crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church

[traderwann]

Quote from jem:You are an asshole no thinker if you keep trying to say that I am giving you religion. I am giving science. [/B]

He's doing all this on purpose clearly. He asks me a question, I ask if he's sincere before answering and he loses it and rambles off on some ad hominem intellecutally dishonest tangent. I asked him if he wanted clear logical proof that science is not anti-religion and he calls that babbling.

He's making himself out to be a joke. This is what I found interesting. How could someone so articulate talk about scripture when I "knew" it was this or that and not worthwhile. I had to start looking into it because it didn't make sense and what the articulate person saying could not be logically refuted.

The problem is an attitude and personality issue. Free Thinker would have been a nightmare in the classroom and a difficult child to raise, or perhaps is just showing the results of a childhood with difficult parents. Anyhow. It is not enjoyable to live his live with all the stress of having to twist every piece of perceived information to fit his worldview, because he can never be wrong. For all my difficulties at least I don't have to deal with that added burden.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from jem:
When you quote Rees saying he has no religion at all... you make my point.

Like I said, he's not really here to have a genuine conversation and continuously probing it. He can change that anytime, but doesn't. He just says whatever, not caring if it makes sense. Just a child in a playground arguing about candy without a clue about the real world, it's hilarious and sad at the same time.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from Free Thinker:
The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively sceptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god. This is a compilation of some of the best examples of such individuals with their thoughts on the divine. They include in order of appearance:

You can list 1 000 000 people and I could list 1. The numbers don't matter, what they say, how accurate it is, whether it makes sense does matter.

Further, supernatural is just another way of saying "something we don't understand." Only a moron and the complete opposite of scientist, intellectually honest, objective, etc, would ever say we know everything. It depends on your assumptions, does any reasonable scientist assume they are God and omniscient and knows everything?

LOL, you are logical nightmare to deal with.

 

[traderwann]

Quote from jem:
How many times do I have to educate you.
Hawking starts the video off and states M theory does not disprove God.... but eliminates the need for him.
Do you know what Hawking is referencing? He is referencing Susskind's work in which Susskind used to Polchinsky's 10 to the 500 solutions to speculate (guess) there could be almost infinite universes. We have already discussed this - I will post the review of suskinds book again.
The next scientist on your list is Rees.
Rees... wrote the six numbers book. He was one of the guys who pointed out the careful fine tunings.

You are falling for his games. He's not here to actually be genuine and honest. The bottom line is that NEITHER creationism nor evolution is proven beyond question. FreeDumber is just about ASSUMING one position and defending it, without being objective. He wants to debate (win) not dialogue (productive). This is not about proving anything beyond any reasonable doubt, it is about showing there is possibilities on BOTH sides and that by ignoring one of them you are being a the moronicest moroniest moronical moron EVAR!

Don't get sucked into his games, just get him to admit it is a possibility. From there a productive conversation can be had. Right now according to his worldview it is IMPOSSIBLE and further, never "should" be possible. First one is normal, second is down right scary when people like that get in charge and wars depend on having reasonable conversations.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
There you are pulling your atheist fraud again.

I repeatedly reference the virtually undisputed this passage in Antiquites

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

which virtually all scholars accept as authentic.

--

Rubbish.
There are no grounds to accept that as authentic historical evidence.

Most scholars consider that reference corresponds too closely with standard Christian expressions and are additions from Christian copyists. You know, those same copysist who forged other Josepheus writings.

Quote from jem:
you ignore the evidence which establishes Jesus' authenticity and base your misrepresentations on
Testimonium Flavianum -- which scholars agree was probably altered in the middle ages in some manuscripts.

So you've what now, accepted that all of Testimonium Flavianum was, or probably was altered, and therefore does not conform to historical evidence. Or are you going to keep refering to it like you have in this thread, knowing it not to be historical evidence of Jesus, but still claiming it is.

There is no evidence to establish Jesus's authenticity - anywhere - period.

Quote from jem:
What stirs you to be such a liar. Why lie about facts?

Yeah what does stir you that way? Blind ignorant religious faith, or are you just basically a downright dishonest person?

 

[stu]

Quote from traderwann:

You are falling for his games. He's not here to actually be genuine and honest. The bottom line is that NEITHER creationism nor evolution is proven beyond question. FreeDumber is just about ASSUMING one position and defending it, without being objective. He wants to debate (win) not dialogue (productive). This is not about proving anything beyond any reasonable doubt, it is about showing there is possibilities on BOTH sides and that by ignoring one of them you are being a the moronicest moroniest moronical moron EVAR!

Don't get sucked into his games, just get him to admit it is a possibility. From there a productive conversation can be had. Right now according to his worldview it is IMPOSSIBLE and further, never "should" be possible. First one is normal, second is down right scary when people like that get in charge and wars depend on having reasonable conversations.

You mean it's a reasonable conversation to have that Santa, God, Peter Pan and Mother Goose ARE possibilities after all?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Free Thinker:

no. you are taking a gap in our knowledge and sticking your god in it even though the people you use as your evidence directly say you are wrong. you are making up falsehoods about what you are reading in a dishonest attempt to find a gap where you can say "god did it".

this video has many of the people you quote. you seem to not be able to comprehend what they write. can you find a way to lie about what they say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuxgdkqvuRE

The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively sceptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god. This is a compilation of some of the best examples of such individuals with their thoughts on the divine. They include in order of appearance:

Professor Stephen Hawking is an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, and was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years.

Lord Martin Rees is the Astronomer Royal and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. He was President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.

Dr Sam Harris is an American author, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason. He holds a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA, and a BA in philosophy from Stanford University.

Professor Richard Feynman was an American physicist who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.

Professor Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at MIT and well known as one of the fathers of modern linguistics.

Stephen Fry is an English actor, screenwriter, author, playwright, journalist, poet, comedian, television presenter and film director.

Professor Leonard Susskind is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory.

Sir Bertrand Russell was an English philosopher who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy and is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians.

Dr Richard Carrier is an American historian who received his PhD in ancient history from Columbia University.

Sir David Attenborough is a broadcaster and naturalist. He studied Natural Sciences at Cambridge, and his distinguished career in broadcasting now spans more than 50 years.

Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History and Visiting Research Scientist and Lecturer at Princeton University. He attended Harvard College (B.A), University of Texas (M.A.) and Columbia University (M.Phil.), (Ph.D.).

Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran is a neuroscientist, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, and Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Neurosciences Graduate Program at the University of California, San Diego. He obtained his PhD from Trinity College, Cambridge.

You are trying to combat an emotional response with logic.

This will never work.

People who have a need to believe in a creator need a security blanket to give them some meaning in life. Some kind of fulfillment.
Telling someone that life has no meaning beyond what they personally make of it is too much for some fragile minds to take. It also puts them in a position of absolute personal power, so failure is absolutely theirs, and most people just cannot handle that. The thought of randomness and chance scares the shit out of a lot of people.

So, to protect their emotional paradigm, they will display some kind of violence.

Your pursuit to enlighten is admirable but people cannot learn truth until they are ready to face truth. This last sentence will be turned around I am quite certain

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from RCG Trader:

You are trying to combat an emotional response with logic.

This will never work.

i think you are right:

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against
christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of
thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which
follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Free Thinker:

i think you are right:

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against
christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of
thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which
follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]

And you might want to add the "expert rule" to this.

It will take 10000 hours of directed study to genuinely answer the question. Most people are not willing to stare in the mirror that long, and that hard.

 

[jem]

stu... you are a fricken liar... the passage in antiquities is accepted by virtually all scholars in the field. I have presented you with links showing that.


If you know some noted scholars who challenge the writing in antiquities present. Otherwise Jesus is a historical figure because he is referenced in an historical account with in a few years of death.