The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Ah yes.
Richard Dawkins - The God of the Atheists!!!!

MGMan: Dawkins is wrong. There is an orbiting teapot. There are many orbiting teapots.

If teapots are part of the planet earth and the earth orbits around the sun, does this not make them orbiting teapots?????

Ah yesss... the classical focal-avoidance answer. How bluefetian...
Make a silly remark (Ah yes. Richard Dawkins - The God of the Atheists!!!!), ask a nonsensical question (hoping that its rhetorical nature makes it seem intelligent and masks the fact that it has nothing to do with what it questions)... and hope that it passes as an intelligent response.
I guess you did not not read my post regarding "responses", huh?

I think the term is "sophistry"

[megadoc1]

Richard Dawkins - The God of the Atheists!!!!

no bluefete thats not the case ,don't rate this guy so high you see richard dawkins it not someone that should be taken seriously in the first place (unless you are someone looking for an excuse for no God)
I will tell you why, he wrote a book " the god delusion" and claims that anyone who believes in God is under a delusion,he laid out all his arguments and claimed that "he is yet to hear a theologian give a convincing answer despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so"
but hear this he will only debate a bishop, a cardinal,a pope,an archbishop
but not the ones he considers "creationist" a term he exploits to protect himself from critics most of whom are people in academia like himself
for example, he will not debate dr william lane craig (he don't even calls him doctor he says mr..no respect for his titles in academia )
and is now being called a coward by other atheist

don't waste your time dawkins and his followers could only confront the ones who are not in The academic community with his "crap"
I myself will ignore anyone who put fort arguments by dawkins because it is "crap" that currently, isn't open to debate by people in academia and is only being used to an advantage or to troll

I used the word crap here because in the academic community things should be allowed to "go through the fire"

[bluefete]

Megadoc: Your point is well taken. I was not trying to put him up on a pedestal but instead to show how much credence mis-guided people give him.

It seems that Dawkins is truly afraid that Prof. Craig will demolish his carefully constructed arguments against God's existence.

As long as he continues to make excuses, he will be ridiculed.

Nice video btw.

It sems that Richard Dawkins, for all his apologists on this forum, is truly one BIG COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bluefete]

Back in the 1700s, two science professors created the world’s first fossil hoax to prank a religious colleague




Piltdown Man, a fossil that supposedly proved early humans originated in England, was discovered in 1912, and wasn't proven a hoax until 1953. This fraud was one of the earliest fossil hoaxes out there — but it was actually two centuries too late to claim that distinction.

In the 1700s, two professors decided to humiliate their colleague by creating the silliest fossils ever dreamed up.

In the early 1700s, Johann Beringer was the Chair of Natural History at the University of Wurzburg, in what is now Germany. He was also the Chief Physician to the Prince Bishop. And he was also, in his colleagues Ignatz Roderick and Johann Von Eckhardt's opinion, a jerk who did not deserve the honors he'd received. Their rage was built up during debates about whether or not the strange fossilized bones that turned up on certain digs were evidence of an Earth ancient beyond comprehension, or whether they were simply the workings of God. Beringer was absolutely convinced that they were God's little doodles. Some say he was vocally contemptuous of anyone who opposed him. Some say his colleagues were cheating schemers. But all agree about what happened next.

Roderick and Eckhardt, skilled in carving limestone, arranged for certain things to turn up during Beringer's next dig. Sure enough, Beringer excitedly wrote about the 'fossils' of mating frogs, spiders in webs, and delicate insects he had discovered. The dig after that yielded actual writing, in Babylonian and Hebrew, carved into the rock. Beringer didn't catch on, even as the 'fossils' became more and more elaborate. Instead he published a book on the "capricious fabrications of God," and speculated as to why God had put them there. When the next dig turned up a fossil with his name on it, his credulity gave way to anger.

Some versions of the story say that Beringer was broken and disgraced — but historical data shows that it wasn't so. His ideas might have been old fashioned, but Beringer had a response to his tormenters that was truly suited to the modern world: he sued them. The hoaxers tried to bribe people into admitting responsibility for the fossils, but ended up getting caught themselves. They were disgraced. Beringer continued with his digs, turning up only legitimate fossils after that, and wrote several more books.

http://io9.com/5834901/the-worlds-first ... =evolution

[bluefete]

Spikey: I don't have to worry about marrying one of my simian "cousins".

Been there, done that, huh?
(Sorry, lad. My sense of humour got the better of me there. Bad joke, poor taste, won't happen again, *stifles a fit of laughing* ahem, sorry.)

Inbreeding was a hallmark of early man. However, as we "evolved" over time, our genes lost the ability to handle this inbreeding and genetic mutations started to happen.

That's why I'm not worried about my simian cousins. It must have been really difficult for you to hold that laughter in.

I have no problem with anyone proving that I am wrong in my belief about God but so far no one has been able to disprove it. Unlike the Dawkins concept in the above video which states that the burden of proof lies with me.

...and it doesn't?????
Look here, sit back and observe the pattern that has taken place in this thread (and elsewhere where this similar argument crops up).
Evolutionists are being asked to provide proof to support their argument.
How come it is unfair to ask the opposing side to do the same?
While I disagree with this treatment of faith and science as being similar, it is the bible-thumpers who started this ludicrous form of argument... so I say drink the same soup that you serve to others...

Rationalisation has its place.

I am not sure why this statement is phrased in this belittling fashion, as it 'infers' rational thinking is less than it really is - that it is confined to a part of the argument, rather than being the underlying weave that holds all together... the rails that the different trains of thought run on, so to speak.

It was the Rationalists who tried to trap Jesus with their rational questions and were embarassed each and every time.

Perhaps this condescending statement refers to the attempts of folks swayed by error and fads to justify their reasoning - in which case, I will say that error is error.
Rational thinking and logic are extremely important as they give an argument cause to exist. Theology wouldn't exist without it.

That does not disprove God's existence.

So? And? Yet you attempt to disprove the veracity of the arguments of others - nothing wrong with that, by the way... just attempt this using more than avoidance and emoticons, okay?

Cheers

[d spike]

It was the Rationalists who tried to trap Jesus with their rational questions and were embarassed each and every time.

Precisely who are these Rationalists you speak of? I can't recall any mention of such group.

[bluefete]

It was the Rationalists who tried to trap Jesus with their rational questions and were embarassed each and every time.

Precisely who are these Rationalists you speak of? I can't recall any mention of such group.

King James Version: Luke Chapter 20

1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

2 And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?

3 And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:

4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?

5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?

6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.

7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.

8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.


20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.

21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:

22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?

23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?

24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.

25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.


27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.

30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.

31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.

32 Last of all the woman died also.

33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

39 Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.

40 And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.

41 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?

42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,

46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.



God's wisdom is too great for Rationalists!!

[Chimera]

Aba: You have a whole comoputer just for Tuner??????

Yes browsing tuner needs a dedicated pc.

[d spike]

It was the Rationalists who tried to trap Jesus with their rational questions and were embarassed each and every time.

Precisely who are these Rationalists you speak of? I can't recall any mention of such group.

And they reasoned with themselves
THIS is your reason for referring to them as "rationalists"? Sorry, I meant "Rationalists"...
A common translation of the original phrase used in this line is "They started to argue among themselves". It meant they discussed how to approach this problem... Why the Capitalized Term? Your usage implied a school of thought. Your term "Rationalists" REALLY refers to a group of holy rollers - the chief priests, scribes and elders.
Go easy on the BS nah.

Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection;
Are these supposed to be more "Rationalists"? They were a Jewish sect that didn't believe in an afterlife. They taught that this life was all there is.

God's wisdom is too great for Rationalists!!
Good grief. Your imagination has overloaded your ability to deal with reality. Duane, what is this state called?

[bluefete]

This man Dawkins: Did he make himself?

Did the first organism make itself?

[bluefete]

A question for you scientists:

If you are falling face down from the top of a roof, can you turn yourself over to land on your back before you hit the concrete floor below?

Only people with actual experience need answer.

I am still waiting on an answer.

There is a very, very good reason why I asked this question.

But I prefer to let the knowledgeable ones answer it (for now).

[bluefete]

Nice!! Teach them about evolution on the way to trying to show them that God is not real. But he still would not debate the goodly Professor.

Teach five-year-olds Darwin's theory of evolution, says Professor Richard Dawkins

By Emily Allen

Last updated at 11:11 AM on 1st September 2011


Children as young as five should have lessons in the basic principles of evolution, a leading atheist has said.

Professor Richard Dawkins claims Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is so important that every primary school in Britain should have it on their curriculum, he told The Times.

The evolutionary biologist believes youngsters are able to grasp the basic principles of the theory which underpin the study of biology.


Professor Richard Dawkins claims Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is very important for children to learn

His new book The Magic of Reality is aimed at children and explains complex scientific principles like evolution, space and time.

At the moment aspects of the evolution theory are touched on in some schools but are not compulsory.

Professor Dawkins said 'Evolution could be taught in such a way as to make it easier to understand than a myth.

'This is because myths leave the child's questions unanswered, or they raise more questions than they appear to answer.'

Darwin controversially said that organisms develop over time with only the most successful mutations surviving.

His theory caused controversy in Victorian society which largely believed God created the world in six days.

In his best-selling The God Delusion, Professor Hawkins famously asserted belief in God is irrational and profoundly harmful to society.

Professor Dawkins is not alone in calling for the teaching of Darwin's theory to become compulsory.

Last year, he and experts including three Nobel laureates called on the government to alter the school curriculum to include the theory claiming it was necessary due to the 'threat' posed by the religious concept of creationism.

A proposal to make pupils learn Darwin's theory of natural selection was dropped by the government last year for being 'too prescriptive.'

Michael Reiss, Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, and Church of England Priest, backed Professor Dawkins's calls.

He told the newspaper: 'What we need is a curriculum with big themes, and in biology the biggest theme there is is evolution.'



CHARLES'S DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin was an English naturalist, geologist and collector who lived between 1809 to 1882 and is buried in Westminster Abbey.

He travelled the world in his 20s cataloging and observing wildlife and later published his ground-breaking On the Origin of Species in 1859 which scandalised Victorian society with his theory that all species of life evolved from common ancestors.

He said the animals (or plants) best suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on the characteristics which helped them survive to their offspring. Gradually, the species changes over time.

The book was controversial as the extension of his theory was that humans were just another form of animal who might have developed possibly from apes.

At the time it was largely believed that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible.

He was vehemently attacked for his ideas although later they gained more credibility.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1WjJyqlBo

[MG Man]

not a matter of teaching kids that god is not real, but rather teach them to think critically and make their own choice rather than brainwash them

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Nice!! Teach them about evolution on the way to trying to show them that God is not real.

secular schools in secular countries can only use science as fact. The same way they teach students about extinct animals such as Caspian Tigers which lived up to 1957 based on scientific fact, then so too must they teach children about empirical evidence found by science for evolution such as vestigial organs and DNA. The subjects after all are called SCIENCE and BIOLOGY!

If you think they should teach kids that God is real and NOT teach them science then which God should they teach about in schools? The God of Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Mayan? Egyptian? Which one?

Good grief. Your imagination has overloaded your ability to deal with reality. Duane, what is this state called?

delusional?

de·lu·sion·al
adjective
in Psychiatry a delusional patient is one who maintains fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness.

[sMASH]

that has to be one of the most concise yet complete responses an atheist can provide in an argument.


i cannot fault an atheist for coming to that conclusion because it is a very reasonable deduction, given the same evidence a theist has. nothing immediately comes to mind that can definitely prove god and not be explained by some worldly occurrence. i cannot prove god to any one, but i can relate my views and let live.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ exactly sMash, an atheist cannot prove God does not exist, there is however no empirical evidence that he does.

interestingly enough though, you more than likely do not believe the Mayan god Alom exists, or Thor the god of Thunder for that matter, are you then an atheist in the eyes of Mayans and Vikings? you would definitely be considered an unbeliever.

[sMASH]

that is an interesting tangent to consider. at the end of the day, they would believe in some benevolent/malevolent whose actions they are subject to. i would not think that they are atheists, but have a different concoction of the higher power based on their experiences and knowledge ( now, if u cannot connect what pios was talking about to that statement, ur very closed minded).

in islam we are told that islam is the best way, nonchalantly indicating that it is not the only way. couple that with the tenant of no compulsion in religion, and a muslim must let other people practise what they believe is the right way,,,, no matter how much we may disagree with it.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

that is an interesting tangent to consider. at the end of the day, they would believe in some benevolent/malevolent whose actions they are subject to. i would not think that they are atheists, but have a different concoction of the higher power based on their experiences and knowledge ( now, if u cannot connect what pios was talking about to that statement, ur very closed minded).

well Pioneer said man created god, don't you think then that the Vikings "concocted" Thor because they didn't understand where lighting and thunder really came from?

how are you so sure that we are not still doing the same thing today?

in islam we are told that islam is the best way, nonchalantly indicating that it is not the only way. couple that with the tenant of no compulsion in religion, and a muslim must let other people practise what they believe is the right way,,,, no matter how much we may disagree with it.

still there is alot of sunni and shiite fighting today.

[INDAVID WORKSHOP]

Leviticus - what to do!

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination .... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing oder for the Lord -
Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of
abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian!

[copper_shot]

[K74T]

ibbluefete

[Stephon.]

People who quote the bible are the easiest to troll.

[copper_shot]

[hustla_ambition101]

did not read

[shogun]

^lol.
ROFL! @ #8.

controversy is no stranger to Dr. Schlesinger ..she got flack for this too.

[TRAE]

didnt bother making a proper comment

[ismithx]

level lulz....

[SMc]

:rofl: People who quote the bible are the easiest to troll.

was that in the Bible?

[Stephon.]

Contradictions that the 3rd world easily lives by.

[bluefete]

Australia goes all PC with a ban on BC: Birth of Jesus to be removed as reference point for dates in school history books

By Mail Foreign Service

Last updated at 12:58 AM on 3rd September 2011



Australia is to remove the birth of Jesus as a reference point for dates in school history books.

Under the new politically correct curriculum, the terms BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini) will be replaced with BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era).

The Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, yesterday condemned the move as an ‘intellectually absurd attempt to write Christ out of human history’.

Nativity: But the birth of Jesus will no longer be used as a reference point in Australian school history books

He described the phrase ‘common era’ as ‘meaningless’, and compared it to using ‘festive season’ instead of Christmas.

The changes, introduced by the government, were supposed to be pushed through next year, but have been delayed by the row.

The terms CE and BCE have been popularised in academic and scientific publications.

Although historical dates won’t change, with Christ’s birth remaining as the change point, the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority ruled that teachers will use the terms BCE (Before Common Era), which will replace BC, and CE (Common Era), which replaces AD, instead.

The Archbishop called the phrase ‘common era’ ‘meaningless and misleading.’

Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne, of Australia’s Liberal National Party, also criticised the government changes, which were supposed to be pushed through next year but have been delayed because of the row.
The Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen described the move as 'intellectually absurd'

‘Australia is what it is today because of the foundations of our nation in the Judeo-Christian heritage that we inherited from Western civilization,’ he said.

‘Kowtowing to political correctness by the embarrassing removal of AD and BC in our national curriculum is of a piece with the fundamental flaw of trying to deny who we are as a people,’ he added.

The Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen described the move as 'intellectually absurd'

The Common Era was originally introduced in the Sixth Century and appeared in English as early 1708.

Its use can traced back to the Latin term vulgaris aerae and the English Vulgar Era.

Use of the CE abbreviation was introduced by Jewish academics in the mid-19th century.

The terms CE and BCE became popular in academic and scientific publications in the late 20th century.

They were used by publishers to emphasise secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians, but both still use the Gregorian calendar and the year-numbering system revolving around BC and AD.

The Gregorian calendar - the most widely used in the world - is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the birth of Jesus, with AD counting the years afterwards and BC denoting the years before.

The term Anno Domini is Medieval Latin translated as ‘In the year of Our Lord.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1WqPGmLo2


And the movement to do away wiith and desecrate the name of Jesus Christ, continues!!