Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

[Movie Nerd]

There is evidence for an historical Christ and the setting is historic in time and geography and the writers claim to be writing historical biography and one is claimed as eyewitness account.
It's very different to the Greek pantheon and Roman and other pagan accounts.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ might have existed, yes, but that does not necessarily mean he was divine or completely true as depicted in the Bible. Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm not sure what you're saying in reference to Greek and Roman accoutns, so I will not address that point.

[Robert Tulip]

EDIT

Just go to the archives and count how many times Robert has bullied Stahrwe and me with his patronizing, condescending rubbish.

It's not bashing in those instances, huh?


No one has ever jumped in when that has happened

I always answer specific questions factually and courteously. By contrast, ant routinely and rudely answers simple questions with 'I have already answered that', even though all who have followed the discussion can see that this is a lie. I apologized when I called ant stupid.

I admit I am patronising and condescending towards people who argue the world is 6000 years old. Unfortunately such people are either laboring under the excuse of extreme ignorance or are morons. Saying that is hardly bullying, it is trying to help them.

It is telling and disturbing that ant leaps to the defence of a young earth creationist and sees any criticism of YEC as 'rubbish'.

It is a shame to have to respond to such false allegations when we should be having a constructive conversation.

[lehelvandor]

The classic pattern is 1. make intentional or unintentional wild claims in order to provoke reaction, 2. jump on the rational reaction with personal attacks instead of discussing the specific counter-points, with highly subjective words even in parts that are not personal attacks, 3. thus provoke eventually reactions with personal tone, 4. martyrdom ("when XY said Z that was OK but how come as soon as I say W, I am being crucified" etc. etc.).
Always, IMHO, the best approach remains the setting up of traps that are actually flagged with bright signs... and let step (2) speak for itself - and it has.
So I understand your frustration Robert, and it is a sense of one being a bit angry with himself for being dragged into this sequence, but let's just try (despite the intentional noise injected by some) continue the discussions.
Of course, the irony that works for some is that if we ignore the noise, then above point (4) happens again (i.e. we are so arrogant that we ignore their "arguments" therefore... QED... we are the intolerant and close-minded ones.). I have to admit, it's usually consistently well done

[Movie Nerd]

EDIT

Just go to the archives and count how many times Robert has bullied Stahrwe and me with his patronizing, condescending rubbish.

It's not bashing in those instances, huh?


No one has ever jumped in when that has happened

I always answer specific questions factually and courteously. By contrast, ant routinely and rudely answers simple questions with 'I have already answered that', even though all who have followed the discussion can see that this is a lie. I apologized when I called ant stupid.

I admit I am patronising and condescending towards people who argue the world is 6000 years old. Unfortunately such people are either laboring under the excuse of extreme ignorance or are morons. Saying that is hardly bullying, it is trying to help them.

It is telling and disturbing that ant leaps to the defence of a young earth creationist and sees any criticism of YEC as 'rubbish'.

It is a shame to have to respond to such false allegations when we should be having a constructive conversation.

It reminds me o the Fair Game credo within Scientology: Always Attack, Never Defend.

[Movie Nerd]

The classic pattern is 1. make intentional or unintentional wild claims in order to provoke reaction, 2. jump on the rational reaction with personal attacks instead of discussing the specific counter-points, with highly subjective words even in parts that are not personal attacks, 3. thus provoke eventually reactions with personal tone, 4. martyrdom ("when XY said Z that was OK but how come as soon as I say W, I am being crucified" etc. etc.).
Always, IMHO, the best approach remains the setting up of traps that are actually flagged with bright signs... and let step (2) speak for itself - and it has.
So I understand your frustration Robert, and it is a sense of one being a bit angry with himself for being dragged into this sequence, but let's just try (despite the intentional noise injected by some) continue the discussions.
Of course, the irony that works for some is that if we ignore the noise, then above point (4) happens again (i.e. we are so arrogant that we ignore their "arguments" therefore... QED... we are the intolerant and close-minded ones.). I have to admit, it's usually consistently well done

I never understood why this practice is encouraged within religious circles, and I shamefully admit that I myself have done it back in the days of my own zealotry.

[lehelvandor]

Perhaps because it is very effective, due to human psychology and then it becomes a self-reinforcing process - look, I suffered for my convictions...

It is again very interesting (well, amusing) how some on the forum dissect at subatomic level every word's nuances, but they repeatedly mis-use words (in the sense that their meaning is off by a few lightyears). I only invited some to explain why they use justify instead of support / prove, but that just fed the above circular nonsense.

I am still waking up in the middle of the night, turning and turning, as I am yet to find out from the experts why the Bible is, among all scriptures, *the* one to give the counter-point to evolution? I'm sure it is because it has such rational methodology and long sequences of objective evidence in arriving at its "answer" that makes all the other sacred texts (pre-dating or post-dating it) seem like pure mumbo-jumbo?

[lehelvandor]

... and apologies for fragmentation, but also: as someone is constantly tired of answering "skeptics".

There is a big difference between being skeptical about Zeus throwing the lightnings from a distant mountain, or knowing, understanding & using the chorus of evidence plus the physics & stochastic mathematics (a spark or any electric discharge is described with the latter at the finer level) that the evidence confirms.

I think the direction of the cognitive and semantic probing is mis-understood by creationists in a systematic manner. Of course, there are many in the science "camp" who have no understanding of what they are talking about and shout very loudly at the creationists. But that is wasted energy, and if anything, it undermines one's own platform.

As others said eloquently, unless science finds a way to bridge the Mariana trench between the ready-made-and-dont-question "answers" that have no (theoretically or practically rigorous) method supporting them, and the vast & complex counter-evidence supporting constantly evolving theories, it will be a long and complicated monologue.

[Gnostic Bishop]

[
I asked a simple question.
How might a just God, who is the impartial judge of all, acquit Saddam and Milosevic (and you can add in others from Hitchen's speech if you like)and remain just?
Do you think I got a straight answer to this question? I think everyone knows what the answer is.
.

I gave you a reply on page 2.

Where is your rebuttal?

Regards
DL

[Movie Nerd]

Perhaps because it is very effective, due to human psychology and then it becomes a self-reinforcing process - look, I suffered for my convictions...

It is again very interesting (well, amusing) how some on the forum dissect at subatomic level every word's nuances, but they repeatedly mis-use words (in the sense that their meaning is off by a few lightyears). I only invited some to explain why they use justify instead of support / prove, but that just fed the above circular nonsense.

I am still waking up in the middle of the night, turning and turning, as I am yet to find out from the experts why the Bible is, among all scriptures, *the* one to give the counter-point to evolution? I'm sure it is because it has such rational methodology and long sequences of objective evidence in arriving at its "answer" that makes all the other sacred texts (pre-dating or post-dating it) seem like pure mumbo-jumbo?

It is a viscious game surely, and it undermines society as a whole, not just discussions, etc.

[Flann 5]

I gave you a reply on page 2.

Where is your rebuttal?

To be fair to you Bishop you did give a couple of replies.
I just found them rambling,incoherent and hard to make sense of.
I've looked at them again to see if I can do this.
First off you seem to hold that we are born by nature more inclined to good than evil going by your baby link.
You mitigate the behaviours of Saddam and Milosevic as due to nurture and conspiracies intentional or otherwise by family,friends and environment and pretty much say this is what made them evil.
I doubt Brietbart's hero Hitchens would be cutting them as much slack here.
At the same time you want to insist on human moral responsibilty. Rational evil intent is your measure of culpable evil.
Furthermore you seem to say there is an evolutionary necessity for evil in competition for survival,resources,mates etc.

O.k starting with the baby. I think we recognise as humans the value of positive and loving behaviour and the negative effects of hatred and destructive behaviour.
So we routinely approve the positive and condemn the negative in others.
In reality though we often don't do the positive ourselves in practice but the opposite. So indications of what we approve as good are not decisive proof that our natures themselves are essentially good. What we actually do is a truer measure of our nature since it expresses our internal desires and choices in action.
Your evolutionary necessity for competition and survival is problematic. You say some might consider actions stemming from this evil but they are a necessary part of the process.
I'm paraphrasing.
So Hitler would claim evolutionary necessity for the dominance of so called superior races and the extermination of those considered degenerate and harmful to evolutionary racial purity and development.
People like Hitler,Saddam and Milosevic are often entirely rational in their calculated premeditation of evil. "The Final Solution" was carefully considered planned and executed over many years beginning with sterilisation and euthanising of those judged undesirable and gradually culminating in cold systematic cruelty and mass murder.
On the evolutionary necessity of competition, it is entirely reasonable that someone should be a serial rapist if it favours the spread of his genes. It is no more immoral than a Lion killing all the cubs of the former dominant male lion.
Besides people and nations often co-operate to do evil and can compete to do good.
I think you have great difficulty Bishop, justifying any necessity for moral responsibilty and accountability based on your ideas.
I'll respond to Brietbart and his "Jesus a madman or worse" diatribe soon. He seems to be a third rate Hitchens wannabe but I'll deal with the substance of his claims soon.