My favorite false prophet

[Morella]

However, i do feel like it is in relatively poor taste to make fun of someone for their faith. that's kind of like making fun of someone just because they are black or jewish. Now, if someone is a blithering idiot, or if they are a sub-literate violent crack head who can't seem to wear their pants correctly, that is different. Also, i will make an exception if someone's religion was founded by L. Ron Hubbard.

I love to make fun of fundies, negros and Jews.

What makes L. Ron Hubbard's religion any less valid than yours?

[Morella]

I'm serious. i'm not one to bullshit people. i have better things to do. i have read through the bible cover-to-cover 2 and a half times (i'm in jeremiah now). there is no scripture that i can remember that claims any of those things you think it claims. However, it is a pretty big book, and there is some pretty amazing stuff in there so i could have missed it. Perhaps you can quote those verses for me; it would be nice.

However, some scholars get the 6 - 7,000 year old earth theory from tracing out the genealogies in the bible. This theory does not take into consideration the gap theory, which points to a much older earth. Whether or not the earth is that old, or much older is really immaterial.

the bible is not, nor should be taken as a science textbook. it is a book that outlines the history of the jewish nation, the plan of salvation, and the prophecy of things to come. writers of that day saw certain things and described them in the best way they could.

whether the earth was created in 7, 24-hour days, each with 60 minutes of 60 seconds, or whether "with the lord a day is as a thousand years," it doesn't change the core message. whether in genesis noah's flood was indeed global - or merely regional that was enough to kill all the people at that point in time, it doesn't change the core message. whether in the book of joshua, the sun stood still, or if it was instead the rotation of the earth that stopped, it doesn't change the core message. whether in the book of 2nd kings, the sun moved backwards for hezekiah, or if it was instead the earth that rotated backwards, it doesn't change the core message. whether in the book of jonah if he was swallowed by a whale (a mammal), or a whale shark (a literal fish), it doesn't change the core message.

You are probably confusing historical doctrine of the catholic church with actual scripture in the bible. let me assure you they are two entirely different things.

you can't really debate by calling someone a blithering idiot. debate is a reasoned, intelligent discourse by two parties with opposing points of view. name calling and demonizing your opponents, however is a popular tactic undertaken by a certain national political party because they understand their views are largely based on emotion, empty rhetoric, and are a-constitutional.

but i'm really not interested in debate. faith is something you either have, are open to, or don't have it. If someone doesn't have it and isn't open to it, there is not one blessed thing i could say that would change their mind. If someone is open to it, then absolutely i will be happy to engage in discussion and answer questions. i'm not here to engage in bible-thumping. i think my history here on the forums will bear that out. i'm here to talk about procars with awesome people.

also, i'm with LMS. fuck islam and all their camels. incidentally, i have heard some scholars say the description in the quran of the islamic messiah matches very closely with the description in the bible of the antichrist. however, i have not personally researched this topic, nor do i really want to get into that here.

so believe what you want. call me a blithering idiot. i should be headed down to florida tomorrow in the coach, so i have other things with which to deal.

That's one of the best Christian arguments I've ever heard. It's a shame you're not into debate. I'm playing the atheist over in another forum, instead of the usual rabid fundie Dr. Robertson, and I could really use the competition.

[theonlyjohnson]

What makes L. Ron Hubbard's religion any less valid than yours?

Tom Cruise

[Scary Guy]

You didn't debate anything. All that you did was belittle a group of people for believing differently than you. If you were to know anything about fundamental Christians, all that you are doing is strengthening their faith.

Sorry, you're right in that I didn't debate anything there, but I knew one was coming in this thread because I'm "psychic" lol (j/k I don't believe in that crap either)

I kind of find it silly to debate about religion in any case. It's like debating on whether or not you have a dragon in your garage.

I'm serious. i'm not one to bullshit people. i have better things to do. i have read through the bible cover-to-cover 2 and a half times (i'm in jeremiah now). there is no scripture that i can remember that claims any of those things you think it claims. However, it is a pretty big book, and there is some pretty amazing stuff in there so i could have missed it. Perhaps you can quote those verses for me; it would be nice.

Not one to bullshit people, but your religious! (sorry, cheap shot but it was too easy.) Anyway here I'll point out a few.

6,000 years, geocentricity, and the flat earth

However, some scholars get the 6 - 7,000 year old earth theory from tracing out the genealogies in the bible. This theory does not take into consideration the gap theory, which points to a much older earth. Whether or not the earth is that old, or much older is really immaterial.

Immaterial? I don't think so at all, especially when you take into account all the time evolution takes to happen. This is why so many people deny it (on top of the arc thing) is that it doesn't fit in with the view of a young earth. Also stop calling things theories, it's the gap hypothesis. It only gets to be a valid theory when it's stood the test of the scientific method.

the bible is not, nor should be taken as a science textbook. it is a book that outlines the history of the jewish nation, the plan of salvation, and the prophecy of things to come. writers of that day saw certain things and described them in the best way they could.

I agree wholeheartedly with thta first statement. However many believe it is quite literally the divine word of god and treat it as such. If there was a god and he wanted us to know his will wouldn't there just be one book with a clear no bullshit translation?

Ever notice that what "god" wants is so often in line with what a group of people want? Stoning of gays, slavery, and the subjugation of women and Jews (or non Jews depending on which testament you read). Also all the killing and bloodshed. The body count from Satan in the bible is WAY LESS than God's (oh look, here's a handy chart.)

whether the earth was created in 7, 24-hour days, each with 60 minutes of 60 seconds, or whether "with the lord a day is as a thousand years," it doesn't change the core message. whether in genesis noah's flood was indeed global - or merely regional that was enough to kill all the people at that point in time, it doesn't change the core message. whether in the book of joshua, the sun stood still, or if it was instead the rotation of the earth that stopped, it doesn't change the core message. whether in the book of 2nd kings, the sun moved backwards for hezekiah, or if it was instead the earth that rotated backwards, it doesn't change the core message. whether in the book of jonah if he was swallowed by a whale (a mammal), or a whale shark (a literal fish), it doesn't change the core message.

The flood is plausible only if it was regional and even then the 40 days of non-stop rain is still really far fetched (not to mention Noah being 600 at the time and living until 950). The sun doesn't stand still and the earth doesn't stop rotating. The sun going in reverse/the earth rotating backwards is even more absurd.

You are probably confusing historical doctrine of the catholic church with actual scripture in the bible. let me assure you they are two entirely different things.

Catholics got their scripture from the Jews and the Christians got it from the Catholics. Here's a great article about it all.

you can't really debate by calling someone a blithering idiot. debate is a reasoned, intelligent discourse by two parties with opposing points of view. name calling and demonizing your opponents, however is a popular tactic undertaken by a certain national political party because they understand their views are largely based on emotion, empty rhetoric, and are a-constitutional.

It only doesn't work when it's not true, and in the case of religion it's all true. They all can't be right, and every religion thinks that it is the right one true path to their god of choice.

but i'm really not interested in debate. faith is something you either have, are open to, or don't have it. If someone doesn't have it and isn't open to it, there is not one blessed thing i could say that would change their mind. If someone is open to it, then absolutely i will be happy to engage in discussion and answer questions. i'm not here to engage in bible-thumping. i think my history here on the forums will bear that out. i'm here to talk about procars with awesome people.

Agreed, about the only time I ever bring up religion here is when someone else does first and I'm chiming in.

also, i'm with LMS. fuck islam and all their camels. incidentally, i have heard some scholars say the description in the quran of the islamic messiah matches very closely with the description in the bible of the antichrist. however, i have not personally researched this topic, nor do i really want to get into that here.

Actually you may be interested to know that they view Jesus as a prophet. Generally the antichrist looks like whatever the accuser wants him to look like.

so believe what you want. call me a blithering idiot. i should be headed down to florida tomorrow in the coach, so i have other things with which to deal.

Good, but any time you want to bring up religion again I'll be here... waiting.

[pyro]

I believe.... I'll have another beer.

[Otto Baron]

I'm a religous Christian, and I have met my share of both annoying Bible thumpers, and evangelical athieists who are both wasting my time and their own by trying to convert me to their "truth".

[Morella]

I kind of find it silly to debate about religion in any case. It's like debating on whether or not you have a dragon in your garage.

Yes, but the fact that some believe actually believe this goofy shit makes it fun to debate, silly or not.

Ever notice that what "god" wants is so often in line with what a group of people want?

Particularly people who like to fuck bald-headed women.

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

The flood is plausible only if it was regional and even then the 40 days of non-stop rain is still really far fetched

The Noah flood myth is pretty much the same as the Ut'napisthim flood myth. So why do you suppose Noah/Ut sent out a dove to see if the water was receding? I mean, he had already been in direct contact with the god(s) about building the boat and loading the animals, so couldn't he just ask it(them) if the water had receded? And what about the first two birds that didn't come back? How long would it have taken for them to fly a surveillance pattern that would cover a bird's eye view of the entire world, even if they could do it without food and without stopping? (In the middle of a rain storm that dumped 240,000 inches of rain in 40 days, no less). How did he get the platypus and the kangaroos on board? It's pretty obvious that the global flood story is bullshit, but many people still believe it. Those are the people I like to make fun of, and if I believed something that stupid, I would expect them to do the same for me.

[Morella]

I'm a religous Christian, and I have met my share of both annoying Bible thumpers, and evangelical athieists who are both wasting my time and their own by trying to convert me to their "truth".

I'm an agnostic. I don't know what "truth" is, and I don't give a fuck.

[Scary Guy]

I'm an agnostic. I don't know what "truth" is, and I don't give a fuck.

Oh I'm an agnostic as well. All gnosticism means is knowledge. Gnostic atheists (athests that know for certain there is no god) are idiots because you can't prove a negative. No I can't prove their purported gods don't exist, but I can't prove fairies and unicorns don't exist either. However I can test for it.

Still the burden of proof is on the person making the claims and "outlandish claims require extraordinary evidence."

If you can show me evidence that god(s) existence is/are real, I will gladly change my position on the matter entirely. If you can prove to me that a particular god exists, such as the Christian god, the Muslim god, or any of the other specifically cited religious deities, well I'm all for that.

I get that religious people are basically good people and want to save people from eternal damnation. Some people can have that faith without solid verifiable evidence and others get to have good critical thinking skills and are a bit skeptical of those claims of divinity.

Honestly I'd care a lot less about this if the Christians were instead deists and believed in god, just not the christian/a specific one or that he had any direct contact/cared about what we do with our lives.

I can make logical arguments against the existence of god all day long (at least a god that messes with us directly anyway.) Most people don't care though, nor could they care. They just clutch onto it as something carried over from childhood or find it for fear of no afterlife.

Personally I think it's all the more special that this just happened by chance rather than it was designed to be this way. It makes our limited time here all the more special.

I guess with that let's forget about religion on here and focus on the cars. Many of us are not going to agree and it will just lead to heated arguments or at the least a bit of animosity toward others.

I'm glad (and surprised) that the conversation has been this civil. Well except for that "evangelical atheists" comment. But I'll gladly keep my facts to myself if you do the same with your "truth"

[Otto Baron]

Evangelical athieists are those people who find the whole idea of believing in God offensive to them, and go balistic at even the very words "Merry Chistmas". I don't believe in unicorns, but why should I be upset with those who do, and them proceed to bother them with what I think?
By the way, there are those who would have also found my use of the words "Bible Thumper" offensive. Those are the folks who are so often so busy thumping on the bible, they really don't take the time the time to understand what's in it. I'm still trying to locate the passage of the Bible where the Supreme Being commands us to annoy the unbelievers until you get them to believe.

[Scary Guy]

But considering the actual definition it's inaccurate since it relates more to Christianity

Militant Atheist is a more accurate term.

"I'm still trying to locate the passage of the Bible where the Supreme Being commands us to annoy the unbelievers until you get them to believe."

That would be Matthew 28:19

[Otto Baron]

We'll if that's the case, God will just have to understand I'm a slacker. Actually, I perfer "Evangelical Athieist", because I find the term more insulting to the more rabid folks who can't tolerate the fact that others haven't embraced their "wisdom" that there is no supreme being.

[EternalCombustion]

Immaterial? I don't think so at all, especially when you take into account all the time evolution takes to happen. This is why so many people deny it (on top of the arc thing) is that it doesn't fit in with the view of a young earth. Also stop calling things theories, it's the gap hypothesis. It only gets to be a valid theory when it's stood the test of the scientific method.

Since we are working on definitions of terms...

Theory
Definition: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Hypothesis
Definition: 1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Even the Thesaurus has the definition of Hypothesis as Theory. So, I think he is safe calling it the Gap Theory.

As far as the age of the Earth from the Bible stand point, let me show you my view of this. I'm an IT professional. Unfortunately, sometimes my job requires me to show a new user how to use our systems. Well, there have been multiple different systems used over the years in my agency. But when it comes time to show a new user what they need to know, I don't waste my time telling them about previous versions. Sure there may be evidence and rumors of previous systems, but as far as I'm concerned it is not relevant to what they need to know. So, I basically tell them what they need to know to survive and let them figure out the rest. So, i kind of feel the same could apply.

I'm an agnostic. I don't know what "truth" is, and I don't give a fuck.

I have a hard time believing this, as whenever this topic comes up, (a lot of the times started by yourself) you seem to have no trouble letting everyone know what your "truth" is.

I tend to believe that Religion and Science do not have to be mutually exclusive. The Bible has suffered through multiple translations and retellings (if you think this is irrelevant, get a group of a 100 or so people together, tell one of them a story and let them pass it on one by one and then have the last person tell it back to you and see if it is exactly the same. Now spread that over a couple of thousand years with different languages and multitudes of people). I agree with Ryan. It's the message that is important.

Anyway, I find it easier to believe that there was a plan to the creation of things rather than chance. If you have ever tried to win the powerball you would see how improbable it is for it to have happened by chance. And the chances of winning the powerball are much much better.

In any case, I say we defer all debate about this subject until 200 years from today. Then we will all be better informed of the truth.

[Otto Baron]

No need to wait 200 years, letr's just wait until April 31, and if that isn't feasable, there's always June 31 to continue this discussion.

[Mohawk Freak]

So seldom that idea is brought up. Religion cannot deny the laws of science, nor can they deny physical evidence that science points to. The other side of the coin is science cannot deny that such things as physics are unchanging certainties essential for anything at all to exist. The constancy of them cannot be explained. What we don't know far exceeds what we do know.



I tend to believe that Religion and Science do not have to be mutually exclusive. [/QUOTE]