word game. Christians consistently claim that God "wants" us to believe in him and follow his commandments. However, they also claim that he knows whether we will do so or not. So, what is the point of Him wanting anything? A God as essence is palatable. A God as being is not only ridiculous but likely impossible. (P.S. This one is for the non-predestinarians. If you are a predestinarian there are other reasons you are wrong: see below. However, most Christians are not predestinarians; although, if they care about consistency [not high on the list], they should be.)

[hjmick]

I am, for the most part, an Atheist.

I was raised in the Catholic church until, oh, around the age of fourteen. Sunday school, Mass, Confession, Communion. I did it all. I'm not sure I ever believed or had "faith." I do know that the things I learned during those years provided me with a good moral compass and some skills for dealing with people.

I do not take issue with people of faith, I figure if they find strength and comfort in religion, more power to them. Who am I to judge?

I do not feel the need to denigrate people of faith for their beliefs. I do not feel the need to attempt to tear down their faith, convert them, or tell them they are wrong.

I have never understood why some people feel the need to do so.

I find that people who do are, more often than not, assholes.

[gabosaurus]

I do not take issue with people of faith, I figure if they find strength and comfort in religion, more power to them. Who am I to judge?

I do not feel the need to denigrate people of faith for their beliefs. I do not feel the need to attempt to tear down their faith, convert them, or tell them they are wrong.

I have never understood why some people feel the need to do so.

I find that people who do are, more often than not, assholes.

:clap: Well said. I have been on both side. I started out as a non-believer. Then I found The Light and accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
I have found that those who have the need to denigrate those with beliefs they don't comprehend are really looking for something that they can believe in. They are often lost and confused, akin to be lost in the wilderness.
I don't witness to people. I don't shove Bibles in anyone's faces. I merely ask for mutual respect from others.
We will all eventually have to answer to a Higher Power. If you want to be relegated to the asshole line, so be it. :p

[Arbo]

I do not feel the need to denigrate people of faith for their beliefs. I do not feel the need to attempt to tear down their faith, convert them, or tell them they are wrong.

Have you ever posted a negative word on the numerous anti-Islam threads? If not, you are good. If so, you are a hypocrite.

[Trigg]

Have you ever posted a negative word on the numerous anti-Islam threads? If not, you are good. If so, you are a hypocrite.


The "anti-Islam" threads usually have to do with the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace, and the myriad of examples that prove the exact opposite.

I don't believe anyone has said that Mohammad never existed. They've commented that many who follow the religion are violent.

To tell hjmick (or anyone else who claims to be a christian/atheist) that he is a hypocrite if he commented on a thread is asinine.

[Thunderknuckles]

I don't believe anyone has said that Mohammad never existed. They've commented that many who follow the religion are violent.

This is precisely my stance. I don't criticize Islam per se. But I am more than willing to criticize the followers of Islam who distort and use Islam as a means to justify violence. The same goes for the followers of Christianity who do the same.

[Arbo]

The "anti-Islam" threads usually have to do with the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace, and the myriad of examples that prove the exact opposite.

Oh bullshit. They are outright bashing the religion, and bashing a user on this forum for being a member of the religion.

But it is noted that those who believe in a different religion that has a history of violence (christianity) get highly offended when one 'goes after' their beliefs, but are ok when it is a different religion that is attacked.

Point made, over and over. Thanks.

It is also noted that I do not see you or thunder as part of the group that continually bashes another religion at every chance, even when it has nothing to do with the thread topic.

[Larrymc]

http://trevorburrus.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/05/1345329-10-reasons-why-christianity-is-wrong

Starting with #10:



Comments on #10?[/FONT][/COLOR]Atheist have no more proof of some Big Bang theory, than Christian have iron clad proof of Jesus Miracles, the Christian has much of there faith in a genealogy that can be traced back for thousands of years, not billions like the (and i use the phase lightly) educated guess of scientist, the Christian also has personal experience with God to strengthen there faith, something an Atheist can't dispute, because of there none belief they may never experience it. as for Jesus return the bible says not even Jesus knows, so any prediction would be bogus. it gives clues such as like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, we see the Homosexuality raising up, will God weight till all deviant sexual desire is rampant who knows, but Him, so every generation has seen all kinds of sinful desire increase, so its no surprise that some would think they were living in the end times. and believe that Jesus would return.

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/C64tuvmZwgc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[hjmick]

Have you ever posted a negative word on the numerous anti-Islam threads? If not, you are good. If so, you are a hypocrite.


Not that I can recall.

I tend not to post in the religion forum, not by choice but because I have little interest in the topic.

[Arbo]

the Christian also has personal experience with God

Personal experience? Was it like a beer-summit or just tea? :lol:

[Larrymc]

Personal experience? Was it like a beer-summit or just tea? :lol:Sense a spirit is unbelievable to you, a spiritual encounter would be beyond your comprehension, no alcohol involved, but it might surprise you to know that i believe Jesus made the real thing, not grape juice.

[Arbo]

Sense a spirit is unbelievable to you, a spiritual encounter would be beyond your comprehension, no alcohol involved, but it might surprise you to know that i believe Jesus made the real thing, not grape juice.

:lol: It's just so damn funny, how can you not laugh.

[Larrymc]

:lol: It's just so damn funny, how can you not laugh.Well apparently you may never know, my hope is that you some day experience God, unfortunately it will probably be in tragedy.

[aboutime]

Well apparently you may never know, my hope is that you some day experience God, unfortunately it will probably be in tragedy.



Larrymc. Meanwhile. We all get to silently laugh at those who are incapable of experiencing something they demand, does not exist. A new version of hypocrisy they will never understand.

[Larrymc]

Larrymc. Meanwhile. We all get to silently laugh at those who are incapable of experiencing something they demand, does not exist. A new version of hypocrisy they will never understand.I don't know why those who claim to have such wisdom, don't have the sense to check into this nonsense that so many believe in.

[Arbo]

Well apparently you may never know, my hope is that you some day experience God, unfortunately it will probably be in tragedy.

If you do not believe in the cookie monster, of course you will never share the grace of the cookie monsters presence. Seriously, hysterically funny stuff.


Larrymc. Meanwhile. We all get to silently laugh at those who are incapable of experiencing something they demand, does not exist. A new version of hypocrisy they will never understand.

Oh, OT boy back at it.

[aboutime]

I don't know why those who claim to have such wisdom, don't have the sense to check into this nonsense that so many believe in.


Larrymc. They claim not to need wisdom. That would mean they'd first be required to be Honest. And, as we all are seeing everyday. Honesty, and Truthfulness are two words they rarely get to practice in person.

[Arbo]

Larrymc. They claim not to need wisdom. That would mean they'd first be required to be Honest. And, as we all are seeing everyday. Honesty, and Truthfulness are two words they rarely get to practice in person.


More OT spam from mr. OT himself! :laugh:

[Larrymc]

If you do not believe in the cookie monster, of course you will never share the grace of the cookie monsters presence. Seriously, hysterically funny stuff.



Oh, OT boy back at it.:clap:Your right, Wow common sense, and i thought you were beyond.

[Arbo]

:clap:Your right, Wow common sense, and i thought you were beyond.

I see you missed the point. Congratulations.

[jimnyc]

I would be curious of the exercise here. Is the point to condemn those posting in Islamic threads? And if so, wouldn'tproving those people wdon't in those threads be more appropriate?

If the exercise is solely to point out so called hypocrisy, that does nothing to change or prove wrong ones belief, and sounds like trolling. I see more fun with trying to play gotcha than an attempt at a serious discussion.

As to the subject... Its my belief as a christian, another's disbelief means nothing to me. Post when you see current day savagery being committed and I would happily condemn them equally as I condemn any muslim, and I've done so before.

[Larrymc]

I see you missed the point. Congratulations.LOL im sure i did sense most of your post are pointless.

[tailfins]

I would be curious of the exercise here. Is the point to condemn those posting in Islamic threads? And if so, wouldn'tproving those people wdon't in those threads be more appropriate?

If the exercise is solely to point out so called hypocrisy, that does nothing to change or prove wrong ones belief, and sounds like trolling. I see more fun with trying to play gotcha than an attempt at a serious discussion.

As to the subject... Its my belief as a christian, another's disbelief means nothing to me. Post when you see current day savagery being committed and I would happily condemn them equally as I condemn any muslim, and I've done so before.

Isn't it too much bother to guess or even care? Cambridge, Mass. is full of "Arbos". After awhile they become no more noticeable than the parking meters along the sidewalk. I would take an "Arbo" any day of the week over an occultist. At least he doesn't actively work to bring demons into our presence.

[Jeff]

Oh bullshit. They are outright bashing the religion, and bashing a user on this forum for being a member of the religion.

But it is noted that those who believe in a different religion that has a history of violence (christianity) get highly offended when one 'goes after' their beliefs, but are ok when it is a different religion that is attacked.

Point made, over and over. Thanks.

It is also noted that I do not see you or thunder as part of the group that continually bashes another religion at every chance, even when it has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Glad to know you have decided to be the one to protect others ,

Arbo faster than a speeding Bullet

To The Rescue

Hope one of those you have decided to defend doesn't decide you need to be beheaded

[hjmick]

Glad to know you have decided to be the one to protect others ,

Arbo faster than a speeding Bullet

To The Rescue

Hope one of those you have decided to defend doesn't decide you need to be beheaded



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsPa8QgGGkc

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I would be curious of the exercise here. Is the point to condemn those posting in Islamic threads? And if so, wouldn'tproving those people wdon't in those threads be more appropriate?

If the exercise is solely to point out so called hypocrisy, that does nothing to change or prove wrong ones belief, and sounds like trolling. I see more fun with trying to play gotcha than an attempt at a serious discussion.

As to the subject... Its my belief as a christian, another's disbelief means nothing to me. Post when you see current day savagery being committed and I would happily condemn them equally as I condemn any muslim, and I've done so before. Its actually the same ole crap. We mustn't speak the truth about Islam and what a great many of its followers do. Never mind that its in the news and affects so many people worldwide. Never mind the great change it has brought upon this nation.
Doing so here has been called a phobia!

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.[1] ---------------There is a worldwide effort being made to ignore reality by calling acknowledgement of that reality a phobia. They can not kill the truth so attacking the messenger is the next best thing and that's is what is being done here by a certain few IMHO. The day that truth is not allowed to be posted here is the exact same day I leave. Who tha hell wants to live in a damn fantasy world except stupid people? Here is my challenge to these freaking appeasers -- prove that its a phobia or sthu!!! Irrational is in the denying reality not in the open and right action of proclaiming it and its very real threat. How about we et admin here decide if threads are ok? Why do or can a certain few posters here keep presenting this failed, illogical and childish complaint/campaign about my and others posting certain threads that are allowed by site rules??!!!! -Tyr

[Arbo]

When any of the 'internet tough guys' has the balls to walk into a mosque and shout and scream the stuff they do here, please let me know, as I'd love to be there to film that, and then film their murder. But we know, none of them do. Because that would require a spine and standing for what you say you believe. Thus they anonymously spout of on the internet where it is safe.

LOL.

[jimnyc]

When any of the 'internet tough guys' has the balls to walk into a mosque and shout and scream the stuff they do here, please let me know, as I'd love to be there to film that, and then film their murder. But we know, none of them do. Because that would require a spine and standing for what you say you believe. Thus they anonymously spout of on the internet where it is safe.

LOL.

Honestly, that's kinda dumb. One needs to go into a mosque and make a spectacle in order to espouse their opinion here? How about you come to my church and stand at the altar and speak your anti Christianity crap? Otherwise, what you write here is invalid. Sounds kinda dumb, don't it?

I stick to what I said earlier, you would be better debating what is in Islamic threads, or ignoring them, as opposed to trolling to make a point that makes sense only to you. At the very best all you are doing is the same as you are condemning, which sounds like grade school games.

[Arbo]

all you are doing is the same as you are condemning

And yet people give me shit, but let the others run free. Point made.

[jimnyc]

And yet people give me shit, but let the others run free. Point made.

Not giving you shit, just pointing out that your little game is basically trolling. You may not like what others post about Islam, but they are posting facts and opinions, not starting threads to play games with other members. Again, what you didn't quote when replying, how about debating in those threads if you disagree with what is posted? Or perhaps ignore it? But making a thread to play a game is stupid. Had you done so with the intent to truly discuss or debate it would be different, but its obvious you did so to try and agitate others. No rule against that, and no rule against me pointing out the stupidity behind this lame little game of gotcha.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/899310350.html Truth is Hate to Those Who Hate the Truth


Contact: Pat McEwen, Operation Save America, 321-431-3962



WASHINGTON, May 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- On Monday, May 18th, 9AM to 4PM, Christian leaders from across the nation will speak against the Senate "Hate Crimes" bill (S.909) at our nation's Capital, Supreme Court and White House.

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, Director of Elijah Ministries states, "Homosexuals came out of the closet and are using the coercive force of civil government to force Christianity into one. America will learn the hard way that you cannot make straight what God has called crooked or tolerate what God deems intolerable or turn moral wrongs into civil rights and thrive as a people. S.909 promotes governmental hatred towards God, saving faith, family, and freedom and makes the church of Jesus Christ guilty as heaven and sexual deviants innocent as hell!"

"The decriminalization of child-killing (abortion) brought about the criminalization of those who would oppose it and the decriminalization of homosexuality brought about the criminalization of those who would oppose it. Now we have the S.909 bill, which expressly forbids any language that might be perceived as 'hate' by the homosexual community. If we do not act decisively at this time, S.909 will make illegal every word in the Bible describing the destruction wrought by this vile behavior, and prepare the way for total censorship of the Gospel of Christ. Our children will pay a horrible price for our cowardice." Rev. Flip Benham, National Director, Operation Rescue/Operation Save America

Repent America Director, Michael Marcavage, states, "Such legislation is completely unnecessary, unconstitutional and ungodly. The federal 'hate crimes' bill will do nothing more than frame mischief by a law, ushering in the persecution of Christians nationwide. The bill seeks to shut down the message of hope and freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ by criminalizing Christians who reach out in the love of God to those trapped in its bondage."

"American values are under attack by al-Qaeda and radical Islamists. Instead of combating this issue, it seems some within our government are more interested in criminalizing American citizens. The so-called 'Hate Crimes' bill is an attempt to take away the rights of Christians to speak out and express their freedom of speech."
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Founder and President of BOND. Those that hate Christians most often just hate TRUTH!!! Click the link for more enlightenment. This is how its done. Present opinion based upon fact and links to elucidate. I can post hundreds more linked sources. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not giving you shit, just pointing out that your little game is basically trolling. You may not like what others post about Islam, but they are posting facts and opinions, not starting threads to play games with other members.. ^^^^^^^ Bravo!!! Needed to have been said... ---:beer:--Tyr

[Larrymc]

When any of the 'internet tough guys' has the balls to walk into a mosque and shout and scream the stuff they do here, please let me know, as I'd love to be there to film that, and then film their murder. But we know, none of them do. Because that would require a spine and standing for what you say you believe. Thus they anonymously spout of on the internet where it is safe.

LOL.You accuse people of bashing Islam, yet you readily admit, that if one went to a Mosque and voice Opposition, they would be Murdered, not expelled, not have the authorities called on them Murdered, at least we know you know the truth, in spite of your ridicules arguments.

[Arbo]

You may not like what others post about Islam, but they are posting facts and opinions, not starting threads to play games with other members.

You may not like what others post about Christianity, but they are posting facts and opinions, not starting threads to play games with other members.

[Arbo]

You accuse people of bashing Islam, yet you readily admit, that if one went to a Mosque and voice Opposition, they would be Murdered, not expelled, not have the authorities called on them Murdered, at least we know you know the truth, in spite of your ridicules arguments.

It is a valid possibility. Fear is a strong motivator, and there are several which show of their fear daily, hiding behind a keyboard.

[Arbo]

Those that hate Christians most often just hate TRUTH!!! Click the link for more enlightenment. This is how its done. Present opinion based upon fact and links to elucidate. I can post hundreds more linked sources. --Tyr

Ah, Christianity = truth. Quite lame. I think Missleman said it best, you have no proof that any religion is more 'right' than any other. But I appreciate you continually showing the ignorance present in your faith.

[jimnyc]

You may not like what others post about Christianity, but they are posting facts and opinions, not starting threads to play games with other members.

Cool with me if you want to reply to me like a copying asshole. Fact is, almost all Islamicthreads are about AACTIONS and not really beliefs. Post away the current savagery being committed by people claiming to do so in the name of Christianity and I will condemn along with you. Or you can play baby games with members you disagree with, your choice. Either way, you fail. You won't have anyone disbelieve just because you don't, and you'll be hard pressed to find Christians committing .00001% of the savage acts I speak of happening today in our world.

[jimnyc]

It is a valid possibility. Fear is a strong motivator, and there are several which show of their fear daily, hiding behind a keyboard.



People have accusedme of hiding behind a kkeyboardmany ttimes.EVERY time I tell them I will gladly scream it in their face. Kinda dumb to accuse someone of being a coward and then being a coward ones self. Would you like me to repeat anything to your face? If so, let me know, if not it is YOU hiding behind a keyboard. If talking about Islam, how about leaving it to them, instead of acting lime a tough guy in their stead?

[Arbo]

Fact is, almost all Islamicthreads are about AACTIONS and not really beliefs.

When most of them are quoting their holy text to show what the religion is, no, it's not about actions. I understand that you are probably a 'christian', and thus take offense at anything said that goes against your religion. Again, this just goes to highlight the hypocrisy of one sect and their behavior. Thanks.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You accuse people of bashing Islam, yet you readily admit, that if one went to a Mosque and voice Opposition, they would be Murdered, not expelled, not have the authorities called on them Murdered, at least we know you know the truth, in spite of your ridicules arguments.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Larrymc again. God is truth, neither can be destroyed my friend. Christians are still human and make mistakes but we do not go about murdering in the name of Jesus or to force our Supremacy over others. -Tyr

[Arbo]

God is truth, neither can be destroyed my friend. Christians are still human and make mistakes but we do not go about murdering in the name of Jesus or to force our Supremacy over others. -Tyr

Sure, if you ignore history, or even some modern events. LOL. Ignorance shows through this one light a red giant.

[Larrymc]

You may not like what others post about Christianity, but they are posting facts and opinions, not starting threads to play games with other members.Nice spin, and whats that other word you like, Aaah yea Hypocrisy, sense others indicates more than you.

[Larrymc]

It is a valid possibility. Fear is a strong motivator, and there are several which show of their fear daily, hiding behind a keyboard.Really see it wouldn't be in a Church, the other two i mentioned would be used, unless they where threatening lives, then they may be killed but then that would not be Murder.

[Arbo]

Nice spin, and whats that other word you like, Aaah yea Hypocrisy, sense others indicates more than you.

I understand you do not have a clue what the word means. Hypocrisy is you (and others) being fine when any religion is 'attacked' other than your own. But thanks for trying.

[jimnyc]

When most of them are quoting their holy text to show what the religion is, no, it's not about actions. I understand that you are probably a 'christian', and thus take offense at anything said that goes against your religion. Again, this just goes to highlight the hypocrisy of one sect and their behavior. Thanks.

Why not search all the Christianity posts Ihave made before claiming iI am a hypocrite? I condemn terrorism, abuses and such, and would do the same if a christian did so. Sounds like I am on the same page for both, being against the violence and such. Don't call me a hypocrite because you can't post all the same about current day Christians. Sure, you can bring up things from other times in the past, but its hardly relevant today, and dumb as a response to current topics. You just think anyone not condemning the many Islamic threads is therefore a hypocrite, and that's ridiculous. I prefer to discuss the good topics we post, debate with what I disagree with, as opposed to playing little kidgamez. Your choice, I thought u were above that with the endless complaining u do.

[Arbo]

Ah, some more left wing Alinsky style responding. Rather than address the actual comment, that they are not all about 'actions', but rather content of the religion.

[jimnyc]

Ah, some more left wing Alinsky style responding. Rather than address the actual comment, that they are not all about 'actions', but rather content of the religion.


Funny considering your entire thread is avoiding a topic so you can act like a child. Whatever, maybe somexay you will consider debating the Islamic threads or Christianity. Until then I won't be joining you in the little reindeer games. Enjoy yourself though!

[Larrymc]

I understand you do not have a clue what the word means. Hypocrisy is you (and others) being fine when any religion is 'attacked' other than your own. But thanks for trying.the only religion being attack is Christianity by you, and your feeble attempts to compare Christianity to Islam, my self and others have wasted time by giving you the benefit of the doubt, in trying to help you see common sense, but like most liberal minds you are in capable. you like to state Hypocrisy, but what atrocity's committed by Christians have you seen supported here?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Funny considering your entire thread is avoiding a topic so you can act like a child. Whatever, maybe somexay you will consider debating the Islamic threads or Christianity. Until then I won't be joining you in the little reindeer games. Enjoy yourself though! I want to protest all these threads on politics. I mean both sides engage in politics and I see that one sides presents far too much truth which is just unfair Jim. Can you help me out on this one and outlaw all political threads(?) , you know just to be fair. ;) Almost forgot , ban the damn Christians too.-- :laugh: --Tyr

[Arbo]

Funny considering your entire thread is avoiding a topic so you can act like a child. Whatever, maybe somexay you will consider debating the Islamic threads or Christianity. Until then I won't be joining you in the little reindeer games. Enjoy yourself though!

More Alinsky. Doing the DNC proud!

BTW, there are very few here that would 'debate' Christianity. And there is no 'debate' about Islam, it is nothing more than attack. There is a member on the forum that is a follower of that faith, and when he says that terrorists are not real Muslims, rather than believe someone in the faith, the mob attacks, letting him know that they (non followers of that faith) know MORE about his faith than he does. Wanna talk about acting like assholes and playing games? It's ok though, because as the blind lead the charge of hate, the government keeps on it's path of trampling over our liberties. And the blind are partly to blame because they are just sheep doing the governments bidding of spreading fear and thus diverting attention from what they are up to.


the only religion being attack is Christianity

We have already established your ignorance on the subject, no need to prove it further.

[Larrymc]

When most of them are quoting their holy text to show what the religion is, no, it's not about actions. I understand that you are probably a 'christian', and thus take offense at anything said that goes against your religion. Again, this just goes to highlight the hypocrisy of one sect and their behavior. Thanks.No most are not quoting there holy text, you fail again.

[Arbo]

No most are not quoting there holy text, you fail again.

It's 'their'. And yes, they are.

[Larrymc]

It's 'their'. And yes, they are.no doubt there are quotes, Tyr will be glad to give some, but no not Most.

[jimnyc]

It's 'their'. And yes, they are.
I see you doing this fairly often. I'll be home from vacation tonight, would you like a debate on spelling, English, grammar or intelligence in general? You mock others over spelling errors, and I'll give you 20 topics and I'll debate you on any of them that I will present. I guarantee I make you look 10x dumber than you are lamely trying to do to others instead of addressing what they posted.

[Larrymc]

More Alinsky. Doing the DNC proud!

BTW, there are very few here that would 'debate' Christianity. And there is no 'debate' about Islam, it is nothing more than attack. There is a member on the forum that is a follower of that faith, and when he says that terrorists are not real Muslims, rather than believe someone in the faith, the mob attacks, letting him know that they (non followers of that faith) know MORE about his faith than he does. Wanna talk about acting like assholes and playing games? It's ok though, because as the blind lead the charge of hate, the government keeps on it's path of trampling over our liberties. And the blind are partly to blame because they are just sheep doing the governments bidding of spreading fear and thus diverting attention from what they are up to.



We have already established your ignorance on the subject, no need to prove it further.You have failed at every turn, and yet you continue, now that is true ignorance.

[Arbo]

I see you doing this fairly often.

That's a straight up lie. Provide links.

Considering that the first line is a failure on your part, the rest of your post is irrelevant. BTW, myself and log were going to debate a one on one, and are still awaiting that thread to be set up.

[jimnyc]

That's a straight up lie. Provide links.

Considering that the first line is a failure on your part, the rest of your post is irrelevant. BTW, myself and log were going to debate a one on one, and are still awaiting that thread to be set up.


I can'tsetup a debate iI am not aware of. One of you guys send me details and I will happily set it up when Iget back to NY tonight. Good luck, I consider LR to be one of the most intelligent on the board.

As for me, I'll take it as a no, a no by lack of acceptance.

[Arbo]

I can'tsetup a debate iI am not aware of. One of you guys send me details and I will happily set it up when Iget back to NY tonight. Good luck, I consider LR to be one of the most intelligent on the board.

We have discussed a topic, and it will be an interesting topic.


As for me, I'll take it as a no, a no by lack of acceptance.

Accept what? As I said I quit reading after your first line that you have yet to prove is not a lie.

[Larrymc]

Ah, some more left wing Alinsky style responding. Rather than address the actual comment, that they are not all about 'actions', but rather content of the religion.Here we go again Desperation to win an argument, by reducing a conversation to simply is or is not, sense Jim actually said "almost all" your argument is invalid, because they certainly are not all about content of religion.

[tailfins]

Funny considering your entire thread is avoiding a topic so you can act like a child. Whatever, maybe somexay you will consider debating the Islamic threads or Christianity. Until then I won't be joining you in the little reindeer games. Enjoy yourself though!

Let children be children. :martian: Let's all be happy Arbo is enjoying himself. :clap: Jim, be glad you can provide such a valuable service!

[jimnyc]

We have discussed a topic, and it will be an interesting topic.



Accept what? As I said I quit reading after your first line that you have yet to prove is not a lie.

WhAtever, I don't mind if you don'twant to accept. I Am sorry you couldn't read past my first sentence. Some of us can multitask and discuss multiple things, some call others cowards and then cowardly back out themselves. I don't want to embarrass you anyway.

[Larrymc]

More Alinsky. Doing the DNC proud!

BTW, there are very few here that would 'debate' Christianity. And there is no 'debate' about Islam, it is nothing more than attack. There is a member on the forum that is a follower of that faith, and when he says that terrorists are not real Muslims, rather than believe someone in the faith, the mob attacks, letting him know that they (non followers of that faith) know MORE about his faith than he does. Wanna talk about acting like assholes and playing games? It's ok though, because as the blind lead the charge of hate, the government keeps on it's path of trampling over our liberties. And the blind are partly to blame because they are just sheep doing the governments bidding of spreading fear and thus diverting attention from what they are up to.



We have already established your ignorance on the subject, no need to prove it further.follower of that faith, and when he says that terrorists are not real Muslims, rather than believe someone in the faith, I have not attacked this follower, i have stated the fact that, Islam may well be a peaceful religion, but if so he is in the great minority that interprets the Qur'an that way, as for helping the Government spread fear, Not sure were you get that, the Government especially the administration touts Islam as a peaceful Religion quit often.

[cadet]

When any of the 'internet tough guys' has the balls to walk into a mosque and shout and scream the stuff they do here, please let me know, as I'd love to be there to film that, and then film their murder. But we know, none of them do. Because that would require a spine and standing for what you say you believe. Thus they anonymously spout of on the internet where it is safe.

LOL.

You do know, that even the islamic people hate the islamic radicals?
It's kinda like us and the westboro baptist church. You can bash them as much as you want.

My arab buddy once told me "Terrorism has no country or religion." And he's freakin right, he get's more pissed than us when it comes to islamic murderers/terrorists.
That's HIS people that are making HIM look bad. He hates it. And I've heard far worse out of his mouth about it than from here.

[Larrymc]

You do know, that even the islamic people hate the islamic radicals?
It's kinda like us and the westboro baptist church. You can bash them as much as you want.

My arab buddy once told me "Terrorism has no country or religion." And he's freakin right, he get's more pissed than us when it comes to islamic murderers/terrorists.
That's HIS people that are making HIM look bad. He hates it. And I've heard far worse out of his mouth about it than from here.We have a couple on here, that i believe are peaceful, and are disgusted with the terrorist using their religion, and they claim there's multitudes that fell that way, but there is some conspiracy to keep their outrage out of the news, but given the current Administration i have trouble with that. though i do admit even the Coptic Christians is fairly new to me.

[fj1200]

We have a couple on here, that i believe are peaceful, and are disgusted with the terrorist using their religion, and they claim there's multitudes that fell that way, but there is some conspiracy to keep their outrage out of the news, but given the current Administration i have trouble with that. though i do admit even the Coptic Christians is fairly new to me.

Was there some sort of change when the administrations changed?

[Arbo]

WhAtever, I don't mind if you don'twant to accept. I Am sorry you couldn't read past my first sentence. Some of us can multitask and discuss multiple things, some call others cowards and then cowardly back out themselves. I don't want to embarrass you anyway.

So yet again, rather than prove the lie you told, you avoid further discussion of it. Very telling.

Talk about being a coward...

[Arbo]

You do know, that even the islamic people hate the islamic radicals?
It's kinda like us and the westboro baptist church. You can bash them as much as you want.

My arab buddy once told me "Terrorism has no country or religion." And he's freakin right, he get's more pissed than us when it comes to islamic murderers/terrorists.
That's HIS people that are making HIM look bad. He hates it. And I've heard far worse out of his mouth about it than from here.

Perhaps you need to spread this information to those that have claimed as a FACT that islam is a religion of violence, that it makes people commit the terrorist acts they commit and behave as they do. See, to this small group of people (idiots), the problem is the religion. Just read any number of their continual rants about it.

[cadet]

Perhaps you need to spread this information to those that have claimed as a FACT that islam is a religion of violence, that it makes people commit the terrorist acts they commit and behave as they do. See, to this small group of people (idiots), the problem is the religion. Just read any number of their continual rants about it.

If you'll notice, I tend to stay away from those that tyr starts. And when I rarely do, I point out that there are good muslims too.

[Larrymc]

Was there some sort of change when the administrations changed?Not sure how you've missed it but Obama has touted the Peace of Islam more than any President in US history. Many times quoting the Qur'an.

[Arbo]

If you'll notice, I tend to stay away from those that tyr starts. And when I rarely do, I point out that there are good muslims too.

Nah, of the 1.6 billion, there isn't a single 'good' one. At least that's what those that claim to know the 'truth' continually say. ;)

[jimnyc]

So yet again, rather than prove the lie you told, you avoid further discussion of it. Very telling.

Talk about being a coward...

You're just a punk troll calling other cowards. You make claims about others standing behind their keyboards but outright ignore my inquiry about me stating things to your face. Then if I push that issue, you'll come back with internet tough guy crap. You can call me a coward all you like, but I know for a FACT that you wouldn't say so to my face. Say the word, I'll have my phone number to you within seconds via PM if you so desire and would be more than happy to let you see if I'm the coward you excuse me of being. You on the other hand, you're just a loud mouth troll, and it's getting tiresome. I tried to get you to go to debate in Islamic threads, or debate actual Christianity things without playing your little hypocrite game, but you ignore those. You're worse than those you report, which is so many daily and more than I can count in a week. Reporting someone while replying in kind to them - now THAT is cowardly.

I'll go a step farther beyond your comprehension and abilities. I'll publicly apologize right now for claiming you continually correct others on their spelling. I'm far too lazy to search right now as I just got home and will take your word on that and apologize.

Now how about I come up with a list of topics and see how smart YOU really are? We'll pick out 10 judges on the board and I will right now bet you $500, before we even pick a subject, that I beat you handily. Hell, even better, if I lose I send you $500, if you lose you Paypal me $100. How's about it, genius?

[Arbo]

Reporting someone while replying in kind to them - now THAT is cowardly.

Then you should have called out MA on that one before he ran away from the forum. Nobody got close to reporting the number of posts that guy did.


I'll go a step farther beyond your comprehension and abilities. I'll publicly apologize right now for claiming you continually correct others on their spelling. I'm far too lazy to search right now as I just got home and will take your word on that and apologize.

You could search all you want, you will not find what you claimed. But I accept your apology, as apologizing is the sign of someone with character.

[tailfins]

Then you should have called out MA on that one before he ran away from the forum. Nobody got close to reporting the number of posts that guy did.



You could search all you want, you will not find what you claimed. But I accept your apology, as apologizing is the sign of someone with character.

Apologies are overrated for both the sender and the receiver. I'll take a "hey, I learned something" any day of the week. Seeing somebody "wise up" is better than seeing them grovel.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Apologies are overrated for both the sender and the receiver. I'll take a "hey, I learned something" any day of the week. Seeing somebody "wise up" is better than seeing them grovel. An insincere apology is a great insult in and of itself. For it shows contempt for the receiver's ability to see it for its true arrogance and contempt. As a young man I made it a point to knock the hell out of any guy giving me one. Then tell him why he just got clobbered. Of course face to face is an entirely different thing than exchanges on the internet.
I've seen a fair challenge offered here and apparently refused. Proving yet again that money talks and bullshit walks. :laugh2:--Tyr

[Arbo]

An insincere apology is a great insult in and of itself. For it shows contempt for the receiver's ability to see it for its true arrogance and contempt. As a young man I made it a point to knock the hell out of any guy giving me one. Then tell him why he just got clobbered. Of course face to face is an entirely different thing than exchanges on the internet.

Says the man that wouldn't accept a challenge to a one on one debate. Oh the humor!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

An insincere apology is a great insult in and of itself. For it shows contempt for the receiver's ability to see it for its true arrogance and contempt. As a young man I made it a point to knock the hell out of any guy giving me one. Then tell him why he just got clobbered. Of course face to face is an entirely different thing than exchanges on the internet. How does the hunter outfox and slay the stealthy and mighty cunning of the jaguar? By using his brain and playing a different game! The weaker one finds out the hard way that there is more than one way to skin a cat. :laugh::beer::laugh:--Tyr

[Jeff]

You're just a punk troll calling other cowards. You make claims about others standing behind their keyboards but outright ignore my inquiry about me stating things to your face. Then if I push that issue, you'll come back with internet tough guy crap. You can call me a coward all you like, but I know for a FACT that you wouldn't say so to my face. Say the word, I'll have my phone number to you within seconds via PM if you so desire and would be more than happy to let you see if I'm the coward you excuse me of being. You on the other hand, you're just a loud mouth troll, and it's getting tiresome. I tried to get you to go to debate in Islamic threads, or debate actual Christianity things without playing your little hypocrite game, but you ignore those. You're worse than those you report, which is so many daily and more than I can count in a week. Reporting someone while replying in kind to them - now THAT is cowardly.

I'll go a step farther beyond your comprehension and abilities. I'll publicly apologize right now for claiming you continually correct others on their spelling. I'm far too lazy to search right now as I just got home and will take your word on that and apologize.

Now how about I come up with a list of topics and see how smart YOU really are? We'll pick out 10 judges on the board and I will right now bet you $500, before we even pick a subject, that I beat you handily. Hell, even better, if I lose I send you $500, if you lose you Paypal me $100. How's about it, genius?


Then you should have called out MA on that one before he ran away from the forum. Nobody got close to reporting the number of posts that guy did.



You could search all you want, you will not find what you claimed. But I accept your apology, as apologizing is the sign of someone with character.


Says the man that wouldn't accept a challenge to a one on one debate. Oh the humor!

This is too funny as you punk out for what the 3rd time in this thread alone you are going to talk about Tyr not accepting a one on one debate :laugh: OH the Humor is frigging right Wait that's right you answered a challenge with a well me and my buddy want to debate and we haven't told you about it yet but why haven't you set it up :laugh: HOLY HELL YOU ARE TOO FUNNY

[Larrymc]

This is too funny as you punk out for what the 3rd time in this thread alone you are going to talk about Tyr not accepting a one on one debate :laugh: OH the Humor is frigging right Wait that's right you answered a challenge with a well me and my buddy want to debate and we haven't told you about it yet but why haven't you set it up :laugh: HOLY HELL YOU ARE TOO FUNNYArbo had not stuck me as funny, but looking back at his reply's your right one can only laugh.:laugh:

[Arbo]

This is too funny as you punk out for what the 3rd time in this thread alone you are going to talk about Tyr not accepting a one on one debate :laugh: OH the Humor is frigging right Wait that's right you answered a challenge with a well me and my buddy want to debate and we haven't told you about it yet but why haven't you set it up :laugh: HOLY HELL YOU ARE TOO FUNNY

I punk out? Ah, I see, stick up for the bro. I'd expect no less.

[jimnyc]

I punk out? Ah, I see, stick up for the bro. I'd expect no less.

I don't see where he was sticking up for me at all, but rather pointing out your hypocrisy. If I wasn't his brother, would what he posted be any different?

[fj1200]

Not sure how you've missed it but Obama has touted the Peace of Islam more than any President in US history. Many times quoting the Qur'an.

So he's managed to keep it out of the news? I also don't recall Bush condemning Islam itself.

[Trigg]

Oh bullshit. They are outright bashing the religion, and bashing a user on this forum for being a member of the religion.

But it is noted that those who believe in a different religion that has a history of violence (christianity) get highly offended when one 'goes after' their beliefs, but are ok when it is a different religion that is attacked.

Point made, over and over. Thanks.

It is also noted that I do not see you or thunder as part of the group that continually bashes another religion at every chance, even when it has nothing to do with the thread topic.


They bash him because every time some loony Muslim goes on a killing spree, he says they aren't really Muslim.

Christianity does have a history of violence, I don't think ANYONE has ever claimed that wasn't true. It's very well documented.

The difference here is that people will condemn the violence that Catholic/Prodistant church's perpetrated. Our poster simply says "they aren't real muslims" as a way to wash his hands of the violence that Islam seems to breed.

[fj1200]

They bash him because every time some loony Muslim goes on a killing spree, he says they aren't really Muslim.

There are plenty of Christians in prison, and were presumably Christian at the time of offense, so were they not really Christian?

[Arbo]

They bash him because every time some loony Muslim goes on a killing spree, he says they aren't really Muslim.

Seems to be the same thing I see a lot of christians say when a christian bombs or murders. "They are not a 'real' christian."

[Trigg]

Seems to be the same thing I see a lot of christians say when a christian bombs or murders. "They are not a 'real' christian."


If people murdering in the name of Islam was unusual and only happened rarely, than I could get behind the "they're not real Muslim" defense.

If murders were happening "in the name of Christianity" every other week. Than as a Christian I would have to take a serious look at what my religion is about and what it promotes.

But sitting here week after week as Muslims commit horrific murders and the only defense our resident muslim can offer is to say that "they aren't real muslims" just isn't going to work.

Islam, for what ever reason, seems to create people who HATE and want to kill innocent people. I in no way feel that all Muslims are bad, but the religion does seem be breed fanatics.

[Arbo]

If people murdering in the name of Islam was unusual and only happened rarely, than I could get behind the "they're not real Muslim" defense.

If murders were happening "in the name of Christianity" every other week. Than as a Christian I would have to take a serious look at what my religion is about and what it promotes.

But sitting here week after week as Muslims commit horrific murders and the only defense our resident muslim can offer is to say that "they aren't real muslims" just isn't going to work.

Islam, for what ever reason, seems to create people who HATE and want to kill innocent people. I in no way feel that all Muslims are bad, but the religion does seem be breed fanatics.

All very reasonable. Thanks, that's a nice change.

[Jeff]

There are plenty of Christians in prison, and were presumably Christian at the time of offense, so were they not really Christian?

Plenty of Christians that kill in the name of there God? Yes I am sure there are some but is it a every time you look at the news ya see again where someone killed in the name of there Ala.... Oooopppsss God ? We see Christian pedophiles as well and once caught they are in jail not being given a round of applause from a couple Libs on a message board because his infant wife didn't die, and I have to wonder how many Christians have flown planes into a building lately ( and maybe you can give me a number it wouldn't surprise me, this world is going down hill quickly ) But seriously Fj the Muslim deal is everyday , trying to compare the Christians to the Muslims in crime, it would be like comparing apples and oranges, two different categories. And the question is , is why don't we treat all religions the same, simple there not, you read about crime everyday about the Muslims ( it has just gotten to real ) yes there are bad Christians no doubt, there is good and bad in anything, but a Ford Pinto is no where near a Corvette but they both have wheels and ya drive them. As for jafar, he is a good guy I believe and yes I believe he truly believes what he says , such as they aren't real but I also believe the million of other reports from others stating just how bad Muslims are and most importantly I take what I see ( video's, news reports and so on ) but as for jafar yes I think he is a good guy and a smart one .

[Jeff]

I punk out? Ah, I see, stick up for the bro. I'd expect no less.

Good catch thank you , isn't this what you just called someone a straight up liar for ? Arbo Jim certainly doesn't need me to stick by his side we both know that and to be honesty as much as we like to cut up not sure I would even want to try to come to his side, and honestly after I seen you bail after the 5 to 1 odds and all I realized this was going to be fun to just watch , as for the questions you put forward I replied to Fj's post , that is my belief .

[Larrymc]

So he's managed to keep it out of the news? I also don't recall Bush condemning Islam itself.Your the one who said their outrage don't make the news. and i questioned that because Obama controls much of the big Media, and sense its one of his goals to convenience the American people the peace of Islam, i don't think such news would not get covered. I wouldn't expect an American President to Condemn Islam, we have to much common interest, but i also would not expect a President to go out of his way to promote Islam either.

[Arbo]

Good catch thank you , isn't this what you just called someone a straight up liar for ?

Uh, no.

[fj1200]

Your the one who said their outrage don't make the news. and i questioned that because Obama controls much of the big Media, and sense its one of his goals to convenience the American people the peace of Islam, i don't think such news would not get covered. I wouldn't expect an American President to Condemn Islam, we have to much common interest, but i also would not expect a President to go out of his way to promote Islam either.

No. And BO controls the media?


We have a couple on here, that i believe are peaceful, and are disgusted with the terrorist using their religion, and they claim there's multitudes that fell that way, but there is some conspiracy to keep their outrage out of the news, but given the current Administration i have trouble with that. though i do admit even the Coptic Christians is fairly new to me.

[fj1200]

Plenty of Christians that kill in the name of there God? Yes I am sure there are some but is it a every time you look at the news ya see again where someone killed in the name of there Ala.... Oooopppsss God ? We see Christian pedophiles as well and once caught they are in jail not being given a round of applause from a couple Libs on a message board because his infant wife didn't die, and I have to wonder how many Christians have flown planes into a building lately ( and maybe you can give me a number it wouldn't surprise me, this world is going down hill quickly ) But seriously Fj the Muslim deal is everyday , trying to compare the Christians to the Muslims in crime, it would be like comparing apples and oranges, two different categories. And the question is , is why don't we treat all religions the same, simple there not, you read about crime everyday about the Muslims ( it has just gotten to real ) yes there are bad Christians no doubt, there is good and bad in anything, but a Ford Pinto is no where near a Corvette but they both have wheels and ya drive them. As for jafar, he is a good guy I believe and yes I believe he truly believes what he says , such as they aren't real but I also believe the million of other reports from others stating just how bad Muslims are and most importantly I take what I see ( video's, news reports and so on ) but as for jafar yes I think he is a good guy and a smart one .

Oh, I fully grant that there are plenty of despicable act done in the name of Islam and very few done in the name of God but what's the larger point? If we had acts done in the name of God we would all be up in arms but would we say that they are, "not really Christian" or would you grant that they are Christian but horribly misled? I guess you're a Christian if you follow Christ and seek to do his will and are not a Christian if you don't follow and don't seek to do his will so that may give us our answer.

Nevertheless we've had plenty of discussions and threads here where things are clearly not Islamic but are proclaimed as such because a Muslim did it.

[Larrymc]

No. And BO controls the media?FJ1200 im so sorry my reply was meant for Jafar00, i thought your reply's seemed ood, it hardly seems good enough but again Im Sorry. i have to pay more attention, not sure how i mix you two up.

[glockmail]

What I find absurd is that anyone would think that the universe was created by chance. :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

10. It's Absurd

It's absurd to you. And "The proof is on them?" That is the argument of a child. You can't prove Big Bang or human evolution any faster than I can prove God.


9. Jesus has not returned

A substantial number of scientists once believed the earth was flat for thousands of years, to the point that pointing out the counter idea, that it was in fact round, was considered offensive. Christ never said he was coming back, other people assumed he was coming back, and as the church has held since its inception, men are fallible. Point finished.


8. God Doesn't Care

Y'know, I almost love the degree of arrogance of this writer. Not only is he judgmental asshole using his faith in atheism as an excuse to rip into every single Christian on the planet, and treat them like morons, but now he's even decided he knows a God he claims doesn't exist.

On a separate note, Bad things happening in the world does not disprove God, nor make Him care less. Storms are the world's way of righting imbalances in nature, so thus Hurricane Katrina was actually righting imbalances. Once you get to the other types of suffering in the world- murder, torture, starvation, and such- you see that those sorts of sufferings are created by man, and solvable by man as well. God granted us free will, and that comes with all the burdens that come of having will, which is to say that we can choose to do good or evil to one another.


7. Other religions

Other religions do not preclude Christianity. No proof was even given to support this claim, and truthfully, I haven't seen any honest attempt at real support in any of his points yet. In fact, given the logic he's using, more than 99% of the world believes in a God and an afterlife, so following his point of earlier point in his thesis, then it must be so, yes?

Actually, if you look at the Tower of Babel incident, you get a good view of how other faiths could have come about, within the frame of Judeo/Christian doctrine.


6. There is no Soul

Some more judgmental arrogance that he offers no real proof of. You know, every one of his points basically boils down to, "Well, I'm an atheist, so clearly I'm better than you all"?

Again, no real proof, just conjecture masqueraded as proof. He may believe there isn't a soul, and that is his God-given right. However, since he puts this all out as objective fact, he must, by point, offer evidence of his claims.


5. Evil

Taking a person's life is problematic for God. I mean, seriously, how did you miss the "Thou shalt not kill" section? It's one of those things that's been central to the belief for a very long time? Also, standing punishments for taking another's life, so unless he's arguing that cops are pro-crime, his whole point here makes no sense.

And joy, the Hitler argument, always a classic. Yes, a human being led a bunch of people who had been abused and beaten down for more than a decade by the world at large, and led them against other humans. I really love how he makes no attempt to account for the fact that the majority of the world fought against him to stop him. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, Hitler was able to be able to be handled by men? Cause it was, but for some reason, the author doesn't think so. Again, human suffering is the creation of humans.

Hitler did not occur in a vacuum. When we overtook the Axis powers in WWI, the US tried to lay down terms that were very fair, and would put Germany on a good track for future development, and make them a better neighbor, the Fourteen Points of Light. Europe went for its pound of flesh out of Germany, never mind that they used to use Germany to fight all their wars on, oh no, it's all Germany's fault.

In any event, god "flipping the switch" in Hitler's head obviates free will, and he was still preventable. I mean, seriously, did no one pick up on the "kill all the Jews" vibe that he had? Seeing the large scale government processes he used to bring it about, I can't help but think that there were other people there. And again, Hitler was brought about by other people's decisions, namely those of the ruling countries in Europe in the post-WWI, who sought to break the German people. Well, they succeeded, and so a Hitler was able to rise to power, using a scapegoat to unite the people beneath him. If you really wanna talk about what would have stopped hitler, look to the Fourteen Points of Light.


4. The Bible is not Consistent

Seriously? So if five M&Ms are on the table, and I say there are three cause I only see three of them, while you say five, then I don't have ANY M&Ms? That's seriously an argument used. Look, the Gospels were written by different people, and they were personal journals, essentially, not account-accurate record keeping. Again, we come back to the long held belief of the Bible that men are fallible. Now you say that some of the men got some stuff wrong. How does that clash?

Also, why does he think that one of them can't just be incorrect? What, did Matthew and Luke look up Jesus's parentage on Ye Olde Wikipedia? One of them might have simply done the math wrong. And then you have the fact that the science of Genealogy didn't even exist at the time, nor did large-scale arithmetic or literacy. Sure, there were some people who were educated in these sorts of matters, but most of the Apostles were essentially ordinary folk, hence why there are only four gospels, not 13. As well, historians have actually proven Matthew's number wrong, as he actually forgot to count in several Kings of Israel. Luke's accounting was far more detailed, but may still have errors in it, as many of the old genealogies did, even as far up as the Civil War. Hell, we still have people working in the field to work on various genealogies to finish fixing them. It doesn't mean they didn't exist.


3. Christianity Cannot be the Religion that Jesus Preached

More supposition from someone who didn't properly study the religion. I actually agree that Christ's death has gotten so much more attention by the church than the life that led up to it. However, he is patently incorrect: Jesus never preached for a religion. In fact, when you look at his sermons, and his condemnations of the pharisees, Jesus was very anti-establishment, and came to strike down the dogmatic teachings of Leviticus, the Hebrew book of Law, that had a stranglehold of the faith at the time.

Again, a person's personal journal cannot be used to establish it as more than a personal journal. That's all the gospels were, not historical writings, nor were they written by historians. By the way, by the author's indications, Herodotus's writing cannot be used as a historical basis. Herodotus, for point of reference, if the father of history. He invented the study of history.


2. The Gospels are not Historically Reliable

meticulous notes by the Romans still left large-scale clerical errors. There's solid reason to us not using the Julian calendar any more. Yeah, believe it or not, non-Christians make mistakes, too. Keep in mind, as well, that the Romans liked to feed Christians to wolves, and invented the term decimation, so named for what they would enact against one of their own legions as punishment, killing one of every ten legionnaires. And, since the point has already come down that Christ was actually born in the early AD era, 6 AD is pretty damned early AD, isn't it? Yeah, apparently, the Gregorian calendar, which was established in 1582 to replace the Julian calendar, was off a few years on the BC/AD scale. Simple mathematical error, and not really proof of much of anything.


1. The Gospels are not History

Well, yes they are, but historically, they are the personal journals made by four men who traveled with Jesus. I mean, what are you expecting from a dude's personal diary? They weren't writing these as historical documents, but of their own observations of their time with Christ. I don't even get this as an argument, really.

Then after that, it's speculation after speculation, wherein the author of the piece decides he knows the internal mental workings of men who lived 1900 years ago, applying purely modern thinking to how they processed things back then.

Then it's pointing out that the personal journals of two different men had different observations. Um, fucking duh? Let's take a look at the personal journals of Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, 1775-1783, and see if they had any observations that deviated from one another, or focused on different aspects of an event. If so, then both men, and liberty as a concept, must be completely discredited, because they are "inconsistent".

Then, after condemning that Gospels as not being useful for historical matter, uses the gospels as historical basis for the next part, which again falls under my prior paragraph on differing perspectives from different people witnessing the same event.

[Arbo]

What I find absurd is that anyone would think that the universe was created by chance. :laugh:

Laws of nature, not chance. A bit more believable than a mythical being.

Dragon, yes, many believed the earth was flat. Who was it that punished people for suggesting it wasn't, or that the earth was not the center of the universe?

[aboutime]

What I find absurd is that anyone would think that the universe was created by chance. :laugh:


glockmail. You're not alone. But then, I find it absurd when I realize, and actually remind myself how people like that, also have the same frame of mind when it comes to the Holocaust, The Kennedy Assassination, Men landing on the Moon, and those who continue to insist George W. Bush was behind the Destruction of the WTC, and Pentagon on September 11th, 2001.

The thought of how so many, literally brain-dead Americans can be convinced such things were all either planned, or didn't actually take place only proves how terrible our collective Educational system is failing, and how easily-led, so many Americans are, when it comes to voting for a total Imposter.

[Arbo]

glockmail. You're not alone. But then, I find it absurd when I realize, and actually remind myself how people like that, also have the same frame of mind when it comes to the Holocaust, The Kennedy Assassination, Men landing on the Moon, and those who continue to insist George W. Bush was behind the Destruction of the WTC, and Pentagon on September 11th, 2001.

WOW. You equate people that do not believe you YOUR god with conspiracy theorists. Some very strong 'leftist' thinking there.

[glockmail]

Laws of nature, not chance. A bit more believable than a mythical being. It's absurd thinking that such laws were written by chance. :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

Laws of nature, not chance. A bit more believable than a mythical being.

Dragon, yes, many believed the earth was flat. Who was it that punished people for suggesting it wasn't, or that the earth was not the center of the universe?

Well, the Romans kicked it off with Aristotle, unless we've forgotten again that the Roman were really kind of dicks. I mean, crucifixion is a deeply horrible way to die. If the exposure, muscle damage, dehydration, and starvation for days don't get you, the stab in liver ends whenever they've decided you've had "enough". Then there was Rome's persecution of Christians, as well as their going against those that preached an end to slavery, since liberty was a core concept in Rome.

As to later persecution, it depends on whether we are talking the Church's Inquisition, or the Spanish Inquisition, and they are separate. The Church's Inquisition generally only went through proceedings for ex-communication in he case of those with land and/or money, because heretics who were burned at the stake, by law, had their property and funding relinquished to the Church. Most the blasphemers were let off the hook as long as they issued an apology. The problem came with the Spanish Inquisition, who went far more hardcore. At the time, however, we were in the beginning of the Church of England, and the Thirty Years War, where we were fighting other Christian factions such as the Lutherans and Calvinists, so the church allowed it, under the point that they could not afford to lose the Spanish.;

In the case of Galileo, he was actually a friend of the pope, but he was also a royal prick, and screaming to everyone who could hear about his findings. When the Church tried to calm it down, he refused every point at which it could have ended quietly. Even in the process of the trial, he was under house arrest, much akin to when Martha Stewart was on house arrest.

Also, these are the reason the Reformation happened, and why the Church ended up removing themselves as a temporal power.

[DragonStryk72]

What I'd like to bring up as a separate point is "Why is this a topic?"

I don't see a ton of "Atheists are morons" lists floating about, but damned is the reverse true. So basically, you're doing the exact sort of judgmental persecution you accuse the church of, all the while hiding behind your faith.

[Arbo]

It's absurd thinking that such laws were written by chance. :laugh:

Must have missed that whole 'not chance' thing. I put it in bold so you didn't miss it again.


What I'd like to bring up as a separate point is "Why is this a topic?"

I don't see a ton of "Atheists are morons" lists floating about, but damned is the reverse true. So basically, you're doing the exact sort of judgmental persecution you accuse the church of, all the while hiding behind your faith.

Yeah, this has already been brought up. It's ok to talk about the fallacies in any religion as long as it's NOT christianity. BTW, I have no 'faith' to hide behind.

[Larrymc]

What I'd like to bring up as a separate point is "Why is this a topic?"

I don't see a ton of "Atheists are morons" lists floating about, but damned is the reverse true. So basically, you're doing the exact sort of judgmental persecution you accuse the church of, all the while hiding behind your faith.


:clap:

[DragonStryk72]

Must have missed that whole 'not chance' thing. I put it in bold so you didn't miss it again.



Yeah, this has already been brought up. It's ok to talk about the fallacies in any religion as long as it's NOT christianity. BTW, I have no 'faith' to hide behind.

Actually, having studied multiple sciences, life is scientifically impossible, so "not chance" is an argument based upon your faith in atheism, and not science. Also of note, most of the scientists who came up with modern theories were theists, many Christian in point of fact.

And atheism is a faith. You don't know their isn't a God, you simply believe he doesn't exist. You can put up your "proof" of his lack of existence, just as I can put up my "proof", but it isn't evidence, and we'll only find out after it's too late to really have this argument.

[DragonStryk72]

Must have missed that whole 'not chance' thing. I put it in bold so you didn't miss it again.



Yeah, this has already been brought up. It's ok to talk about the fallacies in any religion as long as it's NOT christianity. BTW, I have no 'faith' to hide behind.

Separately, I'm more than willing to talk about the Church's failing. For one, there was the silent consent of the slave trade, and their strict policy of non-involvement in the events of the holocaust. Then of course, they did persecute many over their time, something I have brought in threads that tear down Islam, bringing up witch hunts, the crusades, all manner of stuff. At no point have I said the church is infallible.

However, that is not what you wanted to discuss. You wanted to call everyone who believes in the divine, of any kind, an idiot, and use your faith to keep pummeling us with it.

[glockmail]

Must have missed that whole 'not chance' thing. I put it in bold so you didn't miss it again. You're spinning semantics now, so I'm forced to repeat myself: :laugh:

How absurd it is for you to believe that laws are nature were written by chance.

[Arbo]

Actually, having studied multiple sciences, life is scientifically impossible, so "not chance" is an argument based upon your faith in atheism, and not science.

What utter bullshit.


And atheism is a faith. You don't know their isn't a God, you simply believe he doesn't exist. You can put up your "proof" of his lack of existence, just as I can put up my "proof", but it isn't evidence, and we'll only find out after it's too late to really have this argument.

You are incorrect, in order to have 'faith' one must have it 'in' something. There is no 'something', thus I can not have 'faith' in non-existance. But I thank you for admitting what most religious people never admit, that there is no real evidence, either way.



However, that is not what you wanted to discuss. You wanted to call everyone who believes in the divine, of any kind, an idiot, and use your faith to keep pummeling us with it.

Ah, a mind reader. Or do you simply put words in the mouths of others?

[Arbo]

You're spinning semantics now,

Your lack of comprehension does not amount to 'spin' by others.

[glockmail]

Your lack of comprehension does not amount to 'spin' by others. What I comprehend is that you have no legitimate response to my argument, again, that "it's absurd thinking that laws of nature were written by chance."

I predict yet more spin from you. :laugh:

[cadet]

You are incorrect, in order to have 'faith' one must have it 'in' something. There is no 'something', thus I can not have 'faith' in non-existance. But I thank you for admitting what most religious people never admit, that there is no real evidence, either way.

I once went on a race with a few of my friends. It was wrestling season and we were selling stuff for a fundraiser. We decided to have a race to the next house, and while I was getting ready to run across the road (not a car in site) I saw a tree. I have no freaking idea what made me stop to look at that tree, but I did. It had looked like it was shining or something. I started running again and that's when this car went by at I swear top speed. 1ft away from my face. If I hadn't randomly looked at that tree, I would have died. That right there was proof enough for me of a God's existence.

I once went to a bible study group, and was having a pretty bad day. I'd always talked and talked during these meetings, trying to cause some sort of uproar, but decided to sit back and listen that day. Everything that I was a little worried about, and all the drama I was going through was brought up in that discussion that I never participated in. I was even told how to deal with it. That floored me. That was a metaphorical 'jesus two by four' that slapped me across the face. Something that big and powerful cared enough about me to worry about even my daily problems. It just astounded me. And what really floored me was the thought of "What does he care about the big things?"

I could go on, but I don't think any of my own personal stories of God's existence will affect you. But those were the proofs in my life.

Maybe if you go to church and talk to someone you might find the truth you've been looking for in this thread.
Because you'd only be bringing up how wrong Christianity is, if you're just looking for it. (in a roundabout fashion)

[Arbo]

When I was on shore duty, a guy in my office had tickets for a concert up in Rhode Island by an old 'hair band' from back in the 80's. He couldn't go. He offered them to me, I took them, intending to go. But it was a long day and I was tired and changed my mind. That was the show in RI where pyrotechnics on stage started a fire and many people died both from fire and from being trampled getting out of there.

Doesn't prove there was a god.

[glockmail]

Arbo's latest "spin" is to ignore the fact that his OP argument was destroyed. :laugh:

[Arbo]

Arbo's latest "spin" is to ignore the fact that his OP argument was destroyed. :laugh:

Funny you should bring that up. In general, those points were not addressed. Hard for people to 'destroy' an argument that they do not address. LOL. Of course, it's much easier to simply throw out personal attacks than address any actual topic, which is what you and your buddies seem to do.

[glockmail]

Funny you should bring that up. In general, those points were not addressed. Hard for people to 'destroy' an argument that they do not address. LOL. Of course, it's much easier to simply throw out personal attacks than address any actual topic, which is what you and your buddies seem to do.
Your OP argument was: 'Christianity is wrong, because it is absurd'. I destroyed that argument, quickly and efficiently. Hilarious, now destroying your argument is a "personal attack".
:laugh:

[revelarts]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=667613#post667613)

Actually, having studied multiple sciences, life is scientifically impossible, so "not chance" is an argument based upon your faith in atheism, and not science.


What utter bullshit.


Arbo you just do not know what your talking about.

Dragon is exactly right.
there is basically a Zero % chance chance of life arising on earth. so much so that even people like Richard Dawkins says "...Maybe life came FROM ANOTHER PLANET.. where of COURSE WE KNOW it arose by EVOLUTION..."

the fine tuning of the earth and universes make zero sense based on chance.

[jimnyc]

Funny you should bring that up. In general, those points were not addressed. Hard for people to 'destroy' an argument that they do not address. LOL. Of course, it's much easier to simply throw out personal attacks than address any actual topic, which is what you and your buddies seem to do.

Dragonstryk took the effort of replying to your OP with a point by point rebuttal - in which you replied to with a single sentence. It's MORE than obvious you would prefer to play the gotcha game and have very little interest in actually discussing what you posted. So why would anyone else take time to address things that you will ignore?

[Arbo]

Your OP argument was: 'Christianity is wrong, because it is absurd'. I destroyed that argument, quickly and efficiently. Hilarious, now destroying your argument is a "personal attack".
:laugh:

The 'OP' was a list of 10 items. LOL.

[Arbo]

So why would anyone else take time to address things that you will ignore?

Equally applied to the little cabal that runs around here, that's damn funny.

[jimnyc]

Equally applied to the little cabal that runs around here, that's damn funny.

What do others you don't care for have to do with you replying to someone who made a well thought out post towards your OP? You're pointing out other members to avoid replying to the question I asked. Or are you intending to treat every member of this board not based on what they post, but what others post?

[glockmail]

The 'OP' was a list of 10 items. LOL.You highlighted one, obviously the one that you thought was most important, so that was the one which I chose to summarily destroy. :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

Arbo you just do not know what your talking about.

Dragon is exactly right.
there is basically a Zero % chance chance of life arising on earth. so much so that even people like Richard Dawkins says "...Maybe life came FROM ANOTHER PLANET.. where of COURSE WE KNOW it arose by EVOLUTION..."

the fine tuning of the earth and universes make zero sense based on chance.

Actually, the argument goes more along these lines: Genesis does not disprove any degree of the big bang theory, but the big bang theory simply cannot exist on its own by science. For the BBT to have occurred, there needed to be matter that existed at the time for the reactions that brought it about. The scientific problem is thus: Where did the matter come from? It's basic physics, really. Matter does not move on its own, nor does it simply spontaneously occur, so it had to come from somewhere. It is scientifically impossible for the universe to exist without a Creator.

Now me, I'm a deist, so I generally consider that the natural laws were established by God at the beginning, including the creation of Man, and then stepped back to allow us free will. This means that Evolution and such are still on the table, even the big bang theory, because it's us that are coming to a better understanding of God's universe, and not a battle between religion and science.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -Galileo

[Arbo]

You highlighted one, obviously the one that you thought was most important, so that was the one which I chose to summarily destroy. :laugh:

What part of "Starting with #10:" did you not understand? Was it the concept of 'starting'? Oh, I see, you didn't bother to go to the link. LOL.


there needed to be matter that existed at the time for the reactions that brought it about. The scientific problem is thus: Where did the matter come from?

Energy and matter are consistent. That which exists has always existed, it changes forms, but it doesn't go away.

[DragonStryk72]

What part of "Starting with #10:" did you not understand? Was it the concept of 'starting'? Oh, I see, you didn't bother to go to the link. LOL.



Energy and matter are consistent. That which exists has always existed, it changes forms, but it doesn't go away.

But how did they get there? Actually, energy can be created (such as generators), and altered into different forms (electrical energy to mechanical form, or energy creating matter in case of natural courses, matter becoming energy), but never destroyed.

Matter, as well, can be created, but it can also be destroyed. So again, we come to the same point: Where did it come from? And please understand, I've studied both Astronomy and Physics, so these one sentence throw off responses are simply not going to work.

[glockmail]

What part of "Starting with #10:" did you not understand? Was it the concept of 'starting'? Oh, I see, you didn't bother to go to the link. LOL. No need to go to the link because your OP was so easy to defeat. In fact my argument was so devastating to you that you didn't bother to try to counter it.

Plus I knew it would be a waste of time to read your link and argue every other point. That was proved by your response to someone who did exactly that. :laugh:

[Arbo]

But how did they get there? Actually, energy can be created (such as generators), and altered into different forms (electrical energy to mechanical form, or energy creating matter in case of natural courses, matter becoming energy), but never destroyed.

Generators take energy to run, thus it is merely energy changing form.


Matter, as well, can be created, but it can also be destroyed. So again, we come to the same point: Where did it come from? And please understand, I've studied both Astronomy and Physics, so these one sentence throw off responses are simply not going to work.

I disagree, matter at the smallest level, simply has always existed, and while it appears it can be destroyed or made, it is merely shifting form.

[Arbo]

No need to go to the link because your OP was so easy to defeat. In fact my argument was so devastating to you that you didn't bother to try to counter it.

It is a disgrace to a good firearm maker that you use their name... they should sue to protect their good name.

[DragonStryk72]

Generators take energy to run, thus it is merely energy changing form.



I disagree, matter at the smallest level, simply has always existed, and while it appears it can be destroyed or made, it is merely shifting form.

It doesn't matter if you disagree, it's scientific fact. your personal beliefs do not enter into it. "It's always existed" is completely unprovable, and an argument based on faith, not science.

Did I not bring up the study of science, and that one sentence responses were simply not going to work here? Energy is generated in generators, just as it is stored as potential energy batteries. It may be created by the use of other other energy, but that is different than a transfer of one energy type to another.

[glockmail]

It is a disgrace to a good firearm maker that you use their name... they should sue to protect their good name. Hilarious, earlier you accused me of making a personal attack, and now you make a personal attack.

Care to address my argument? Or man-up and admit that yours has been crushed. :laugh:

[glockmail]

Soon we can expect Argo to say something like 'that's not very Christian of you', because we defended ourselves. :laugh:

[Arbo]

Hilarious, earlier you accused me of making a personal attack, and now you make a personal attack.

Care to address my argument? Or man-up and admit that yours has been crushed. :laugh:

I simply no longer care to recognize you as a valid human. Failure after failure and you keep on running...

[aboutime]

Soon we can expect Argo to say something like 'that's not very Christian of you', because we defended ourselves. :laugh:


glockmail. Honestly. I don't really care what Argo, or anyone else says about my being a Christian. Thankfully. As a Christian.
I have no reason to DEFEND what I believe to anyone, anywhere. Much less a known hate-monger on an Internet Forum.

That's what I find most comforting about my faith.

There are no reasons to make excuses, or explain anything to anyone who claims not to believe as I do.
It's their loss. Not mine.

[Arbo]

There are no reasons to make excuses, or explain anything to anyone who claims not to believe as I do.


And yet, here you are again, doing just that. LOL.

[Jeff]

I simply no longer care to recognize you as a valid human. Failure after failure and you keep on running...

AAA yes Arbo making more friends, Glock you have just hit the thou is not as smart as I status :laugh: anytime Arboman gets caught up in something over his head or doesn't like where something is heading he bails with a you are not as good as me, I bet this guy got the shit knocked out of him all through school :laugh:

[Arbo]

AAA yes Arbo making more friends, Glock you have just hit the thou is not as smart as I status :laugh: anytime Arboman gets caught up in something over his head or doesn't like where something is heading he bails with a you are not as good as me, I bet this guy got the shit knocked out of him all through school :laugh:

Repetition of lies and unbacked claims does not make them true. Perhaps you should do something more creative with your time. Like how about going to the Onion and finding a story that outrages you and starting a thread about it? :laugh:

[aboutime]

AAA yes Arbo making more friends, Glock you have just hit the thou is not as smart as I status :laugh: anytime Arboman gets caught up in something over his head or doesn't like where something is heading he bails with a you are not as good as me, I bet this guy got the shit knocked out of him all through school :laugh:



Jeff. Seems like whoever knocked that shit out of him...didn't succeed in kicking all of it Out.

He's still full of it. Just read what he says to you.

Guess he doesn't understand, despite being on Ignore by me. When his posts are quoted. I can read them.
But that means....whatever he says it means. Nothing.

[Jeff]

Repetition of lies and unbacked claims does not make them true. Perhaps you should do something more creative with your time. Like how about going to the Onion and finding a story that outrages you and starting a thread about it? :laugh:

I see NT gave you some ammo :laugh: you really are a fuc**** idiot but how about this when you take Jim up on his offer to give you 5 to 1 odds on a one to one debate I will take you serious ? Fair enough ? Until then realize you are a PUNK that got PUNKED in front of GOD ( yes I know you don't believe in him ) and Everyone. Until you decide to be a man ( and this would be a no issue if after punkin out you didn't in the very next breath accuse Tyr of doing the same thing ) your words mean about as much as the flea on the dog does, as a matter of fact that is a perfect image ( I was thinking you where more like a Hemorrhoid but a flea will work )

[glockmail]

I simply no longer care to recognize you as a valid human. Failure after failure and you keep on running...Another personal attack. It didn't work the first and second times, so what makes you think the third is the charm?

These do nothing but emphasize the failure of your argument. :laugh:

[Arbo]

I see NT gave you some ammo :laugh: you really are a fuc**** idiot but how about this when you take Jim up on his offer to give you 5 to 1 odds on a one to one debate I will take you serious ? Fair enough ? Until then realize you are a PUNK that got PUNKED in front of GOD ( yes I know you don't believe in him ) and Everyone. Until you decide to be a man ( and this would be a no issue if after punkin out you didn't in the very next breath accuse Tyr of doing the same thing ) your words mean about as much as the flea on the dog does, as a matter of fact that is a perfect image ( I was thinking you where more like a Hemorrhoid but a flea will work )

I understand that having it pointed out that you used an article from a satire web site, and started a thread with it expressing your outrage, caused much butt hurt in you. And I understand your deflections from that butt hurt. But if you want to wine about people 'punking out', you need to start with your boys. Otherwise you just look like even more of a fool and hypocrite. I don't care who you 'take serious' or not, that is not relevant to your little temper tantrum. Funny you bring up that 'being a man' thing, considering you have yet to grow a sack and prove your previous claims about what I have said. It is obvious you are just avoiding that topic because you know you are wrong, and don't want to add to your feelings of embarrassment after that whole 'satire website used as if it was real' thing. :laugh:

[glockmail]

Funny how you insist on pointing out the presumed failures of others but refuse to admit your own. :laugh:

[Arbo]

It doesn't matter if you disagree, it's scientific fact. your personal beliefs do not enter into it. "It's always existed" is completely unprovable, and an argument based on faith, not science.

Did I not bring up the study of science, and that one sentence responses were simply not going to work here? Energy is generated in generators, just as it is stored as potential energy batteries. It may be created by the use of other other energy, but that is different than a transfer of one energy type to another.

Just wanted to bring this 'to the top' so to speak, so it's not lost. Will give you a reply when I get a chance, as this is worth one.

You know there are other theories that have been put into practice that can't be proved in the literal sense: quantum theory, for example. There's no way - given our current technology - to prove that an electron actually changes its quantum state in the way we suppose it does (or for that matter can exist in multiple states at the same time); however, without believing that it actually does happen, we wouldn't have most of the electronic devices we use in everyday life. Again, if we listened to dogma to the exclusion of any scientific supposition, we'd still live in an earth-centric universe and would be burning people at the stake for heresy as common practice.

More later.

[Jeff]

I understand that having it pointed out that you used an article from a satire web site, and started a thread with it expressing your outrage, caused much butt hurt in you. And I understand your deflections from that butt hurt. But if you want to wine about people 'punking out', you need to start with your boys. Otherwise you just look like even more of a fool and hypocrite. I don't care who you 'take serious' or not, that is not relevant to your little temper tantrum. Funny you bring up that 'being a man' thing, considering you have yet to grow a sack and prove your previous claims about what I have said. It is obvious you are just avoiding that topic because you know you are wrong, and don't want to add to your feelings of embarrassment after that whole 'satire website used as if it was real' thing. :laugh:

OK as I explained to NT y'all keep saying how wrong it was to think Obama would say such a thing , Have we forgotten , If I had a son or how about I don't know all the facts but the police acted stupidly and as I explained to NT this is still going on on FB and thousands are voicing there outrage over it ( I guess they are all below you as well ) and as I explained in my original post I received e mails and articles of this story all day long before posting so does it bother me that it was false not at all in fact you idiots where taking it for granted it was false I actually spent the 30 seconds to check it , and I will try this one more time no post on here is 100% true or there would be nothing to debate . But what did surprise me is NT coming in and agreeing with you, usually when someone with the smarts he has comes into something someone like you is involved in they will simply explain if ya didn't believe the post either don't reply or show facts where it is wrong , personally I think he felt just like I did that you believed it as well and that is why you argued it until jafar made his comment ( you remember the lack of facts just the baby games ) and then you argued whether it was true or not , see NT is a sharp guy and I am sure he saw through you in a second

Now as for you Punking out I wouldn't of thought twice about it but after you did it three times ( with money on the line , 5 to 1 odds if I remember correctly ) you then proceeded to attack Try for punkin out not 3 post after you did the same exact thing :laugh:

As for my lack of Balls you are more to welcome to come see anytime you wish , see you spoke of those internet tough guys ( I am not one of them ) but I will gladly meet you half way ( or anywhere for that matter ) to see who is a man ( you may wish to brush up on what a internet tough guy is, it is you , a guy that runs his mouth like one bad Mother ****** but does so from the safety of his monitor) see me I am a bit different I will gladly meet ya anywhere or any place and we could have a nice discussion over this ;)

[Arbo]

-edited to remove repetitive nonsense-<repetitive nonsense="" removed="" to="" save="" space="">

I understand that having it pointed out that you used an article from a satire web site, and started a thread with it expressing your outrage, caused much butt hurt in you. And I understand your deflections from that butt hurt. But if you want to wine about people 'punking out', you need to start with your boys. Otherwise you just look like even more of a fool and hypocrite. I don't care who you 'take serious' or not, that is not relevant to your little temper tantrum. Funny you bring up that 'being a man' thing, considering you have yet to grow a sack and prove your previous claims about what I have said. It is obvious you are just avoiding that topic because you know you are wrong, and don't want to add to your feelings of embarrassment after that whole 'satire website used as if it was real' thing. :laugh:</repetitive>

[Arbo]

It doesn't matter if you disagree, it's scientific fact. your personal beliefs do not enter into it. "It's always existed" is completely unprovable, and an argument based on faith, not science.

First, energy can NOT be created. The law (not the THEORY) of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only only be converted. The energy produced by a generator is just being converted from mechanical energy to electrical energy. The same goes for matter. You think matter can be created AND destroyed? How might one go about doing that? Do you think burning something actually destroys the matter from which it was made?
Of course relativity allows for the conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa. Second, what happened at the point of the Big Bang is NOT "simple physics." Far from it.

[Jeff]

I understand that having it pointed out that you used an article from a satire web site, and started a thread with it expressing your outrage, caused much butt hurt in you. And I understand your deflections from that butt hurt. But if you want to wine about people 'punking out', you need to start with your boys. Otherwise you just look like even more of a fool and hypocrite. I don't care who you 'take serious' or not, that is not relevant to your little temper tantrum. Funny you bring up that 'being a man' thing, considering you have yet to grow a sack and prove your previous claims about what I have said. It is obvious you are just avoiding that topic because you know you are wrong, and don't want to add to your feelings of embarrassment after that whole 'satire website used as if it was real' thing. :laugh:

Again lets respond hoping like hell no one reads what we are responding to

See this post wasn't funny the first time you posted it and I explained it so when ya have no reply basically re post your original post and go with it

[Arbo]

-edited out the pyschobable-

I understand that having it pointed out that you used an article from a satire web site, and started a thread with it expressing your outrage, caused much butt hurt in you. And I understand your deflections from that butt hurt. But if you want to wine about people 'punking out', you need to start with your boys. Otherwise you just look like even more of a fool and hypocrite. I don't care who you 'take serious' or not, that is not relevant to your little temper tantrum. Funny you bring up that 'being a man' thing, considering you have yet to grow a sack and prove your previous claims about what I have said. It is obvious you are just avoiding that topic because you know you are wrong, and don't want to add to your feelings of embarrassment after that whole 'satire website used as if it was real' thing. :laugh:

[Jeff]

I understand that having it pointed out that you used an article from a satire web site, and started a thread with it expressing your outrage, caused much butt hurt in you. And I understand your deflections from that butt hurt. But if you want to wine about people 'punking out', you need to start with your boys. Otherwise you just look like even more of a fool and hypocrite. I don't care who you 'take serious' or not, that is not relevant to your little temper tantrum. Funny you bring up that 'being a man' thing, considering you have yet to grow a sack and prove your previous claims about what I have said. It is obvious you are just avoiding that topic because you know you are wrong, and don't want to add to your feelings of embarrassment after that whole 'satire website used as if it was real' thing. :laugh:

Your lack of even acknowledging you where called out as a man once again shows what a pussy you are, but hey you and Fj , jafar , log y'all have fun as for me I don't have time for any of the circle jerk shit going on here


This board was fun at one time , it was also quite educational but then we allowed a fungis to take it over, Jim isn't quite as east to win over as some of the Mods you will be gone soon enough and then hopefully things will get better , until then go give your kids a kiss and tell them how daddy is one bad ass on the computer but ran and hid when confronted by a man and so you know when wrong I have posted a number of times admitting so, I have no problem admitting I was wrong but I wasn't here and if you weren't such a good pivot man one of your cronies would of admitted it .

[Arbo]

-delusional rant edited out-

I understand that having it pointed out that you used an article from a satire web site, and started a thread with it expressing your outrage, caused much butt hurt in you. And I understand your deflections from that butt hurt. But if you want to wine about people 'punking out', you need to start with your boys. Otherwise you just look like even more of a fool and hypocrite. I don't care who you 'take serious' or not, that is not relevant to your little temper tantrum. Funny you bring up that 'being a man' thing, considering you have yet to grow a sack and prove your previous claims about what I have said. It is obvious you are just avoiding that topic because you know you are wrong, and don't want to add to your feelings of embarrassment after that whole 'satire website used as if it was real' thing. :laugh:

Now would you care to take part in the discussion/debate with Dragon? Seems it could be both enlightening and entertaining, and has the most promise of anything yet in this thread.

[Arbo]

First, energy can NOT be created. The law (not the THEORY) of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only only be converted. The energy produced by a generator is just being converted from mechanical energy to electrical energy. The same goes for matter. You think matter can be created AND destroyed? How might one go about doing that? Do you think burning something actually destroys the matter from which it was made?
Of course relativity allows for the conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa. Second, what happened at the point of the Big Bang is NOT "simple physics." Far from it.

To expand a bit further...

Generators do not create energy. They convert one type of energy to another. If this isn't true, may I please borrow your fuel-free energy generator?

The big bang took place when an almost infinitely dense and hot singularity expanded into what we know as the universe. As the universe expanded, it became cooler and less dense, forming plasma, which is still the most abundant substance in the universe -- the Sun and all of the stars in the universe are made of plasma. The stuff is matter, but in the terms that most of us think about the difference between matter and energy, it would probably seem more like energy. There are no atoms in it. It's just a mass of ionized (charged) subatomic particles. Lightening is made of plasma, too. So is that lightning-looking stuff in those cool glass spheres that follow your fingers when you play with them at Spencer's in the mall. There are a lot of different kinds of plasma, but the point is that you can see it. You know it exists. That's important, because you also know that gold exists. Gold is created from plasma. When a huge star can no longer support fusion sufficient to sustain its core, the core can collapse under its own weight. The subatomic particles combine, first into hydrogen, then helium, then more and more complex atoms. Eventually, the core becomes very densely compressed iron, and if the mass/gravity/etc. are in the right range, BANG! Ya got a Nova. That's how all metals heavier than iron are created -- gold, nickel, copper, silver -- all of them. People have been watching stars die and leave behind quasars and nebulas and such for thousands of years. The big bang is similar.

50+ years ago and up until today, physicists have theorized that many, many phenomena would exist if the Big Bang had actually happened. Most of those phenomena still can't be observed due to limits in our technology and ability to travel to the other side of the universe, but practically all of the most tell-tale theories that we HAVE developed technology to test have ended up being proven. Cosmic Background Radiation is a pretty tough thing to dismiss. It was predicted in 1948, confirmed in 1965, was the basis for the Nobel prize awarded to the scientists in 1978, and is still out there right now for you to witness yourself, if you so choose.

So, where did the singularity come from? Well, there was no "where" or "when" before the big bang. Time and space did not exist. The question of "where" the singularity came from is moot, as it the questions of what happened "before" the big bang. I know that's hard to fathom, and if you don't believe in the science, you'd probably say it's a cop-out. But open minds that put in the time to research and understand the physics -- what we CAN OBSERVE -- can grasp the reality of how time and space began with the big bang. In the end, if you haven't spent years attempting to understand these ideas, then you don't know enough about them to say that they are not feasible. That's really all there is to it.

In summary (although not quite accurately):

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and Pangea
See ya wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will pause and start to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be heard
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy)
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!

[DragonStryk72]

To expand a bit further...

Generators do not create energy. They convert one type of energy to another. If this isn't true, may I please borrow your fuel-free energy generator?

The big bang took place when an almost infinitely dense and hot singularity expanded into what we know as the universe. As the universe expanded, it became cooler and less dense, forming plasma, which is still the most abundant substance in the universe -- the Sun and all of the stars in the universe are made of plasma. The stuff is matter, but in the terms that most of us think about the difference between matter and energy, it would probably seem more like energy. There are no atoms in it. It's just a mass of ionized (charged) subatomic particles. Lightening is made of plasma, too. So is that lightning-looking stuff in those cool glass spheres that follow your fingers when you play with them at Spencer's in the mall. There are a lot of different kinds of plasma, but the point is that you can see it. You know it exists. That's important, because you also know that gold exists. Gold is created from plasma. When a huge star can no longer support fusion sufficient to sustain its core, the core can collapse under its own weight. The subatomic particles combine, first into hydrogen, then helium, then more and more complex atoms. Eventually, the core becomes very densely compressed iron, and if the mass/gravity/etc. are in the right range, BANG! Ya got a Nova. That's how all metals heavier than iron are created -- gold, nickel, copper, silver -- all of them. People have been watching stars die and leave behind quasars and nebulas and such for thousands of years. The big bang is similar.

50+ years ago and up until today, physicists have theorized that many, many phenomena would exist if the Big Bang had actually happened. Most of those phenomena still can't be observed due to limits in our technology and ability to travel to the other side of the universe, but practically all of the most tell-tale theories that we HAVE developed technology to test have ended up being proven. Cosmic Background Radiation is a pretty tough thing to dismiss. It was predicted in 1948, confirmed in 1965, was the basis for the Nobel prize awarded to the scientists in 1978, and is still out there right now for you to witness yourself, if you so choose.

So, where did the singularity come from? Well, there was no "where" or "when" before the big bang. Time and space did not exist. The question of "where" the singularity came from is moot, as it the questions of what happened "before" the big bang. I know that's hard to fathom, and if you don't believe in the science, you'd probably say it's a cop-out. But open minds that put in the time to research and understand the physics -- what we CAN OBSERVE -- can grasp the reality of how time and space began with the big bang. In the end, if you haven't spent years attempting to understand these ideas, then you don't know enough about them to say that they are not feasible. That's really all there is to it.


SO basically, to break this down: God is absurd, but the universe spontaneous creating itself with no outside impetus whatsoever isn't? It just decided it wanted to be here? Seriously, that's less absurd than a being on a higher plane creating the universe?

Even if you are correct about energy, the energy has to come from somewhere. If there's matter involved, the matter would have to come from somewhere. It's matter, stones don't just form up in your living room or garage. You're missing the fundamental point that something doesn't just occur out of nothing, and the theories you're are also completely unproven. So again, breaking it down, the universe spontaneously decided to break physics in order to exist, but God is absurd? Do you actually hear yourself talk?

If time, space, and physics didn't exist, then how did ANYTHING exist? Again, you're not actually putting forth proof of God being absurd here, you're just making your own side of the argument look silly. Christ half the people who came up with theories you're citing were Christians.

Again, this is all stuff you are taking on faith, your faith that there is no God.

[Noir]

'Reasons why Christianity is wrong' is where this discussion is lost. Something more reasonable, along the lines of 'Reasons why christianity is probably wrong' would be a much better base to start the discussion from.

As it is, its dead before you open the thread.

[glockmail]

SO basically, to break this down: God is absurd, but the universe spontaneous creating itself with no outside impetus whatsoever isn't? ....

This is my argument as well, and Arbo has refused to address it for several pages now. :laugh:

[Larrymc]

SO basically, to break this down: God is absurd, but the universe spontaneous creating itself with no outside impetus whatsoever isn't? It just decided it wanted to be here? Seriously, that's less absurd than a being on a higher plane creating the universe?

Even if you are correct about energy, the energy has to come from somewhere. If there's matter involved, the matter would have to come from somewhere. It's matter, stones don't just form up in your living room or garage. You're missing the fundamental point that something doesn't just occur out of nothing, and the theories you're are also completely unproven. So again, breaking it down, the universe spontaneously decided to break physics in order to exist, but God is absurd? Do you actually hear yourself talk?

If time, space, and physics didn't exist, then how did ANYTHING exist? Again, you're not actually putting forth proof of God being absurd here, you're just making your own side of the argument look silly. Christ half the people who came up with theories you're citing were Christians.

Again, this is all stuff you are taking on faith, your faith that there is no God.Yea its takes a Strong faith to continue to believe in the big bang, with so many gaps, that you are just left to imagine, even there measure of time is so flawed that they give an educated guess, but also concede that it could be a few Billion years one way our the other, it bothers me when they start talking about some thing that happened billions of years ago, because they have absolutely zero ways of knowing what happen billions of years ago. It seems nave to spend so much time studying science alone, while even if it were to be some how proven would change nothing for one personally, while the theory of a Creationist has great personal consequences if proven,

[PostmodernProphet]

http://trevorburrus.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/05/1345329-10-reasons-why-christianity-is-wrong

Starting with #10:



Comments on #10?[/FONT][/COLOR]

since the point is that people would not simply believe someone who claimed to have healed the sick, raise the dead, and performed other miracles, doesn't that actually raise expectations that the people who believed in Jesus Christ two thousand years ago actually saw him heal the sick, raise the dead and perform the other miracles.....because obviously they chose to believe in him.......

[PostmodernProphet]

I apologize for coming late to the party........I certainly hope that Arbo isn't burned out.....I love discussing religious topics and I look forward to debating all of these points with Arbo until he recognizes the foolishness of each of his claims.....

come, Arbo.....let us begin.....

[Drummond]

To expand a bit further...

Generators do not create energy. They convert one type of energy to another. If this isn't true, may I please borrow your fuel-free energy generator?

The big bang took place when an almost infinitely dense and hot singularity expanded into what we know as the universe. As the universe expanded, it became cooler and less dense, forming plasma, which is still the most abundant substance in the universe -- the Sun and all of the stars in the universe are made of plasma. The stuff is matter, but in the terms that most of us think about the difference between matter and energy, it would probably seem more like energy. There are no atoms in it. It's just a mass of ionized (charged) subatomic particles. Lightening is made of plasma, too. So is that lightning-looking stuff in those cool glass spheres that follow your fingers when you play with them at Spencer's in the mall. There are a lot of different kinds of plasma, but the point is that you can see it. You know it exists. That's important, because you also know that gold exists. Gold is created from plasma. When a huge star can no longer support fusion sufficient to sustain its core, the core can collapse under its own weight. The subatomic particles combine, first into hydrogen, then helium, then more and more complex atoms. Eventually, the core becomes very densely compressed iron, and if the mass/gravity/etc. are in the right range, BANG! Ya got a Nova. That's how all metals heavier than iron are created -- gold, nickel, copper, silver -- all of them. People have been watching stars die and leave behind quasars and nebulas and such for thousands of years. The big bang is similar.

50+ years ago and up until today, physicists have theorized that many, many phenomena would exist if the Big Bang had actually happened. Most of those phenomena still can't be observed due to limits in our technology and ability to travel to the other side of the universe, but practically all of the most tell-tale theories that we HAVE developed technology to test have ended up being proven. Cosmic Background Radiation is a pretty tough thing to dismiss. It was predicted in 1948, confirmed in 1965, was the basis for the Nobel prize awarded to the scientists in 1978, and is still out there right now for you to witness yourself, if you so choose.

So, where did the singularity come from? Well, there was no "where" or "when" before the big bang. Time and space did not exist. The question of "where" the singularity came from is moot, as it the questions of what happened "before" the big bang. I know that's hard to fathom, and if you don't believe in the science, you'd probably say it's a cop-out. But open minds that put in the time to research and understand the physics -- what we CAN OBSERVE -- can grasp the reality of how time and space began with the big bang. In the end, if you haven't spent years attempting to understand these ideas, then you don't know enough about them to say that they are not feasible. That's really all there is to it.

In summary (although not quite accurately):

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and Pangea
See ya wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will pause and start to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be heard
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy)
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!

Interesting. Don't those verses come from the theme tune to 'The Big Bang Theory' ?

This brings up the question of just what in Arbo's post really represents original thinking. I see no cited sources quoted anywhere, no actual links offered ... but, should a more honest representation have included such citations ?

Arbo, you may care to now supply such citations to us. Much of what I've read is not original text.

In the meantime, just to prove a point ....

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/barenakedladies/bigbangtheorytheme.html

[aboutime]

Interesting. Don't those verses come from the theme tune to 'The Big Bang Theory' ?

This brings up the question of just what in Arbo's post really represents original thinking. I see no cited sources quoted anywhere, no actual links offered ... but, should a more honest representation have included such citations ?

Arbo, you may care to now supply such citations to us. Much of what I've read is not original text.

In the meantime, just to prove a point ....

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/barenakedladies/bigbangtheorytheme.html


Sir Drummond. All of which tends to further prove how SOME haven't got the intelligence to have a sincere, ORIGINAL thought. Which makes them feel comfortable using someone else's stuff.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. All of which tends to further prove how SOME haven't got the intelligence to have a sincere, ORIGINAL thought. Which makes them feel comfortable using someone else's stuff.

:goodposting:

Besides which -- and I'm unsure on this point ... shouldn't posters be required to represent the sources of material they quote, by acknowledging those sources directly ?

I've always done so. I consider it a duty to do so, when posting on this or any other public forum.

I wonder why Arbo - evidently ? - doesn't do likewise.

[Arbo]

Even if you are correct about energy,

I thought you said you studied such things. If you don't know the basics of such things, it could make people wonder.


Interesting. Don't those verses come from the theme tune to 'The Big Bang Theory' ?

Of course they do... they were put there for the humor value. I am not sorry if you did not pick up on the humor considering the discussion topic.


Much of what I've read is not original text.

Oh BS. Please give me a link to what are not my words.... prove it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Interesting. Don't those verses come from the theme tune to 'The Big Bang Theory' ?

This brings up the question of just what in Arbo's post really represents original thinking. I see no cited sources quoted anywhere, no actual links offered ... but, should a more honest representation have included such citations ?

Arbo, you may care to now supply such citations to us. Much of what I've read is not original text.

In the meantime, just to prove a point ....

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/barenakedladies/bigbangtheorytheme.html Of course any large block of words posted here that are authored by another person should be properly sourced and not left to the reader to think it came from the OP HERE. I see from your post Drummond that this part should have been credited to it's true author. The other words I haven't a clue about except they are likely lifted too since none were shown with a link. -Tyr

In summary (although not quite accurately):

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and Pangea
See ya wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will pause and start to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be heard
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy)
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!

[Arbo]

should be properly sourced and not left to the reader to think it came from the OP HERE.

A person would have to be pretty dim to not know what it was.

[Drummond]

A person would have to be pretty dim to not know what it was.

NOT the point, surely ? If you post something that doesn't originate from you, shouldn't you be attributing credit for it to the rightful 'owner' of the text ? If you copy from sources, why wouldn't you cite the source ?

[Arbo]

NOT the point, surely ? If you post something that doesn't originate from you, shouldn't you be attributing credit for it to the rightful 'owner' of the text ? If you copy from sources, why wouldn't you cite the source ?

Some things are so obvious they don't need to be pointed out.

[jimnyc]

Some things are so obvious they don't need to be pointed out.

I could have sworn it was you who very recently pointed out that someone didn't provide a link while posting a portion of the COTUS. I would that that one would be a tad more obvious.

As for yours, I honestly never knew what it was. I do now, but I never watched a single second of the show and have no clue about any of it's music or theme. Whether or not you called someone on the COTUS doesn't matter, as that one won't get someone in hot water. The theme to a current running TV show will. It is standard here to provide a link for such things, even if we do feel everyone knows exactly where it came from - as the artists and writers still want credit regardless, and technically it's still the law.

[tailfins]

NOT the point, surely ? If you post something that doesn't originate from you, shouldn't you be attributing credit for it to the rightful 'owner' of the text ? If you copy from sources, why wouldn't you cite the source ?

Sometimes recording a radio broadcast is difficult while driving. There's one reason right there.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes recording a radio broadcast is difficult while driving. There's one reason right there.

I doubt one will be posting a song from a broadcast while driving either. :)

[glockmail]

I apologize for coming late to the party........I certainly hope that Arbo isn't burned out.....I love discussing religious topics and I look forward to debating all of these points with Arbo until he recognizes the foolishness of each of his claims.....

come, Arbo.....let us begin.....

I've already destroyed his OP argument. His response was to insult me then ignore me. :laugh:

[Arbo]

I could have sworn it was you who very recently pointed out that someone didn't provide a link while posting a portion of the COTUS. I would that that one would be a tad more obvious.

I don't believe this ever happened. But anything is possible.

Of course all this distracts from an actually discussion that popped up in this thread due to Dragon, which now seems to have unfortunately died off. Drummond, there is a thread where they quote the Star Spangled Banner and do not link to Francis Scott Key, you should head over to that one. :laugh:

As a side note, the far more likely legal issues come from political cartoons that are posted. While they are signed by the illustrator, the vast majority of them (and their employers) do not allow for the images to be used/shared without their approval.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I could have sworn it was you who very recently pointed out that someone didn't provide a link while posting a portion of the COTUS. I would that that one would be a tad more obvious.

As for yours, I honestly never knew what it was. I do now, but I never watched a single second of the show and have no clue about any of it's music or theme. Whether or not you called someone on the COTUS doesn't matter, as that one won't get someone in hot water. The theme to a current running TV show will. It is standard here to provide a link for such things, even if we do feel everyone knows exactly where it came from - as the artists and writers still want credit regardless, and technically it's still the law. BRAVO. :beer:. I too had absolutely no clue about the source of those words. Not until I looked the words up myself. :laugh: Then I wondered why one so hellbent on demanding that others always follow rules to a T, WOULD THEN INDULGE IN NOT DOING SO....:thinking5: ---Tyr

[jimnyc]

I don't believe this ever happened. But anything is possible.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43265-Your-rights-are-disappearing&p=667596#post667596


I would think when posting so much of someone else's work, one would include a link.

[Arbo]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43265-Your-rights-are-disappearing&p=667596#post667596

Yes, I said that as the user posted an opinion piece that was someone else's work, it commented on the Constitution, but was not the Constitution in and of itself.

[jimnyc]

Yes, I said that as the user posted an opinion piece that was someone else's work, it commented on the Constitution, but was not the Constitution in and of itself.

The song from the TV show is also copyrighted. Just please remember to provide a link to any works you post, however widely known it is, as I'd rather not take chances, and it's already a rule here at the board.

Let's move on now.

[revelarts]

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

Quote:


The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

[Larrymc]

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

Quote:"Zachaly" (Not that I know what half of that is):laugh:

[revelarts]

yeah some of that is out there.
here's are a few more "anomalies" that do not fit in the big bang assertions.

the spiral arms of galaxies.
Based on gravity and the billions of years ago when these galaxies supposedly formed there should be no spiral arms left.
In only millions of years the spiral arms would have wound up like clock springs and we'd only see disk like masses of stars.
but there they are.

no early galaxies seen.
recently the Hubble telescope looked at a tiny patch of "black" to see as far as possible away and as far back in time as possible.
they expected to find "young" galaxies. but what they found where galaxies that looked "mature". The same as all of the other galaxies we know of. including our own.
So the assumption/prediction was wrong. The observation does not bare out the big bang timeline.


Star formation is unexplained by the big bang and gravity theory of the cosmos.
Gas does not coalesce in space to form stars, as the story we are told goes.
Temperature and pressure would push the gas particles away from each other before gravity could form stars.
population 3 stars -original big bang H He stars- have not been discovered or seen in space.
Stars forming from stars that are already here has more evidence. but the origin of stars in the 1st place has no evidenced based or workable theory via the big bang or accepted physics.

[PostmodernProphet]

arbo?......have you overlooked something?......there is a post awaiting your response.....

[PostmodernProphet]

since Arbo seems disinclined to play I will have to debate a dummy hand instead.....I will pose a response to his and I will draw a random argument to use as his substitute from the dummy's hand.....

9. Jesus Has Not Returned: This, also, may seem a soft point. However, for 2000 years--80 generations--a substantial number of every single generation of Christians has whole-heartedly believed that Jesus' return was imminent. This often included exact dates that, when they came to pass, did not cause the believers to toss their erroneous ideologies aside. And this perennial incorrectness goes back to the beginning. One can only understand the earliest Christians--the generation immediately following Jesus' death--as a group who were expecting Jesus to return at any moment (I Thess 4:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%204:15-17%20;&version=31;)). Why did they believe this? Because, on more than one occasion, Jesus unequivocally said so (Mark 9:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:1;&version=31;), Matthew 26:64 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2026:64;&version=31;), Mark 13:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:30;&version=31;)). Christians have proven to be resolutely imperturbable and incorrigible to their continued failures.

the merit of this logic is transferable to other issues.....for example, we can likewise conclude that since the Chicago Cubs have never won a World Series, there is in truth no such thing as the Chicago Cubs, despite what their incorrigible fans erroneously believe......


and from the dummy hand we draw.....
"dark chocolate is a proven anti-oxidant"......that's the trouble with dummy hands...they often don't follow suit......

[Arbo]

arbo?......have you overlooked something?......there is a post awaiting your response.....

Not overlooked, I merely do not care, too little to late.

[PostmodernProphet]

Not overlooked, I merely do not care, too little to late.

ah, so you start a thread inviting comments but do not care to discuss them when they arrive?.......sounds like the classic definition of trolling to me......is that what you are?........

in truth, the "too little" was the silly and unimaginative OP.......obviously even you cannot come up with a defense of the claims found there......

[PostmodernProphet]

8. God Doesn't Care

meanwhile we continue.......the logic that the author puts forward is that it is impossible for God to "care" because 1) he is immutable and 2) "the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent "being" having desires borders on the nonsensical".....

again, this logic fails.....to be immutable means unchanging.....if one cares and does not change he still cares......if one does not care and does not change he still does not care......immutability has no impact upon caring, obviously.....

as to the second, why would it be "nonsensical" for an omnipotent being to have desires?.....is the argument that they could bring about any result they wanted?.....foolish argument, because obviously they would have to "want" a result in the first place.......is it because they did not simply CAUSE the result they wanted?.......if so, it would have to be the act of a tyrannical omnipotent.......not one who cared immutably about his creation.....again, obviously omnipotence has no impact upon having desires.....

clearly the author's argument does not border on the nonsensical.....it lands squarely in the center of it.....

[PostmodernProphet]

7. Other Religions:

I find this one amusing......Christianity must be wrong because there are other religions.....

understand this logic fully in order to fully appreciate its humor.....

ten people witness an event.....all ten give conflicting reports on what they see......because nine of them are inaccurate by necessity we thus "logically prove" that all ten of them are false......no one saw the event accurately, because nine of them did not.......

if you agree with that "logic" you will applaud the author and perhaps even post his arguments to a discussion board somewhere.....

[Arbo]

ah, so you start a thread inviting comments but do not care to discuss them when they arrive?.......sounds like the classic definition of trolling to me......is that what you are?........

in truth, the "too little" was the silly and unimaginative OP.......obviously even you cannot come up with a defense of the claims found there......

I understand you are butt hurt because you want to argue for your religion. Have at it. Had you showed up near the beginning of things it may have been a different story, late comers can't expect attention.

It's not like you won't continue to for the purpose of continuing on anyway, so enjoy yourself.

[PostmodernProphet]

I understand you are butt hurt because you want to argue for your religion. Have at it. Had you showed up near the beginning of things it may have been a different story, late comers can't expect attention.

It's not like you won't continue to for the purpose of continuing on anyway, so enjoy yourself.

its much more fun pointing at ignorance if more of it shows up each day......please come and defend your claims?...........

(by the way, in order for me to be butt hurt, wouldn't there have to be something that wasn't limp and impotent involved?).........

[Arbo]

please come and defend your claims?

Send an email to the author of the article, perhaps you will find someone that cares what you have to say on the issue.

[jimnyc]

Not overlooked, I merely do not care, too little to late.


I understand you are butt hurt because you want to argue for your religion. Have at it. Had you showed up near the beginning of things it may have been a different story, late comers can't expect attention.

It's not like you won't continue to for the purpose of continuing on anyway, so enjoy yourself.


Send an email to the author of the article, perhaps you will find someone that cares what you have to say on the issue.

From my POV I was correct. You started these threads for a reason, and it wasn't to discuss Christianity. Had PMP criticized you for starting the thread in itself, then you would have been all over him calling him a hypocrite. But he took the time to address what you posted, and we surely can't have any of that.

And stating it's too late makes no sense to me. I can see if you were all debated out, but the topic has barely been addressed. Why post it if such little interest to actually discuss it?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I love this one , used to hear it often.. There isn't a God because "we" say so...... So I'd reply , you are dead wrong because I say so! Never did any of them ever get the point...:laugh: Thinking that mankind exists in the Universe without a divine purpose is silly. --Tyr

[aboutime]

I love this one , used to hear it often.. There isn't a God because "we" say so...... So I'd reply , you are dead wrong because I say so! Never did any of them ever get the point...:laugh: Thinking that mankind exists in the Universe without a divine purpose is silly. --Tyr


Tyr. I simply enjoy smiling at them, and walking away whenever anyone tries to tell me about GOD.

What makes them angrier when they say such stupid stuff is...When you confidently know, and have no need to defend your faith to anyone. In other words. If you don't argue with them. They haven't accomplished anything. As the old expression goes
"DON'T GO AWAY MAD. JUST GO AWAY!"

You can't lose an argument you aren't part of with them.

[PostmodernProphet]

Send an email to the author of the article, perhaps you will find someone that cares what you have to say on the issue.

please do me a favor....the next time you start a thread indicate whether or not its one you care about......then we will know whether we should respond......(or bother to read it)........