Jump to content


Photo

Frdb Forum Cannot Even Control It's Own Members.


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#141 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 15 September 2009 - 05:52 PM

Nope. If you can't see that saying a specific, specialized community (regardless of size) accepts this theory isn't the same as "majority rules" then there's nothing more I can do to show you how very wrong you are.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


No Arch, not all scientist believe in evolution... therefore you are the one who is very very wrong.

#142 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 September 2009 - 07:05 PM

It would be interesting to throw this thought into the solipsist forum and see how well it holds up :huh:

But on the plus side, at least if God doesn't believe in me He can't send me to hell. Or heaven. Wonder what that means exactly...

View Post


God believes in you, your existence is known to Him, as with all of His creation. This life runs out and gives way to eternity. It's not the atheist God does not believe in, it is their beliefs that there is no evidence for His existence.

Romans 1:20-22
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made even his eternal power and godhead; so they are without excuse: Because that
God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations,
and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.


It appears that God is satisfied that He has indeed provided all one requires to come to Him. In His eyes therefore, one is without excuse. You may think otherwise, but He sure doesn't!

Psalm 14
The fool says in his heart, "there is no God"!


(2 Peter 3:5). 
“they are willingly ignorant”



#143 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 September 2009 - 07:24 PM

But on the plus side, at least if God doesn't believe in me He can't send me to hell.

View Post

When you tell Him that you are an atheist He won't believe you. :huh: Do you see the difference?

#144 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 15 September 2009 - 08:20 PM

Atheism isn't a lack of belief Java. Atheism just transfers their belief from God to them selves. They don't lack faith, they actually have a far greater faith than I do.

As a matter of fact, according to Paul, God doesn't believe it atheists  :huh:

Posted Image

View Post



Hey Ron!

I'm just curious how you came to that conclusion? To me that definition is similar to a solipsist.

For me personally, I know that there are other intelligent beings roaming the earth, I bump into quite an interesting variety of them in my life as a shift supervisor, and as a co-owner of a hot sauce company. To a solipsist these people would be just figments of my imagination. But I know they are real.

Hmmm...something tells me I'm missing the point you are trying to tell me here. Sorry It's been a rough day :lol:

#145 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2009 - 08:47 PM

No Arch, not all scientist believe in evolution... therefore you are the one who is very very wrong.

View Post

Scott, I'm really sure it's not your intention, but it seems you do a great job of backing up my points :huh:

I was trying to get across that not everyone accepts macro evolution. In fact, it doesn't even need to be the majority. It just needs to be an agreement reached by the group. Which it most certainly is. This is proved by the fact that macro evolution is taught to students.

You see, it's not the 'majority rules' argument. It's the 'general consensus' argument, which I believe there is an entire forum dedicated to. And yes, there is a difference between the two. I know, the line is blurry, but it does exist :lol:

Regards,

Arch.

#146 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2009 - 08:55 PM

When you tell Him that you are an atheist He won't believe you. <_< Do you see the difference?

View Post

Of course I do. I also see the incredible irony in telling God you don't believe in Him. But that's not what the sign says ;)

It appears that God is satisfied that He has indeed provided all one requires to come to Him. In His eyes therefore, one is without excuse. You may think otherwise, but He sure doesn't!


*Shrug* then I guess He's more human that I originally thought. He's capable of being wrong.

Regards,

Arch.

#147 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 September 2009 - 02:15 AM

No Arch, not all scientist believe in evolution... therefore you are the one who is very very wrong.

View Post


He doesn't even realize what stance he's arguing from. In effect, he's now arguing with himself. <_<

#148 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 September 2009 - 02:34 AM

Hey Ron!

I'm just curious how you came to that conclusion?  To me that definition is similar to a solipsist.

For me personally, I know that there are other intelligent beings roaming the earth, I bump into quite an interesting variety of them in my life as a shift supervisor, and as a co-owner of a hot sauce company.  To a solipsist these people would be just figments of my imagination.  But I know they are real.

Hmmm...something tells me I'm missing the point you are trying to tell me here.  Sorry It's been a rough day <_<

View Post


That’s ok Java, I had a long day too. According to Romans, God is saying atheists (and all unbelievers) ignore the truth for their own selfish reason. It’s not that He doesn’t believe in them as persons (He created them, of course He knows they exist), but that their faith statements and world views are false due to His revealing Himself in all creation.

Romans 1: 18 thru 21

"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened"

The whole “God doesn’t believe in atheists” is said tongue in cheek. You see, for an atheist to say they don’t believe God due to a lack of evidence, in the face of all the evidence, takes an enormous amount of faith. The statement itself parodies the atheistic stance by reversing it on itself.

Therefore, if an atheist doesn’t believe in God, then He doesn’t believe in atheists either.

#149 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 September 2009 - 04:05 AM

He doesn't even realize what stance he's arguing from. In effect, he's now arguing with himself.  <_<

View Post

Lmao, I know it's pointless replying, but seriously. The irony of this comment coming from someone who has me blocked. ;)

#150 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 16 September 2009 - 04:45 AM

Nope. If you can't see that saying a specific, specialized community (regardless of size) accepts this theory isn't the same as "majority rules" then there's nothing more I can do to show you how very wrong you are.

View Post


What is extraordinarily humorous here is that you have no apparent comprehension of your contradiction of the argument you’re attempt to make. A majority is a majority, no matter the context.

But on the plus side, at least if God doesn't believe in me He can't send me to hell. Or heaven. Wonder what that means exactly...

View Post


God doesn’t send you to hell, you send yourself. You do understand that right?


When you tell Him that you are an atheist He won't believe you. <_< Do you see the difference?

View Post

From what I've read so far, I don't think he does see the difference. Nor does he understand the corelation between "majority rules" and concensus rules"


Lmao, I know it's pointless replying, but seriously. The irony of this comment coming from someone who has me blocked.  ;)

View Post


You do understand that he was replying to Scott's spot on comment right... :)
Reviewing the facts would help your "irony" comprehention skills.

#151 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 16 September 2009 - 01:17 PM

That’s ok Java, I had a long day too. According to Romans, God is saying atheists (and all unbelievers) ignore the truth for their own selfish reason. It’s not that He doesn’t believe in them as persons (He created them, of course He knows they exist), but that their faith statements and world views are false due to His revealing Himself in all creation.


Makes perfect sense when you explain it that way. Thanks!

The whole “God doesn’t believe in atheists” is said tongue in cheek. You see, for an atheist to say they don’t believe God due to a lack of evidence, in the face of all the evidence, takes an enormous amount of faith. The statement itself parodies the atheistic stance by reversing it on itself.

Therefore, if an atheist doesn’t believe in God, then He doesn’t believe in atheists either.

View Post


I figured the saying was meant tongue in cheek <_< But thanks for re-iterating that point! I actually always liked it, even as an Atheist I still chuckle at it. I just needed a little help understanding the whole 'transferring belief from god to themselves'.

#152 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 September 2009 - 03:30 PM

You do understand that he was replying to Scott's spot on comment right...  :lol:
Reviewing the facts would help your "irony" comprehention skills.

View Post


Thanks Dee, you are correct.

#153 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 September 2009 - 03:55 PM

Makes perfect sense when you explain it that way.  Thanks!

View Post


:lol:


I figured the saying was meant tongue in cheek :)  But thanks for re-iterating that point! 
I actually always liked it, even as an Atheist I still chuckle at it.  I just needed a little help understanding the whole 'transferring belief from god to themselves'.

View Post


It’s a pun (play on words) to point out the discrepancies in the atheists claim that there isn’t enough proof that God exists, and its correlation to Romans One (and other Scriptural references).

The whole “transference” is based in (more recent history) the God is dead movement. Just read the writings of Freud, Feuerbach, Marx, Camus and Sartre to name a few. But mainly the writings of Nietzshce, who posited that once man grew up, he put god away because man himself is empowered with intellect and no longer needed a god to lean on. In other words, the myth of god was killed by mans advancement in understanding. Therefore, man transformed his belief in God, to his belief in himself.

#154 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 September 2009 - 05:23 PM

What is extraordinarily humorous here is that you have no apparent comprehension of your contradiction of the argument you’re attempt to make. A majority  is a majority, no matter the context.

View Post


Yes, a majority is always a majority. But I'm not referring to the majority. I'm referring to what the group has agreed upon, which doesn't not necessarily require a majority to reach.

God doesn’t send you to hell, you send yourself. You do understand that right?

View Post


No Dee, God made the rules. If you disagree with the rules you go to hell. God could change that if He felt like it. He sends you.

You do understand that he was replying to Scott's spot on comment right...  :)
Reviewing the facts would help your "irony" comprehention skills.

View Post


I said I agreed with Scott when he said not all scientists agree with evolution, so no problem there :lol: . I just found it ironic that someone who has me blocked is attempting to make fun of me by saying I'm arguing with myself. You don't see the hypocrisy?

Regards,

Arch.

#155 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 17 September 2009 - 04:49 AM

Yes, a majority is always a majority. But I'm not referring to the majority. I'm referring to what the group has agreed upon, which doesn't not necessarily require a majority to reach.

View Post


So, when a group agrees upon a curriculum, is it the minority that makes the decision, or the majority that makes the decision…

I think, if you were true to yourself, you would quit attempting to wriggle out of the facts, and face them squarely.

No Dee, God made the rules. If you disagree with the rules you go to hell. God could change that if He felt like it. He sends you.

View Post


The problem here Arch, is you misunderstanding of the word transference. God made the rules, but your choice to ignore them is what sends you to hell, not God. When my children were young, they had rules that their mother and I set down for them. If they didn’t abide by these rules, they faced the consciousness. If they followed the rules, life was good (extremely good).

Now, you are attempting to transfer the responsibility for their punishment on me with your illogic. Much like you are attempting to transfer the guilt upon God for your failure to follow His rules. What if you were caught speeding? Would you attempt to transfer the guilt on the police officer because he pulled you over for the traffic violation? Would you say “you made me speed”!!!! Let’s see how that works for you in traffic court.

But, facts are facts; you send yourself to hell by your own choices.


I said I agreed with Scott when he said not all scientists agree with evolution, so no problem there :lol: . I just found it ironic that someone who has me blocked is attempting to make fun of me by saying I'm arguing with myself. You don't see the hypocrisy?

View Post


No Arch, you were attempting to make it look as though you and Scott were on the same sheet of music, while the whole time you are book shelves apart. And I see the hypocrisy in your attempting to tell someone they cannot comment to another member, while all the while you enjoy (within the rules) to comment all you like.

#156 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 September 2009 - 05:15 AM

So, when a group agrees upon a curriculum, is it the minority that makes the decision, or the majority that makes the decision…

I think, if you were true to yourself, you would quit attempting to wriggle out of the facts, and face them squarely.

View Post


Most of the time yes, the majority. The point is that it is not a necessity that it be the majority. People are capable of agreeing with things they don't like.

The problem here Arch, is you misunderstanding of the word transference. God made the rules, but your choice to ignore them is what sends you to hell, not God. When my children were young, they had rules that their mother and I set down for them. If they didn’t abide by these rules, they faced the consciousness. If they followed the rules, life was good (extremely good).

View Post


I have no doubt that your rules were fair and carried out lovingly. But, if your child didn't obey one of your rules, who was it who dished out the punishment? Yes, it is the child's choice to disobey, but it is still your choice whether to ground them or not.

Now, you are attempting to transfer the responsibility for their punishment on me with your illogic. Much like you are attempting to transfer the guilt upon God for your failure to follow His rules. What if you were caught speeding? Would you attempt to transfer the guilt on the police officer because he pulled you over for the traffic violation? Would you say “you made me speed”!!!! Let’s see how that works for you in traffic court.

View Post


Rolf, no the choice to speed is my own :lol: The choice to punish me for speeding is the police officers and the courts.

But, facts are facts; you send yourself to hell by your own choices.

View Post


No, my choices give God the choice to send me to hell. The power to do so, and to not do so, is still His.

No Arch, you were attempting to make it look as though you and Scott were on the same sheet of music, while the whole time you are book shelves apart. And I see the hypocrisy in your attempting to tell someone they cannot comment to another member, while all the while you enjoy (within the rules) to comment all you like.

View Post


What? What! WHAT!? I NEVER implied anyone here could not make any comment they like. I found a comment by another poster amusing, and chose to comment on it. That is all.

Regards,

Arch.

#157 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 17 September 2009 - 12:29 PM

This thread is interesting and it looks like Lurker came clean:

http://www.freeratio...ad.php?t=274952

and Occam issued an apology. Thanks, Occam. :lol:

It was nice of Lurker to set the record straight but we don't need any pseudo-personas in this forum so don't bother dreaming up your next evo-debate-persona. We have enough real people here debating.

#158 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 September 2009 - 12:53 PM

This thread is interesting and it looks like Lurker came clean:

http://www.freeratio...ad.php?t=274952

and Occam issued an apology. Thanks, Occam.  ;)

It was nice of Lurker to set the record straight but we don't need any pseudo-personas in this forum so don't bother dreaming up your next evo-debate-persona. We have enough real people here debating.

View Post


I'm still waiting to see where you got schooled Adam :lol: Can someone provide links or quotes :)

#159 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 September 2009 - 05:43 PM

Most of the time yes, the majority. The point is that it is not a necessity that it be the majority. People are capable of agreeing with things they don't like.


My apologies on the whole 'majority' issue. I know I've been sufficiently vague but it's been a hard concept to try and get across. But I woke up this morning and the answer was just kind of there :P So hopefully a couple of examples will clear this up.

In an average classroom there are about 25 children and one teacher. The kids all say they want to go outside and play softball. The teacher tells them they need to finish their math homework first. Although the majority, the kids don't get what they want. The authority figure wins out.

Now if you think schoolchildren are a pretty weak example you can apply this to virtually any life scenario where there is an hierarchy.

Take the workplace. All the employees think they deserve a raise. The boss disagrees. No one gets a raise. Authority wins out over majority.
We could even stretch this example further. Lets assume the boss agrees that the employees have worked hard and deserve the raise. Now everyone is in agreement. Clearly a majority :D But the boss simply can't afford to do it. Now circumstances win out over both majority and authority.

I'm sure this can and does happen in the scientific community too. This is what I meant by majority not necessarily being the deciding factor.

Regards,

Arch.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users