Why do you think anyone here will gain anything from it? All you are doing is making your beloved gawd look even worse. Or at least you would be if "irrational moron" wasn't such a big step up from "deceitful, murderous, lying, evil, degenerate, cruel, demented, sociopathic, misogynistic, hate fueled demon".
Every step of development can be theoretically explained. Most steps have multiple possible methods. (And no, "Goddidit" is not part of any step of actual reality). As more scientific developments are made, and discoveries uncovered theories get pruned, and occasionally new ones get added. This is science. It has a grasp of reality. Religion is a pacifier for the stupid, fearful and incapable.
Neither a troll nor a slander. Simply stating facts relevant and important to this branch of the thread.
You are a moron and an embarrassment to everything you've ever been involved in including the Christian church.
You have been repeatedly corrected in your previous idiocies, but you simply wedge your head further up your digestive tract and chant goddiditgoddiditgoddidit until the intelligent parties give up and interact further with you only to warn others of what a waste of biomass you are.
Utter waste of time interacting with the Kartune loser mate. It's brain is so far up it's ass that it no longer has any significant difference between cognition and digestion. It'll swallow anything told to it by its pastor, cogitate on it a while, remove what little of worth there is in it and dump the remaining shite on slashdot.
It is a troll of a special sort. Impervious to reason, logic or rationality, it believes only what is already in its head and declares that (its own personal interpretation of) the Wholly Babble trumps reality when it comes to correct answers.
When Fundie ministers gather to discuss problems their churches face Kartune makes the agenda as a solution, a scapegoat, a target for "Look! See? Fred Phelps ain't so bad. We could have all been embarrassments to existence like that thing".
I'll credit you the first lie. You probably don't remember far enough back (not that the info ever got into your thick-skulled brain in the first place) but it's already been pointed out to you that the primary current theory on the silliness of pre-big-bang existence is that time is more or less spherical. The concept of before the big bang is meaningless. As for what the original particles were/are made from/where they came from the short (but complex) answer is nothing and everywhere.
That however is the full set of credit you get. The counting begins.
And "new life", simple or complex, that same portion of your brain is asking, where from? There is no evidence to support the introduction of new genes/organisms from chance. Evidence for mutation of genes? Yes. _New_ genes? No. 1) Factual inaccuracy, easily self-corrected by anyone who cares about learning the truth rather than denying it. There are multiple vectors by which genetic information in a specimen may increase, from failed mitosis to conquered viral infection. 2) Factual inaccuracy, easily self-corrected with a little thought and structured consideration. Earliest life (give or take as noted in my previous post) had no genes. It was self replicating chemicals of a much simpler nature.
Science also shows us that breeding of different species doesn't work. 3) Raw idiocy. The definition of species is variants of critters that can't viably interbreed. This occurs when populations of a species are separated long enough for differing mutations to accrue. Breeding of variants within a species however accelerates evolution significantly.
humans can't breed with apes 4) Factual inaccuracy. Humans can breed with apes. Humans are apes, and can breed within their own species. Duh.
And yet, with your superior understanding and comprehension, far outweighing any other human living on this earth 5) Deliberate mis-characterization of my statements. I have repeatedly acknowledged that there are few if any aspects of reality on which I am a leading expert. I do however endeavor to listen to and learn from those who do know their stuff. I never claimed to be better than any other human. Just better than your gawds book makes it out to be. And a lot better than you.
you have failed to offer anything remotely "rational" or "logical" that I, or anyone else can use to deepen our understanding of this world. I'm not trying to give you the answers. Merely pointing out that your lies are in fact lies, and dropping some hints as to where you can start looking for some real answers. I'll be generous and let you have this clarification for free.
You're leaning your understanding on doctrinal dogma, contrived by, and enforced by fallible human scientists of this world in opposition to the Word of God. 6) Misrepresentation of sources. I am not opposed to the word of any deities. However given that there are no deities this does not affect me much. I am opposed to efforts to run modern societies and restrict peoples ability to think and act in a fit and free manner in accordance to the deranged scribblings of stoned shepherds. 7) Misrepresentation of sources. Science is not "enforced" by anything or anyone except in a science classroom. It is also not a doctrinal dogma. I do not lean my understanding on anything. I build it in a sound structural form on the foundations of reality.
yet even today the most advanced technology and intelligent architects are not able to match the level of precision and architecture acheived so many thousands of years ago 8) A blatant lie. Liar.
That's eight then. I congratulate you. Previous posts of yours would mostly have scored in the double figures. In 16 hours I will be sharing lunch with a group of economics students in the age range of 21 to 24. Eight of them will be educated in the nature of the holy spirit, and how it can be insulted enough to refuse to interact with a person ever again.
I don't know what collective your "we" is supposed to represent, but assuming it includes others who "think" (Ha, it is to laugh) and act like you the obvious answers include "Lesser humans", "Sub-humans" and "idiots". However as "idiot" has a specific definition which is rather higher than you can attain I'll just give you a nice simple answer. "Fundies". They look and smell human, but display none of the cognitive processes and exploratory curiosity that more or less define the species.
I have no reason to fear death with the knowledge of salvation and eternal life. If life was finite, I would have no qualms with doing myself in
See, the level to which you deny reality rather than deal with it would almost make me feel sorry for you if you had any redeeming features. What is so terrible about being a Christian that the sky-daddies scribes had to include dire warnings about suicide just to stop the religion killing itself off?
If there's no reason to live, what's the point, really? Reread your question. Can you see the flaw yet? The baseless assumption? I never suggested there was no reason to live. That's your own belief. Not mine. If there was no reason to live then I'd have offed myself long ago to leave more natural resources for cuter critters.
On the contrary, I've been set free. In living by the Holy Spirit blah blah blah, no responsibility blah blah auto-forgiven everything I'm well aware you think so already. But I'm afraid you have been mislead.
Saved from what? There is only one way to be saved from death, and that is through Jesus alone. Again, I am aware you think so. You are wrong and you are wasting your life. There is no salvation from death. Though it can already be staved off we will never eliminate it completely. All you can do is live the single brief span of sentience you are granted. What a shame you seem to have been behind the door when it was being distributed.
Now, as you are getting repetitive, and your lies, straw men and deliberate ignorance are getting annoying I'm going to have to change our relationship a little. From now on, each time you lie, dissemble, make a false argument or use other standard fundie tactics I will use my position to teach another individual enough of Christianity to understand the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the holy spirit and encourage them to do so. I have the time, resources and freedom to do so, and the knowledge that doing so will do no harm to these individuals whatsoever.
Consider your further arguments carefully. You could cause dozens to stumble, and have to go through with your threatened suicide (millstone + abyss of the ocean) to atone.
One of the great joys of being a teacher in an officially atheist country is that I can not only teach atheism in the classroom. I am actively encouraged to do so. I generally don't, and am not going to waste class time doing so but as it will do them no harm and I usually take lunch and dinner with my students anyway...
Sin is an inherent part of alleged God's alleged creative work. The lesser spotted bearded sky fairy is responsible for his work. Every sin ever committed can be laid fairly, justly and biblically at Gawds feet.
Question all you like. All you do is show your own blindness and inability to comprehend.
Just because my PoV does not particularly coincide with your belief system
Error is not a side, nor a PoV. It's error.
Just because your religious conviction does not particularly coincide with reality... There you go. I fixed it for you for free.
If you don't believe the "big bang theory", that tags along with evolution, in which a chaotic explosion produced complex living organisms
And there we have it folks. The classic fundie moment of revelation.
Ok, little one, listen carefully, engage _both_ brain cells for a minute. The big bang and evolution are separate events. They have no connection other than both occurring in the same (real) universe. (Well, technically one _is_ the universe that the other occurs in, but that's a little advanced for you just yet). The big bang did not produce complex life forms except in the most abstract view that by forming the universe it caused evolution. But that's a rather silly level of abstraction.
The big bang produced nothing by subatomic particles. The time between the big bang and the formation of the first gas clouds is a number of trillions beyond your ability to grasp. The time between the formation of gas clouds and the first stars is likewise rather sizable. The time between the formation of the first stars and our Sol, again so long that as far as you're concerned it might as well be eternity. Between the first ignition (term used rather loosely due to the scientific ignorance of the main audience) of Sol and the formation of a solid crusted earth, while not as long as the previous arcs of time is still beyond anything you can imagine. From there to the chance formation of the first self-replicating chemical strands (barely classifiable as life) is rather longer than anything you can grasp as well.
As your brain will shut down all forms of thought attempting to parse the previous I'll give you the simple version.
The big bang did not produce life. No sane person has ever suggested that it did. Only religious retards like you and your indoctrinators even suggest that anyone suggests it did.
I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just here to keep showing you that you are in dire need of some real education. And to ensure that any weak and vulnerable individual accidentally stumbling across your poisoned postings has a chance of avoiding the life-trap you espouse.
Oh, you were referring to that unproven theory in which is not observable for study... Actually that one which has left (actual) millions of tons of evidence available to any and all to study, and which has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. The one which makes testable predictions which have so far proven accurate. As opposed to the Bibles contents which, where testable, prove false on anything as complex as "count the legs on an insect and find that it has four".
babble babble babble Egyptians babble pyramids babble nonsense almost impossible accuracy babble Now what are you babbling on about? They had good architects and they piled carefully carved rocks atop each-other putting less on each level until they had a place for a pointy rock to sit. To answer your question, not only could they have, but they did. Duh.
As always you inanely chatter out rote-learned trite comments with little meaning and less relevance rather than actually read, comprehend and respond to what is presented to you. Neither the dictionary definition of science, nor that of abiogenesis are remotely relevant to anything in my post. Not that it would help you if they were, as you got them both wrong anyway.
No-one other than creationists claim that complex life came from nothing in a magical spark. The claims that evolution means something comes from nothing, and that the world is at present decaying are both bald-faced lies. Told by you. A liar.
As for the beginning of the world and the study of such, well, we weren't talking about the beginning of the world. We were talking about the fossils that formed hundreds of millions of years before man came into recognizable existence, and the process of development from the earliest lifeforms through to the fascinating biodiversity we see today.
Not only can this development be theorized about, but the theories produced can be used to make predictions, and those predictions tested and measured against the existing evidence which is easily accessible to any who care to actually look. You however, cannot see this evidence. You cannot even accurately read a simple English post on Slashdot. All you can do is detect about 30 key words or phrases and respond with your pre-taught mindless "arguments".
As for your puny "Step out of the basement" attempt at an insult... I have traveled to 24 countries (not counting brief holidays or quick stop-overs), lived in 7, worked (long term) in 5, worked in and with citizens of 12 and taught in 3. I have read the bible (as other religious texts) and various theological texts and treatises based on them at a level of detail your limited language and comprehension skills will never allow you approach.
You are, in comparison, a foolish misguided child bleating in your cradle, blinded by your protective night-light and incapable of comprehending anything of existence beyond the mundane daily existence. Hence your need to fill in fairy tales to cover the more obvious gaps in your over simplified worldview.
"Without him nothing was made. Through him all things are possible".
Sin is a part of his creation, the creation he chose to form in the full knowledge of the pain, suffering and alleged eternal torment he chooses to put his supposedly beloved children through.
Not that a word of it is true or anything but according to the bible sin, death, suffering, hate, torture, rape, murder... All are specifically created parts of his "perfect" creation.
Actually, according to your own biblical doctrines the almighty gawd is 100% responsible for sin as well.
Try reading your own wholly babble sometime. Really reading it. Not just following your kiddy-fiddling pastors directions on what meanings (interpretations) to understand and which cherries to pick (oo-er). Just for once try opening your eyes (opening your mind will always be a bit too much to ask of you) and seeing what is really there.
Go on. All I'm asking is that you really open your bible, and really read it, word by word, verse by verse, chapter by chapter as one entire book, remembering the cogent "facts" each part lays out, keeping an eye out for anything your youth-leader/sexual inspector hasn't mentioned to you, and actually reading the places where God "over-reacts" just a little towards various random bystanders.
You won't do it of course, but if you were to then your post count would double as you went back and posted apologies for absolutely everything you'd ever said/done/written while under the influence of your gawd-delusion.
Ah yes, the mating call of the fundie (of all religious stripes). "Don't think! Just obey! This is the path to happiness".
There is no eternal life. A part of becoming fully human is recognising your weaknesses and confronting them. Why are you so afraid of death? What is it about having a finite existence that scares you so much? Is it that having wasted a goodly portion of your life on religious idiocy you are afraid to admit your mistake to yourself?
Don't worry. Many fine useful and productive people were once enmeshed, ensnared and mired in life destroying religious issues just as you are now. You (generic you, for most religion victims, excluding the parent poster who has proven to have a non-human level of intelligence and complete inability to learn, observe or reason classifying it as a rather limited (and not very colorful) flightless parrot) can be saved. You just have to let go of the delusions, acknowledge reality and take that first step. Following steps will (obviously) follow.
Of all the nonsense questions you pose here these one is actually one of the less stupid.
Which is not to say it isn't a fine example of brainless fundie herd-bleating, and downright stupid and meaningless.
There was no time after the abiogenetic event (an event in which abiogenesis occurred) when death did not occur as a regular part of life.
There was no fall of man. And only the most specio-centric types consider man's development an ascent either.
And the vast majority of fossils we find these days were formed tens and hundreds of millions of years before anything even the most generous of definitions can classify as human walked the earth.
These are simple historical facts. To deny them is to show your own failings. Not that that's likely to worry you.
For crying out loud, are you ever going to grow up and face reality?
Yes, many cultures have a story of a great flood. It's a shame no two cultures can put a similar cause, effect or salvation story together to account for their civilizations survival from it. When your entire world is 3 villages on one section of riverside flatland, a flood that drowns the world is pretty much guaranteed every two or 3 generations.
Lets see now, which is more likely... The entire Chinese, Egyptian and multiple others 5 to 10 millennium long histories are faked, or the flood that Noah allegedly stashed two of every creature (7 or 14 of the edible ones depending on your translation) from was actually a stream bursting it's banks and drowning his little village, or (most likely of all) never occurred.
Are you genuinely stupid enough to believe that all races were one race that built a zigguraut tall enough to upset your sky-pixies ego leading to (a rather poor job) of fracturing their language to separate tongues? Did it really never cross your mind to question why this should be considered more plausible than the delivery, once per year, of chocolate eggs by deranged bunnies?
God's Word does not require evidence to validate what it says, rather we take what God says through His Word by faith. Translation : It's an obvious fallacy to anyone who thinks, so no thinking allowed. Burn the heretics!
We've already (in previous threads) shown you that the wholly babble is incontrovertibly flawed and falsifiable, but in standard fundie mindlessness you have conveniently forgotten that completely and reset to mindless drooling unthinking credulousness. Why do you waste your time? Learn and remember what you have learned and you will be free of your cult in a year. Of course, you won't because you are too weak of will and mind to ever dare try and deal in reality. Moron.
How exactly is thw claim by a couple of stoned shepherds that God's wisdom supercedes mine any more valid than my claim that I have more just and fair worldview than the bogeyman they describe? At least I can count the number of limbs on an insect. They couldn't.
Basically this has developed into a bragging match between the voices in your head and me.
Higher than my ways? Implying better than my ways? I never instructed an army to specifically kill everyone in a city except the virgin girls old enough to be raped. Your holy book states that your "Holy" and "higher" god did.
I never brutally killed dozens of young children for finding my friends appearance funny. Your "just" god did (again according to the bible).
I never created a universe including tens or hundreds of billions in such a flawed manner as to condemn all but 120,000 of them to eternal torment and knowingly declared it good. The bible makes it clear that your god did.
I never created a life form with dozens of flaws, many of them potentially lethal and then claimed to be all-powerfulm, all-knowing and all loving. Yet again the bible claims god did.
I never tortured a man (who had devoted his life to me and dedicated his entire existence to benefitting those around him), and killed dozens of others just to settle a bet with someone who is suipposed to be my enemy. Guess who the bible says did?
I never instructed a man to protect and safeguard a stupid relic while it was being retuirned after being stolen, then struck him dead for daring to prevent it falling to the ground.
I never told a nation of bigotted shepherds that they were better than everyone else, so they should murder and rape their way across the middle-east driving out (and killing off) all the lesser races in their way.
I never told a race they were my chosen people, then sold them into slavery, then took them out, then tortured them for 40 years.
I never killed every firstborn son in an entire nation, just to scare their parents.
Get the drift?
Yes God's ways are different to mine. Yes our minds work differently. Despite being allegedly made in his image.
His ways are the ways of a sociopathic psychotic evil maniac. Mine are the ways of a reasonable and just man. Mine are undoubtably superior.
As for the beginnings of the universe, I say the universe just is. You say God just is. How is your claim better than mine?
The universe is (it seems) a small section of a sphere of time. It circles. The detailed physics are, to be honest, beyond me at this point. But for those who choose to study it and learn they are made available, and anyone with the brainpower can be shown. I can follow enough of them (when those who do understand deign to talk down to me) to get the gist.
You... probably not. Which is why you latch onto the childrens baby stories.
It's a valid argument for sure, but it generally won't work on most of them. You might get as far (if you were to keep pushing it) as an announcement of "inner truth" or "real truth" trumping science, but they'll always have some wriggle-out item. Most will never get that far mind you. They'll just maintain that "Gawdidit! The bible is truth. Where science disagrees then science is, by definition from the bible, wrong".
Keeping the pressure on is a good plan though. Firstly it reduces the likelihood of their ensnaring more victims, and someday when they have a moment of enlightenment all of the reality we share with them is there to be seized upon.
Yesssss. Sensible meaning that all argument must start with "Bible is good. Bible is right. Lets discuss interpretation."
You know, although the words "snide" and "passive aggressive" don't show up in the bible, it's a fairly safe assumption that they certainly don't fall under good Jesus-like behaviour. Get back here. Your other cheek looks horribly unscathed.
BTW, whatever happened to the eternal changeless god, the same now and forever? And lets not forget Jesus statements that he was not here to remove one fragment of the law.
It's the former. I wanted to know God better than I already did. I wanted a stronger, deeper relationship with him. Wow, but had I been snowed. As I read I learned from God's own boasts about himself and his behaviour that he was a murderous, rapacious, misogynistic, unjust, cruel, irrational, lying, hate-filled, trickster, incapable of anything like justice, fairness or love.
All this I learned from the bible. Directly from the bible (Specifically the traditional-language KJV). At that point I still believed in the existence of God, but rejected it outright as an evil bastard in need of eradication, regardless of whether it had created us or not. The creation can be superior to the creator it seemed, and it was clear that man was capable of being ethically and morally superior to the God who condoned and indeed ordered genocide, torture, mass rapes including rape of children, and eternal torment for anyone who never heard of it, along with torment for anyone capable of reason.
Thankfully it turned out most of my work had been completed already. Once free of the need to worship this blood/death monger daily I had a lot more time to study science, logic, history and the other sciences and humanities. It became very clear that the murderous sky-pixie exists only in the demented brains of its followers. Otherwise I'd have to work on some rather creative ways of storming the gates of heaven.
If it were possible for me to be wrong on the existence of God, which thankfully it's not, then on the day were summoned before the throne to be judged on the crimes of rational thought, empathy for humans and seeking justice... well, God better be good at hand to hand combat or have some fast moving bailiffs.
As for the rest, the "be saved, repent, join us" silliness... I speak the following aloud, before witnesses before typing it. "The holy spirit, even if it existed, would be a whiny annoying little fart of a ghost, who's only power is to cloud the minds of men and force them into idiocy and slavery, promoting the mind-destroying stupidity of glossolalia upon them. The holy spirit can go suck a donkey". According to the bible I am now unsavable, having blasphemed, with all my heart and full intent to do so, the pwecious widdle holy spiwit.
So.... your answer is "GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt"?
I don't think that's going to stand up round here where people of a rational and sentient mind like to see some form of logic included in such claims.
As for Pauls hate-filled spewn bile being removed if it were inaccurate, it was, many times, but those parts of Christianity that liked being able to tell their womenfolk to "STFU and get back in the kitchen and never open your mouth again unless instructed to" had a tendency to burn the folks who wanted to go with what Jesus said at the stake. (Yes, I know that's another sentence you'll have difficulty parsing, but the exercise will be good for you).
Nope. The sentence is accurate, precise and correct (inasmuch as a question can be correct/incorrect).
Breaking it down for you.
Paul/Saul was, in all probability, a Roman plant in the early church to break it up and use the remnants to reinforce Roman requirements on the members.
Modern Christian teachings (including the self-proclaimed "same as the apostles" type churches are based primarily on the teachings of Paul, and not on the teachings of Christ.
As the original 12 were allegedly based directly on Christ they would have had very little in common with those who went with the teachings of Paul. Thus they also had very little in common with the current "Christians" who's core doctrines are mostly based on Pauls original materials and interpretations of Christs teachings.
Yay! Lets latch onto a statement that doesn't mean what you think it means and suggest that it indicates the correctness and inerrency of the wholly babble!
No, first the range of C14 dating goes an order of magnitude past your insane (and stupid) young earth claims. And even if it didn't there's no link at all to suggest that the lack of a greater half life proves that the earth is only that old.
Very Hovind young apprentice. Seize onto and misrepresent partial fragments that you don't comprehend and claim them as your own. Just remember, unto caeser render that which of caeser is.
So, the original 12 never did all the stuff the Roman plant in the church (Paul) wrote in opposition to Christs teachings, and upon which all modern Christian faiths are based?
Paragraph 1 : I have my head in the sand and I like it that way.
Quote : Random snippet of irrelevancy from a letter written by someone pretending to be the self-hating, misogynistic, Christ refuting Paul.
Paragraph 2: I'm ignorant and deliberately blind myself to reality because I've given up on life and am waiting for death in ridiculous hope that I'll be given eternal bliss singing praises to the egotistical sky-pixie!
Closing swipe : Nonsense question included for no rational reason, to which the answer is "Because Christians tortured and killed anyone who said otherwise".
Doesn't make it any less true that Young Earth Creationists are deliberately irrational and not worth talking with if one hopes for reasonable or rational discourse on any matter more complex than whether tea or coffee is less of an abomination.
(And yes, that one _was_ both a flame and flamebait). As noted elsewhere you are a self-professed YEC (young earth creationist, the most irrational and thick skulled branch of an irrational religion), reducing you from someone to debate with to something to poke at and be amused by as your deliberate blindness to reality means working with you to find truth and freedom are a waste of effort.
(At least online. In real life your human rights remain unchanged).
That was the weakest set of arguments you've supplied yet in each case, which is really saying something.
TBH I'm using you as an experiment. From experience I have learned that blinkered christians can't be reasoned into rational thought, so at the moment I'm experimenting with shocking and forcing rational thought on them for their own good. a life is a terrible thing to waste after all.
"For god so loved the world..." At least those parts of it he didn't instruct his people to kill, rape, enslave, torture. And those innocently bystanding parts he didn't kill to make an exampe of. And the men he didn't torment and torture for months to settle a bet with his supposed enemy.
Now, this next bit is somewhat ranty, but still accurate.
Even if your god were real I would not worship it. It is a foul and evil thing that any worthy human would seek to topple from it's throne of blood, bones and fear, and that's just from what it (allegedly) tells us about itself, what it boasts of. It has no concept of justice. No concept of forgiveness or mercy and rejects completely any form of equality or freedom. It makes playthings for itself and threatens them with etarnal torment if they don't reject the free will it claims to have given them and spend all eternity telling it how big and great it is. A monster basically.
Are you aware that of the multitudes of texts rejected by the Nicene councils there are quite a number that explain that Jesus death as a sacrifice was a trap to allow the new God to destroy the evil old demon of the Old Testament? They make a lot more sense than many of the tomes that were deemed worthy to "make the cut" for the very trimmed down set of religious texts that you cling to.
Slashdot Mirror
More gibberish from the wholly babble.
Why do you think anyone here will gain anything from it? All you are doing is making your beloved gawd look even worse. Or at least you would be if "irrational moron" wasn't such a big step up from "deceitful, murderous, lying, evil, degenerate, cruel, demented, sociopathic, misogynistic, hate fueled demon".
Every step of development can be theoretically explained. Most steps have multiple possible methods. (And no, "Goddidit" is not part of any step of actual reality). As more scientific developments are made, and discoveries uncovered theories get pruned, and occasionally new ones get added. This is science. It has a grasp of reality. Religion is a pacifier for the stupid, fearful and incapable.
Neither a troll nor a slander.
Simply stating facts relevant and important to this branch of the thread.
You are a moron and an embarrassment to everything you've ever been involved in including the Christian church.
You have been repeatedly corrected in your previous idiocies, but you simply wedge your head further up your digestive tract and chant goddiditgoddiditgoddidit until the intelligent parties give up and interact further with you only to warn others of what a waste of biomass you are.
Utter waste of time interacting with the Kartune loser mate. It's brain is so far up it's ass that it no longer has any significant difference between cognition and digestion. It'll swallow anything told to it by its pastor, cogitate on it a while, remove what little of worth there is in it and dump the remaining shite on slashdot.
It is a troll of a special sort. Impervious to reason, logic or rationality, it believes only what is already in its head and declares that (its own personal interpretation of) the Wholly Babble trumps reality when it comes to correct answers.
When Fundie ministers gather to discuss problems their churches face Kartune makes the agenda as a solution, a scapegoat, a target for "Look! See? Fred Phelps ain't so bad. We could have all been embarrassments to existence like that thing".
I'll credit you the first lie. You probably don't remember far enough back (not that the info ever got into your thick-skulled brain in the first place) but it's already been pointed out to you that the primary current theory on the silliness of pre-big-bang existence is that time is more or less spherical. The concept of before the big bang is meaningless. As for what the original particles were/are made from/where they came from the short (but complex) answer is nothing and everywhere.
That however is the full set of credit you get. The counting begins.
And "new life", simple or complex, that same portion of your brain is asking, where from? There is no evidence to support the introduction of new genes/organisms from chance. Evidence for mutation of genes? Yes. _New_ genes? No.
1) Factual inaccuracy, easily self-corrected by anyone who cares about learning the truth rather than denying it. There are multiple vectors by which genetic information in a specimen may increase, from failed mitosis to conquered viral infection.
2) Factual inaccuracy, easily self-corrected with a little thought and structured consideration. Earliest life (give or take as noted in my previous post) had no genes. It was self replicating chemicals of a much simpler nature.
Science also shows us that breeding of different species doesn't work.
3) Raw idiocy. The definition of species is variants of critters that can't viably interbreed. This occurs when populations of a species are separated long enough for differing mutations to accrue. Breeding of variants within a species however accelerates evolution significantly.
humans can't breed with apes
4) Factual inaccuracy. Humans can breed with apes. Humans are apes, and can breed within their own species. Duh.
And yet, with your superior understanding and comprehension, far outweighing any other human living on this earth
5) Deliberate mis-characterization of my statements. I have repeatedly acknowledged that there are few if any aspects of reality on which I am a leading expert. I do however endeavor to listen to and learn from those who do know their stuff. I never claimed to be better than any other human. Just better than your gawds book makes it out to be. And a lot better than you.
you have failed to offer anything remotely "rational" or "logical" that I, or anyone else can use to deepen our understanding of this world.
I'm not trying to give you the answers. Merely pointing out that your lies are in fact lies, and dropping some hints as to where you can start looking for some real answers. I'll be generous and let you have this clarification for free.
You're leaning your understanding on doctrinal dogma, contrived by, and enforced by fallible human scientists of this world in opposition to the Word of God.
6) Misrepresentation of sources. I am not opposed to the word of any deities. However given that there are no deities this does not affect me much. I am opposed to efforts to run modern societies and restrict peoples ability to think and act in a fit and free manner in accordance to the deranged scribblings of stoned shepherds.
7) Misrepresentation of sources. Science is not "enforced" by anything or anyone except in a science classroom. It is also not a doctrinal dogma. I do not lean my understanding on anything. I build it in a sound structural form on the foundations of reality.
yet even today the most advanced technology and intelligent architects are not able to match the level of precision and architecture acheived so many thousands of years ago
8) A blatant lie. Liar.
That's eight then. I congratulate you. Previous posts of yours would mostly have scored in the double figures. In 16 hours I will be sharing lunch with a group of economics students in the age range of 21 to 24. Eight of them will be educated in the nature of the holy spirit, and how it can be insulted enough to refuse to interact with a person ever again.
please, tell me what we are
I don't know what collective your "we" is supposed to represent, but assuming it includes others who "think" (Ha, it is to laugh) and act like you the obvious answers include "Lesser humans", "Sub-humans" and "idiots". However as "idiot" has a specific definition which is rather higher than you can attain I'll just give you a nice simple answer. "Fundies". They look and smell human, but display none of the cognitive processes and exploratory curiosity that more or less define the species.
I have no reason to fear death with the knowledge of salvation and eternal life. If life was finite, I would have no qualms with doing myself in
See, the level to which you deny reality rather than deal with it would almost make me feel sorry for you if you had any redeeming features. What is so terrible about being a Christian that the sky-daddies scribes had to include dire warnings about suicide just to stop the religion killing itself off?
If there's no reason to live, what's the point, really?
Reread your question. Can you see the flaw yet? The baseless assumption?
I never suggested there was no reason to live. That's your own belief. Not mine. If there was no reason to live then I'd have offed myself long ago to leave more natural resources for cuter critters.
On the contrary, I've been set free. In living by the Holy Spirit blah blah blah, no responsibility blah blah auto-forgiven everything
I'm well aware you think so already. But I'm afraid you have been mislead.
Saved from what? There is only one way to be saved from death, and that is through Jesus alone.
Again, I am aware you think so. You are wrong and you are wasting your life. There is no salvation from death. Though it can already be staved off we will never eliminate it completely. All you can do is live the single brief span of sentience you are granted. What a shame you seem to have been behind the door when it was being distributed.
Now, as you are getting repetitive, and your lies, straw men and deliberate ignorance are getting annoying I'm going to have to change our relationship a little. From now on, each time you lie, dissemble, make a false argument or use other standard fundie tactics I will use my position to teach another individual enough of Christianity to understand the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the holy spirit and encourage them to do so. I have the time, resources and freedom to do so, and the knowledge that doing so will do no harm to these individuals whatsoever.
Consider your further arguments carefully. You could cause dozens to stumble, and have to go through with your threatened suicide (millstone + abyss of the ocean) to atone.
One of the great joys of being a teacher in an officially atheist country is that I can not only teach atheism in the classroom. I am actively encouraged to do so. I generally don't, and am not going to waste class time doing so but as it will do them no harm and I usually take lunch and dinner with my students anyway...
Sin is an inherent part of alleged God's alleged creative work. The lesser spotted bearded sky fairy is responsible for his work. Every sin ever committed can be laid fairly, justly and biblically at Gawds feet.
Question all you like. All you do is show your own blindness and inability to comprehend.
Just because my PoV does not particularly coincide with your belief system
Error is not a side, nor a PoV. It's error.
Just because your religious conviction does not particularly coincide with reality... There you go. I fixed it for you for free.
If you don't believe the "big bang theory", that tags along with evolution, in which a chaotic explosion produced complex living organisms
And there we have it folks. The classic fundie moment of revelation.
Ok, little one, listen carefully, engage _both_ brain cells for a minute.
The big bang and evolution are separate events. They have no connection other than both occurring in the same (real) universe. (Well, technically one _is_ the universe that the other occurs in, but that's a little advanced for you just yet).
The big bang did not produce complex life forms except in the most abstract view that by forming the universe it caused evolution. But that's a rather silly level of abstraction.
The big bang produced nothing by subatomic particles. The time between the big bang and the formation of the first gas clouds is a number of trillions beyond your ability to grasp. The time between the formation of gas clouds and the first stars is likewise rather sizable. The time between the formation of the first stars and our Sol, again so long that as far as you're concerned it might as well be eternity. Between the first ignition (term used rather loosely due to the scientific ignorance of the main audience) of Sol and the formation of a solid crusted earth, while not as long as the previous arcs of time is still beyond anything you can imagine. From there to the chance formation of the first self-replicating chemical strands (barely classifiable as life) is rather longer than anything you can grasp as well.
As your brain will shut down all forms of thought attempting to parse the previous I'll give you the simple version.
The big bang did not produce life. No sane person has ever suggested that it did. Only religious retards like you and your indoctrinators even suggest that anyone suggests it did.
I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just here to keep showing you that you are in dire need of some real education. And to ensure that any weak and vulnerable individual accidentally stumbling across your poisoned postings has a chance of avoiding the life-trap you espouse.
Oh, you were referring to that unproven theory in which is not observable for study...
Actually that one which has left (actual) millions of tons of evidence available to any and all to study, and which has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. The one which makes testable predictions which have so far proven accurate.
As opposed to the Bibles contents which, where testable, prove false on anything as complex as "count the legs on an insect and find that it has four".
babble babble babble Egyptians babble pyramids babble nonsense almost impossible accuracy babble
Now what are you babbling on about? They had good architects and they piled carefully carved rocks atop each-other putting less on each level until they had a place for a pointy rock to sit.
To answer your question, not only could they have, but they did. Duh.
You do know that lying is a sin, right?
So why do you continue to lie?
As always you inanely chatter out rote-learned trite comments with little meaning and less relevance rather than actually read, comprehend and respond to what is presented to you. Neither the dictionary definition of science, nor that of abiogenesis are remotely relevant to anything in my post. Not that it would help you if they were, as you got them both wrong anyway.
No-one other than creationists claim that complex life came from nothing in a magical spark. The claims that evolution means something comes from nothing, and that the world is at present decaying are both bald-faced lies. Told by you. A liar.
As for the beginning of the world and the study of such, well, we weren't talking about the beginning of the world. We were talking about the fossils that formed hundreds of millions of years before man came into recognizable existence, and the process of development from the earliest lifeforms through to the fascinating biodiversity we see today.
Not only can this development be theorized about, but the theories produced can be used to make predictions, and those predictions tested and measured against the existing evidence which is easily accessible to any who care to actually look. You however, cannot see this evidence. You cannot even accurately read a simple English post on Slashdot. All you can do is detect about 30 key words or phrases and respond with your pre-taught mindless "arguments".
As for your puny "Step out of the basement" attempt at an insult...
I have traveled to 24 countries (not counting brief holidays or quick stop-overs), lived in 7, worked (long term) in 5, worked in and with citizens of 12 and taught in 3. I have read the bible (as other religious texts) and various theological texts and treatises based on them at a level of detail your limited language and comprehension skills will never allow you approach.
You are, in comparison, a foolish misguided child bleating in your cradle, blinded by your protective night-light and incapable of comprehending anything of existence beyond the mundane daily existence. Hence your need to fill in fairy tales to cover the more obvious gaps in your over simplified worldview.
"Without him nothing was made. Through him all things are possible".
Sin is a part of his creation, the creation he chose to form in the full knowledge of the pain, suffering and alleged eternal torment he chooses to put his supposedly beloved children through.
Not that a word of it is true or anything but according to the bible sin, death, suffering, hate, torture, rape, murder... All are specifically created parts of his "perfect" creation.
Actually, according to your own biblical doctrines the almighty gawd is 100% responsible for sin as well.
Try reading your own wholly babble sometime. Really reading it. Not just following your kiddy-fiddling pastors directions on what meanings (interpretations) to understand and which cherries to pick (oo-er). Just for once try opening your eyes (opening your mind will always be a bit too much to ask of you) and seeing what is really there.
Go on. All I'm asking is that you really open your bible, and really read it, word by word, verse by verse, chapter by chapter as one entire book, remembering the cogent "facts" each part lays out, keeping an eye out for anything your youth-leader/sexual inspector hasn't mentioned to you, and actually reading the places where God "over-reacts" just a little towards various random bystanders.
You won't do it of course, but if you were to then your post count would double as you went back and posted apologies for absolutely everything you'd ever said/done/written while under the influence of your gawd-delusion.
Ah yes, the mating call of the fundie (of all religious stripes).
"Don't think! Just obey! This is the path to happiness".
There is no eternal life. A part of becoming fully human is recognising your weaknesses and confronting them. Why are you so afraid of death? What is it about having a finite existence that scares you so much? Is it that having wasted a goodly portion of your life on religious idiocy you are afraid to admit your mistake to yourself?
Don't worry. Many fine useful and productive people were once enmeshed, ensnared and mired in life destroying religious issues just as you are now. You (generic you, for most religion victims, excluding the parent poster who has proven to have a non-human level of intelligence and complete inability to learn, observe or reason classifying it as a rather limited (and not very colorful) flightless parrot) can be saved. You just have to let go of the delusions, acknowledge reality and take that first step. Following steps will (obviously) follow.
Of all the nonsense questions you pose here these one is actually one of the less stupid.
Which is not to say it isn't a fine example of brainless fundie herd-bleating, and downright stupid and meaningless.
There was no time after the abiogenetic event (an event in which abiogenesis occurred) when death did not occur as a regular part of life.
There was no fall of man. And only the most specio-centric types consider man's development an ascent either.
And the vast majority of fossils we find these days were formed tens and hundreds of millions of years before anything even the most generous of definitions can classify as human walked the earth.
These are simple historical facts. To deny them is to show your own failings. Not that that's likely to worry you.
For crying out loud, are you ever going to grow up and face reality?
Yes, many cultures have a story of a great flood. It's a shame no two cultures can put a similar cause, effect or salvation story together to account for their civilizations survival from it. When your entire world is 3 villages on one section of riverside flatland, a flood that drowns the world is pretty much guaranteed every two or 3 generations.
Lets see now, which is more likely... The entire Chinese, Egyptian and multiple others 5 to 10 millennium long histories are faked, or the flood that Noah allegedly stashed two of every creature (7 or 14 of the edible ones depending on your translation) from was actually a stream bursting it's banks and drowning his little village, or (most likely of all) never occurred.
Are you genuinely stupid enough to believe that all races were one race that built a zigguraut tall enough to upset your sky-pixies ego leading to (a rather poor job) of fracturing their language to separate tongues? Did it really never cross your mind to question why this should be considered more plausible than the delivery, once per year, of chocolate eggs by deranged bunnies?
God's Word does not require evidence to validate what it says, rather we take what God says through His Word by faith.
Translation : It's an obvious fallacy to anyone who thinks, so no thinking allowed. Burn the heretics!
We've already (in previous threads) shown you that the wholly babble is incontrovertibly flawed and falsifiable, but in standard fundie mindlessness you have conveniently forgotten that completely and reset to mindless drooling unthinking credulousness. Why do you waste your time? Learn and remember what you have learned and you will be free of your cult in a year. Of course, you won't because you are too weak of will and mind to ever dare try and deal in reality. Moron.
How exactly is thw claim by a couple of stoned shepherds that God's wisdom supercedes mine any more valid than my claim that I have more just and fair worldview than the bogeyman they describe?
At least I can count the number of limbs on an insect. They couldn't.
Basically this has developed into a bragging match between the voices in your head and me.
Higher than my ways? Implying better than my ways? I never instructed an army to specifically kill everyone in a city except the virgin girls old enough to be raped. Your holy book states that your "Holy" and "higher" god did.
I never brutally killed dozens of young children for finding my friends appearance funny. Your "just" god did (again according to the bible).
I never created a universe including tens or hundreds of billions in such a flawed manner as to condemn all but 120,000 of them to eternal torment and knowingly declared it good. The bible makes it clear that your god did.
I never created a life form with dozens of flaws, many of them potentially lethal and then claimed to be all-powerfulm, all-knowing and all loving. Yet again the bible claims god did.
I never tortured a man (who had devoted his life to me and dedicated his entire existence to benefitting those around him), and killed dozens of others just to settle a bet with someone who is suipposed to be my enemy. Guess who the bible says did?
I never instructed a man to protect and safeguard a stupid relic while it was being retuirned after being stolen, then struck him dead for daring to prevent it falling to the ground.
I never told a nation of bigotted shepherds that they were better than everyone else, so they should murder and rape their way across the middle-east driving out (and killing off) all the lesser races in their way.
I never told a race they were my chosen people, then sold them into slavery, then took them out, then tortured them for 40 years.
I never killed every firstborn son in an entire nation, just to scare their parents.
Get the drift?
Yes God's ways are different to mine. Yes our minds work differently. Despite being allegedly made in his image.
His ways are the ways of a sociopathic psychotic evil maniac. Mine are the ways of a reasonable and just man. Mine are undoubtably superior.
As for the beginnings of the universe, I say the universe just is. You say God just is. How is your claim better than mine?
The universe is (it seems) a small section of a sphere of time. It circles. The detailed physics are, to be honest, beyond me at this point. But for those who choose to study it and learn they are made available, and anyone with the brainpower can be shown. I can follow enough of them (when those who do understand deign to talk down to me) to get the gist.
You... probably not. Which is why you latch onto the childrens baby stories.
It's a valid argument for sure, but it generally won't work on most of them. You might get as far (if you were to keep pushing it) as an announcement of "inner truth" or "real truth" trumping science, but they'll always have some wriggle-out item. Most will never get that far mind you. They'll just maintain that "Gawdidit! The bible is truth. Where science disagrees then science is, by definition from the bible, wrong".
Keeping the pressure on is a good plan though. Firstly it reduces the likelihood of their ensnaring more victims, and someday when they have a moment of enlightenment all of the reality we share with them is there to be seized upon.
Yesssss. Sensible meaning that all argument must start with "Bible is good. Bible is right. Lets discuss interpretation."
You know, although the words "snide" and "passive aggressive" don't show up in the bible, it's a fairly safe assumption that they certainly don't fall under good Jesus-like behaviour. Get back here. Your other cheek looks horribly unscathed.
BTW, whatever happened to the eternal changeless god, the same now and forever? And lets not forget Jesus statements that he was not here to remove one fragment of the law.
It's the former. I wanted to know God better than I already did. I wanted a stronger, deeper relationship with him. Wow, but had I been snowed. As I read I learned from God's own boasts about himself and his behaviour that he was a murderous, rapacious, misogynistic, unjust, cruel, irrational, lying, hate-filled, trickster, incapable of anything like justice, fairness or love.
All this I learned from the bible. Directly from the bible (Specifically the traditional-language KJV). At that point I still believed in the existence of God, but rejected it outright as an evil bastard in need of eradication, regardless of whether it had created us or not. The creation can be superior to the creator it seemed, and it was clear that man was capable of being ethically and morally superior to the God who condoned and indeed ordered genocide, torture, mass rapes including rape of children, and eternal torment for anyone who never heard of it, along with torment for anyone capable of reason.
Thankfully it turned out most of my work had been completed already. Once free of the need to worship this blood/death monger daily I had a lot more time to study science, logic, history and the other sciences and humanities. It became very clear that the murderous sky-pixie exists only in the demented brains of its followers. Otherwise I'd have to work on some rather creative ways of storming the gates of heaven.
If it were possible for me to be wrong on the existence of God, which thankfully it's not, then on the day were summoned before the throne to be judged on the crimes of rational thought, empathy for humans and seeking justice... well, God better be good at hand to hand combat or have some fast moving bailiffs.
As for the rest, the "be saved, repent, join us" silliness...
I speak the following aloud, before witnesses before typing it. "The holy spirit, even if it existed, would be a whiny annoying little fart of a ghost, who's only power is to cloud the minds of men and force them into idiocy and slavery, promoting the mind-destroying stupidity of glossolalia upon them. The holy spirit can go suck a donkey".
According to the bible I am now unsavable, having blasphemed, with all my heart and full intent to do so, the pwecious widdle holy spiwit.
So.... your answer is "GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt GawdDidIt"?
I don't think that's going to stand up round here where people of a rational and sentient mind like to see some form of logic included in such claims.
As for Pauls hate-filled spewn bile being removed if it were inaccurate, it was, many times, but those parts of Christianity that liked being able to tell their womenfolk to "STFU and get back in the kitchen and never open your mouth again unless instructed to" had a tendency to burn the folks who wanted to go with what Jesus said at the stake. (Yes, I know that's another sentence you'll have difficulty parsing, but the exercise will be good for you).
Nope. The sentence is accurate, precise and correct (inasmuch as a question can be correct/incorrect).
Breaking it down for you.
Paul/Saul was, in all probability, a Roman plant in the early church to break it up and use the remnants to reinforce Roman requirements on the members.
Modern Christian teachings (including the self-proclaimed "same as the apostles" type churches are based primarily on the teachings of Paul, and not on the teachings of Christ.
As the original 12 were allegedly based directly on Christ they would have had very little in common with those who went with the teachings of Paul. Thus they also had very little in common with the current "Christians" who's core doctrines are mostly based on Pauls original materials and interpretations of Christs teachings.
Yay! Lets latch onto a statement that doesn't mean what you think it means and suggest that it indicates the correctness and inerrency of the wholly babble!
No, first the range of C14 dating goes an order of magnitude past your insane (and stupid) young earth claims. And even if it didn't there's no link at all to suggest that the lack of a greater half life proves that the earth is only that old.
Very Hovind young apprentice. Seize onto and misrepresent partial fragments that you don't comprehend and claim them as your own. Just remember, unto caeser render that which of caeser is.
So, the original 12 never did all the stuff the Roman plant in the church (Paul) wrote in opposition to Christs teachings, and upon which all modern Christian faiths are based?
Translation:
Paragraph 1 : I have my head in the sand and I like it that way.
Quote : Random snippet of irrelevancy from a letter written by someone pretending to be the self-hating, misogynistic, Christ refuting Paul.
Paragraph 2: I'm ignorant and deliberately blind myself to reality because I've given up on life and am waiting for death in ridiculous hope that I'll be given eternal bliss singing praises to the egotistical sky-pixie!
Closing swipe : Nonsense question included for no rational reason, to which the answer is "Because Christians tortured and killed anyone who said otherwise".
Yay! My first ever negative Mod!
And I'll own to the trolling, no argument.
Doesn't make it any less true that Young Earth Creationists are deliberately irrational and not worth talking with if one hopes for reasonable or rational discourse on any matter more complex than whether tea or coffee is less of an abomination.
(And yes, that one _was_ both a flame and flamebait).
As noted elsewhere you are a self-professed YEC (young earth creationist, the most irrational and thick skulled branch of an irrational religion), reducing you from someone to debate with to something to poke at and be amused by as your deliberate blindness to reality means working with you to find truth and freedom are a waste of effort.
(At least online. In real life your human rights remain unchanged).
That was the weakest set of arguments you've supplied yet in each case, which is really saying something.
TBH I'm using you as an experiment. From experience I have learned that blinkered christians can't be reasoned into rational thought, so at the moment I'm experimenting with shocking and forcing rational thought on them for their own good. a life is a terrible thing to waste after all.
"For god so loved the world..."
At least those parts of it he didn't instruct his people to kill, rape, enslave, torture.
And those innocently bystanding parts he didn't kill to make an exampe of.
And the men he didn't torment and torture for months to settle a bet with his supposed enemy.
Now, this next bit is somewhat ranty, but still accurate.
Even if your god were real I would not worship it. It is a foul and evil thing that any worthy human would seek to topple from it's throne of blood, bones and fear, and that's just from what it (allegedly) tells us about itself, what it boasts of. It has no concept of justice. No concept of forgiveness or mercy and rejects completely any form of equality or freedom. It makes playthings for itself and threatens them with etarnal torment if they don't reject the free will it claims to have given them and spend all eternity telling it how big and great it is.
A monster basically.
Are you aware that of the multitudes of texts rejected by the Nicene councils there are quite a number that explain that Jesus death as a sacrifice was a trap to allow the new God to destroy the evil old demon of the Old Testament? They make a lot more sense than many of the tomes that were deemed
worthy to "make the cut" for the very trimmed down set of religious texts that you cling to.
So there.
Enjoy your bondage.