For my Christians Friends

Quote from smilingsynic:

Come on, Volente. You cannot be serious.

Homo sapiens appeared on the scene hundreds of thousands of years ago, after the extinction of other hominid species; birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals, among other life forms in the Genesis account, appeared hundreds of MILLIONS of years ago, and not all at the same time. The sun and moon go back BILLIONS of years.

One biblical day = hundreds of millions of years. That is SOME difference in rotation! :p


so you are 100% sure that sometime in the history of the earth it never rotated much slower than it did today ?




:)
 
Quote from volente_00:

so you are 100% sure that sometime in the history of the earth it never rotated much slower than it did today ?




:)

No, that was not my point. You're setting up a straw man.

I said that the Genesis creation accounts were in error scientifically, since all of life did not appear within six days. Even if a day meant 10 million years, it still did not happen.

The Genesis creation accounts are to seen as poetry, not as science. And, yes, I am 100% sure of that!
 
Quote from volente_00:
sorry stu,

there have been scientific studies showing the correlation

it is what it is

"In relation to the Oedipal desire, psychoanalysis suggests that when one’s father is absent or so weak as to die, or so untrustworthy as to desert, then it becomes easy for that person to place his hostile attitude towards his earthly father on his heavenly Father. The evidence for this theory involves the linkage between atheism’s greatest philosophers and their poor fatherly relationships. For example, Diderot was an avowed atheist-indeed he is one of the founding brothers of modern atheism. Yet Freud made an insightful comment concerning him: "if the little savage were left to himself, preserving all his foolishness and adding to the small sense of a child in the cradle the violent passions of a man of thirty, he would strangle his father and lie with his mother (Le neveau de Rameau 331). Although Voltaire was not an atheist, he did not accept the existence of a Personal God. He also strongly rejected his father-so much that he rejected his father's name and took the name "Voltaire." Sigmund Freud's father was also was a poor role model for Freud. Specifically, his father was a weak man unable to financially provide for his family, and Freud writes that his father was a sexual pervert. Karl Marx also made it clear that he didn't respect his father. Ludwig Feuerbach's, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Baron d'Holbach are other examples of atheistic intellectuals who had poor relationships with their fathers. In addition, the most prominent atheists in more recent times are Bertrand Russell's, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre's, and all of them lived most of their lives knowing their fathers had died. Although the theory is far from being a universal representation of unconscious motivation, it appears to be an undeniable factor in motivating atheistic belief."

well, I'm not sorry volente

that is sick

it is what it is

and what it is not, is science....

The passage you quote is taken from a religious apologist’s blog on Yahoo , sub titled "This is a paper I wrote for English102".
What was it you said about... "scientific studies showing the correlation"

Both the Oedipus and Electra complex (feminine Oedipus attitude, aka 'Daddy Issues'...yes it would be funny if it weren't so sad ) are the contentious works of Sigmund Freud and refer both to male and female children only.

If Freudian Oedipus psychoanalysis is correct, that guy whoever he is (not you is it?) would surely be exhibiting signs of a phobia in hating men for not loving his imaginary God. Your quote is written by someone who , by what they themselves suggest , is possibly having pathological issues of their own.

Trying to extract parts of a highly controversial and unproven work known to be questionable to then present them as science in support of delusions towards an invisible sky daddy the way you do , says more about a Freudian psychological disorder than most anything else.

  • "Freud views the idea of God as being a version of the father image, and religious belief as at bottom infantile and neurotic. Authoritarian religion is dysfunctional and alienates man from himself." wikipedia
What Freudian psychosis is it that has some theists so desperate , they will mislead , mis-inform or just plain lie about stuff in hope of satisfying their need to convince others of their delusory pretence .
Why not christen it, the Freud Faith Complex.
or just sick for short
 
Quote from Turok:

Unless you can explain your answer better, I'm simply gonna take it as a total copout to the question.

You have maintained quite continually during this thread that when it comes to the existance of entities, there is only ONE logical position ... agnostic.

Your definition of agnostice has clearly been defined in this thread as one who says "I don't know" when asked if a entity exists.

If you tell your kid that Santa (or GI Joe, or Batman, or the Tooth Fairy, or Unicorns, or , or, or ... doesn't exist, you are taking an illogical position according to your own words.

I find it hard to believe that your position, so strongly state here, is one you actually take in your own life as it applies to other entities.

JB

Any response V00?

Thanks

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

Ok, the cycle gets out of whack -- We'll stipulate that.

Now that it's out of whack, when you pray/ask for it to be unwhacked, *by definition* you are praying/asking for a supernatural act.

I'm interested to see how you can argue otherwise.

JB

Any response V00?

Thanks.

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

Any response V00?

Thanks.

JB


God is nature. So those that are praying for rain are really praying to nature to get back on cycle. Is nature supernatural now ? I'm sure in your mind it is.







Wipe those frowns off your face my atheist friends.

It's a beautiful day and a higher power loves you.


:)
 
VOO:
>God is nature. So those that are praying for
>rain are really praying to nature to get back on cycle.

Of course they are praying for nature to get back on cycle. Problem is (for your argument), is that they have lost faith that nature will do that on it's own and are now praying for supernatural action to make it happen. If it's gonna happen on it's own, no need for the request.

>Is nature supernatural now ? I'm sure in your mind it is.

You're sure and wrong. Nothing supernatural about nature ... now *overriding* nature and making it rain upon request is of course the very definition of supernatural.

Serious religious people pray to win the lottery -- how are you going to attempt to explain that one away as "really praying for nature to get back on track? LOL

JB
 
Quote from volente_00:

God is nature. So those that are praying for rain are really praying to nature to get back on cycle. Is nature supernatural now ? I'm sure in your mind it is.







Wipe those frowns off your face my atheist friends.

It's a beautiful day and a higher power loves you.


:)

LOL, more assertions that will require a litany of assertions to back it up.
 
Quote from Turok to volente_00:

...Your definition of agnostice has clearly been defined in this thread as one who says "I don't know" when asked if a entity exists.

If you tell your kid that Santa (or GI Joe, or Batman, or the Tooth Fairy, or Unicorns, or , or, or ... doesn't exist, you are taking an illogical position according to your own words...
Whoa.

Whoa.

Whoa.

Everyone knows that JI Joe, the Tooth Fairy and Unicorns don't exist. But Batman? Are you suggesting or implying that Batman doesn't exist? There are books about Batman. He has a history that is well documented in the archives of DC Comics. There are videos, for pete's sake! I once sat in the Batmobile at a car show in Montreal in the late 60s. If there is no Batman, then why would there be a Batmobile? It just doesn't add up. Don't you want Batman to fight crime? Where is your scientific proof that Batman doesn't exist? (You're so naive.)
 
Quote from volente_00:

God is nature.

Is nature supernatural now ?

...there's a clue in your question to its answer .
Can you spot it...?

No?

oh dear.

Nature is not super-natural.
It's ….well...


…natural.
 
Back
Top