Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

Literal Evolution.

Recommended Posts

This is a answer to the thread on literal Bible belief.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...t=0entry40613

 

Why not also put evolution to it's literal teachings and understanding?

 

We are all animals, right? So if we kill one another it should be okay since evolution is a true fact with mountains of evidence to prove it. So to speed up the process of evolution on every level we should:

 

1) Kill off the weak and retarded. Or at least sterlize them (Eugenics).

2) Presellect our childrens s@x and intelligence. And kill anything that does not meet those standards.

3) Do away with social security, and allow the elderly to die or commit suicide so not to be a burden upon society.

4) Be able to despose of babies if not wanted, like animals do. Even up to killing them.

5) Allow kids to bring guns and wepons to school as illustration of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

6) Use serial killers for population control for the greater good of mankind.

7) Do away with marraige so that the gene pool can be really mixed speeding up evolution and the spread of STDs.

8) Kill or enslave anyone who does not want to go along with majority veiw.

9) Set up a government based upon geniocracy. "Geniocracy" : A geniocracy is a governmental structure whereby power is given to those who have high average intelligence potential (IP) levels, or are considered to be a "genius". A geniocracy is not the same as a democracy, for the fact that people must qualify with a certain IP level (10% above average) in order to be allowed to vote and those being voted for have to have even higher IP levels (50% above average). ...

 

Like Darwin said:

 

post-44-1254898247_thumb.jpg

 

Like Dawkins said:

 

IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

 

"Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The specter of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'these are not one-dimensional abilities' apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

 

"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

http://richarddawkins.net/article,353,How-...,Wesley-J-Smith

So those who try and find fault with the Bible, I can find just as much bad with evolution. More so If I wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So those who try and find fault with the Bible, I can find just as much bad with evolution. More so If I wanted to.

40625[/snapback]

Except that all of your ideas are based around killing each other. We're heard animals Ike. We survive best when we help each other.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that all of your ideas are based around killing each other. We're heard animals Ike. We survive best when we help each other.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40626[/snapback]

Killing each other is what supposedly brought evolution to it's current state right? If the strong did not kill the weak from day one, where would evolution be now? The weak would have held back the strong and contaminated the gene pool, right? And if you are right about what you say, have you ever thought that is the very reason evolution has basically stopped? So why not go back to the way it was, after all. Once all the Christians are eliminated because the atheist cannot deal with absolute morals. Society will becomes just like the evolution story. Kill or be killed. Out smart the predator so that you do not become the prey. It all works out the same.

 

Besides, if we are helping one another. Can you tell me which atheist organizations rushed to the aid of Katrina victims? Did any evolution organizations help out during 9-11? So which heard of humans helped out when these things happened? The church heard did. In fact the 700 club was at the Katrina disaster even before the government was. You see, you may think what you believe promotes good will in helping others. But the truth be told, not one atheist organization has a plan in place to help when disasters happen. So instead of organizations doing it for your side, it's individuals who usually valunteer under Christian organizations who are trained, and have a plan.

 

What do you think would have happened of all of the Christian organizations reacted in the same way the atheist organizations did? Which would have been:

 

1) No plan.

2) No people to help.

3) No food or water to give out.

4) Just sit back and watch it on TV thinking: Those poor people.

 

Besides, this thread was to illustrate how one side likes to dish it out to justify what they believe, but have a problem when the other side does the same. That point was made when you responded.

 

Can you give me a list of atheist organizations that have disaster plans to help others? Can you give me a list of atheist organizations that came to the aid in 9-11 or Katrina? And can you tell me why not one atheist organization is geared to do this?

 

If you don't know, I can tell you. But it will offend you even though that's not my goal here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing each other is what supposedly brought evolution to it's current state right?

40653[/snapback]

No. Finding the best way to survive is what allows species to...well survive. And if working as a team allows better survival, then that's what many species do.

 

If the strong did not kill the weak from day one, where would evolution be now? The weak would have held back the strong and contaminated the gene pool, right?

40653[/snapback]

Why is your solution to having weaker individuals breeding to kill them off?

 

Because you see, there are people working every day to 'kill' off weaker communities. They do it through charity and education. Instead of killing the weak they work to make the weak strong. This will have the same effect.

 

I'm afraid this whole notion of killing people to bring about the survival of the fittest says a lot more about your mentality than evolution.

 

And if you are right about what you say, have you ever thought that is the very reason evolution has basically stopped?

40653[/snapback]

No, because it hasn't stopped. Perhaps you have a point for humans, but that's because we don't have any natural predators. We have no selective pressure on us to change.

 

So why not go back to the way it was, after all. Once all the Christians are eliminated because the atheist cannot deal with absolute morals. Society will becomes just like the evolution story. Kill or be killed. Out smart the predator so that you do not become the prey. It all works out the same.

40653[/snapback]

What!? :blink::blink:

Where on earth did you pull that stupidity from? Why would anyone go around eliminating Christians? And what do absolute morals have to do with survival? All studies done that compare believers to non-believers have come out 50/50. Happiness, wealth...you name it. There is no selective benefit to belief or non-belief.

 

Besides, if we are helping one another. Can you tell me which atheist organizations rushed to the aid of Katrina victims? Did any evolution organizations help out during 9-11? So which heard of humans helped out when these things happened? The church heard did.

40653[/snapback]

Yes. Funny enough even members of the church are human :rolleyes: Which means you've provided an excellent example of humans helping other humans. Herd mentality at work.

But you're obviously trying to have a go at atheists again, so what the heck, I'll bite :D

 

Besides, this thread was to illustrate how one side likes to dish it out to justify what they believe, but have a problem when the other side does the same. That point was made when you responded.

40653[/snapback]

And yet you created this thread because you had a problem when people attacked the Bible. Which means you are one of the people you're trying to point out. So as per usual it doesn't matter if you're Christian or atheist...we all have human traits.

 

Can you give me a list of atheist organizations that have disaster plans to help others? Can you give me a list of atheist organizations that came to the aid in 9-11 or Katrina? And can you tell me why not one atheist organization is geared to do this?

 

If you don't know, I can tell you. But it will offend you even though that's not my goal here.

40653[/snapback]

Ike, I can't even give you the name of a single Atheist organization. I didn't know they existed. And I certainly don't know what their financial situation would be, even if they do exist.

 

Here's the truth Ike. Religious organizations like the Red Cross are fantastic at gathering funds when disasters strike. Not only have they been doing it for generations, but people will instinctively donate to them when the poop hits the fan because they're so good at it. Do you think an atheist organization would even be able to raise similar funds?

 

But here's the stupidity you don't seem to be able to get over in your 'Christians vs atheists' mentality. Atheists donate to Christian charities.

We don't care how the help gets to people, as long as it gets there.

Sure I'd prefer it if the children didn't get fed Bible stories while they were in the Red Cross' care, but I'll be damned before I let my own pigheadedness get in the way of someone elses life.

 

It sickens me you even think like this. Peoples lives are at stake and you're worried about which organization gets the brownie points? This is why I was so happy when I chose to become an atheist. You stop seeing us and them. You just see people.

 

Why on earth would atheists bother competing for funding when another group already does it so well? Why split the funding between organizations and accumulate more costs in the process? And what makes you so certain that the volunteers were all Christian? You think an atheist would care what banner they work under in order to save lives? No, only idiots would. And that's not specific to any belief system.

 

In times of dire need religion, race, s@x and any other pointless discriminator should go out the window. If it helps save peoples lives, I don't care who my donations go to. And neither should you.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

 

*Hops off high horse*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arch. what you paint here is a perfect society through your belief. You do this by ignoring one groups problems while pointing out another. That was the point of this whole thread.

 

The other threads mission was to point out the problems in the old testament with violence. Which by the way is copy paste off of most atheist sites that have lists of things to try and drive Christians crazy. And because I know no atheist is really interested in the answers, or they would list them with the questions on those websites, is the very reason I started this thread.

 

To not only point out the one sided finger pointing, but to show how the other side justifies their problems. And your attempt to reverse guilt and make it look like my mentality was quite lame. Why? Because I can show current remarks made by those in spokes person position for atheism. Which makes the mentality most current, and not my imagination or opinion. So it's not how I think, it's what I see and read. There is a big difference.

 

Now if you don't like the categorization of grouping all atheist into one group. Speak up, speak out against what these people are saying and doing. People like myself get the impression that all atheist think this way because no one speaks out.

 

I can count on one hand the number of atheists that were bold enough to go against majority view on forums and blogs that I have debated on. And half of those same people are considered traitors to the atheist cause because they did speak out.

 

Example: How many atheist beliefs are there? Christians have denominations because we all don't agree. We don't agree with the likes of Fred Phelps.

 

But how many atheists are members of a different atheist belief that would speak out against some of the stuff Dawkins says? Zero? You see when you allow peer pressure and majority view to rule, are you really free thinking? I don't think so.

 

Even the Christian belief has a free individual Christian view. One that is not controlled by denominational interpretation. It's called being non-denominational. That is what I am. I don't adhere to any one view. I choose to believe exactly what the Bible says, not what man, through denomination, says it means. I have worked out a system to where the Bible itself confirms the interpretation. So it's not what I want to be true. It's what the Bible says is true.

 

Example: Some denominations teach that it is wrong for women to preach. I used to believe this. Why? Because I allowed a denominational view control the interpretation of the Bible. After applying the system where God's word confirms it, I can blow this belief right out of the water using the word of God. And only those who prefer to ignore what the word says, and what Christ did, are willingly ignorant to it.

 

Why? Christ had a woman (Mary) be the very first person to spread the good news of Christ resurrection. He even told her to go and tell "men" (disciples) that He had arisen from the dead. Then He confirmed what she said by showing up and telling them it's true. But those who prefer pre-interpretations by others, and are not willing to do the work themselves. Believe these things based on another's interpretation.

 

Do you think that is wrong? I do.

 

I can also apply this same logic to fossil interpretation, where everyone who believes in evolution accepts that every fossil supports this theory. So therefore the majority view rules, and not the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other threads mission was to point out the problems in the old testament with violence. Which by the way is copy paste off of most atheist sites that have lists of things to try and drive Christians crazy. And because I know no atheist is really interested in the answers, or they would list them with the questions on those websites, is the very reason I started this thread.

40660[/snapback]

"no atheist" Ike? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the atheists on this other thread, because I can point you to quite a few examples of atheists listening to Christian views on this site. Javabean in particular has the patients of a saint.

 

To not only point out the one sided finger pointing, but to show how the other side justifies their problems.

40660[/snapback]

One sided finger pointing? Ike, the thread you linked had someone suggesting the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. You're response was to say evolution teaches people to kill those who don't agree with the majority.

 

How is this one sided?

 

And your attempt to reverse guilt and make it look like my mentality was quite lame. Why? Because I can show current remarks made by those in spokes person position for atheism. Which makes the mentality most current, and not my imagination or opinion. So it's not how I think, it's what I see and read.

40660[/snapback]

Lets see, there were two points where I tried to reverse some guilt (share the guilt actually). Here's what they were in response to:

 

"Why not also put evolution to it's literal teachings and understanding?...Kill off the weak and retarded. Or at least sterlize them"

 

You're going around telling Creationists that evolution teaches this? What poppycock. Could you please show me where you read this, and how it is not just your imaginings?

 

The other point I was making is that you only started this thread because you didn't like what was being said in the other thread. So you don't like it when people rat on your beliefs either. Sounds like exactly the point you were trying to make here. So...neither Christians or atheists like it when others get stuck into their beliefs. I don't think anyone is surprised by that.

 

Now if you don't like the categorization of grouping all atheist into one group. Speak up, speak out against what these people are saying and doing. People like myself get the impression that all atheist think this way because no one speaks out.

40660[/snapback]

All atheists think what way? That we should kill the retarded? We should allow kids to take guns to school and hunt each other? Which psycho is saying that?

 

Look if anyone, atheist or otherwise is saying these things I'll gladly speak up. But I have a hunch you're pulling some of these out of thin air. And I'll eat my hat if that's how the majority of atheists think (for the record, I don't own a hat :rolleyes:)

 

I can count on one hand the number of atheists that were bold enough to go against majority view on forums and blogs that I have debated on. And half of those same people are considered traitors to the atheist cause because they did speak out.

40660[/snapback]

You'll have to be more specific about the "majority view". If this view bares any resemblance to the points you listed in the OP then I think you're way off.

 

I've been keeping my eye on some threads at FRBD and I gotta say it's not the jerk-fest you've painted it out to be. There are a few bad eggs like Occar, but the majority over there tell him where to go. If you think his opinions are the majority view then you're sadly mistaken.

 

Example: How many atheist beliefs are there? Christians have denominations because we all don't agree. We don't agree with the likes of Fred Phelps.

40660[/snapback]

There is one atheist belief. "There are no gods". Anything beyond that is the individual, and not part of an atheist belief.

 

But how many atheists are members of a different atheist belief that would speak out against some of the stuff Dawkins says? Zero?

40660[/snapback]

As I said, the only atheist belief Dawkins has is there is no god. So yes, all atheists will agree with him on that point. They wouldn't be atheists otherwise.

 

But as to the rest of his beliefs, such as scouring the world of religion...no I don't agree with everything he says. Java has said the same. In fact, most atheists I meet don't agree with that. So 'zero' is a long way off.

 

I choose to believe exactly what the Bible says, not what man, through denomination, says it means. I have worked out a system to where the Bible itself confirms the interpretation. So it's not what I want to be true. It's what the Bible says is true.

40660[/snapback]

Ike, one of the first things we learned in English class was that you can't read a document without bringing bias into it. Every passage you read you interpret. Still, you've sparked my interest. How exactly does the Bible confirm your interpretation?

 

Example: Some denominations teach that it is wrong for women to preach. I used to believe this. Why? Because I allowed a denominational view control the interpretation of the Bible. After applying the system where God's word confirms it, I can blow this belief right out of the water using the word of God.

40660[/snapback]

I'd love to discuss this further with you at some stage. I agree with your interpretation of Mary's preaching, but I don't think that's what the Bible says as a whole. Still, it makes me incredibly happy that you think woman should be able to preach :blink:

 

Yay! I can end on a happy note :blink:

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"no atheist" Ike? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the atheists on this other thread, because I can point you to quite a few examples of atheists listening to Christian views on this site. Javabean in particular has the patients of a saint.

Thank you Arch, that actually brought a tear to my eye :rolleyes:

 

Look if anyone, atheist or otherwise is saying these things I'll gladly speak up. But I have a hunch you're pulling some of these out of thin air. And I'll eat my hat if that's how the majority of atheists think (for the record, I don't own a hat :blink:)

Be careful when you say things like this, he might actually have some sources that say this. then you'll have to go buy a hat just to eat it. I don't think he has sources that say this, but you never know!

 

I've been keeping my eye on some threads at FRBD and I gotta say it's not the jerk-fest you've painted it out to be. There are a few bad eggs like Occar, but the majority over there tell him where to go. If you think his opinions are the majority view then you're sadly mistaken.

I'll be honest here I think that the number of jerks on FRDB is about equal to the number of jerks that I have run into on this site. For the most part I have run into good people on both boards. And there are a few people pn each board who are really just mis-understood for one reason or another.

 

I post on this board because more peolpe here think differently than I do. I can't stand to be in a conversation where everyone agrees with me all the time. It's just not interesting, nor does it expand my understanding of a subject.

 

 

There is one atheist belief. "There are no gods". Anything beyond that is the individual, and not part of an atheist belief.

As I said, the only atheist belief Dawkins has is there is no god. So yes, all atheists will agree with him on that point. They wouldn't be atheists otherwise.

I really need to read Dawkins just to see what he has to say about Evolution and Atheism.

 

But as to the rest of his beliefs, such as scouring the world of religion...no I don't agree with everything he says. Java has said the same. In fact, most atheists I meet don't agree with that. So 'zero' is a long way off.

I'm all for people having religious beliefs actually. And I don't think I'm alone in this. As long as the belief does no harm to the person then I'm all good.

 

And the 'no harm' is subjective to that individual. Such as if they have no issue with tithing, then more power to them.

 

Ike, one of the first things we learned in English class was that you can't read a document without bringing bias into it. Every passage you read you interpret. Still, you've sparked my interest. How exactly does the Bible confirm your interpretation?

Arch I think you are right in this. I hear a lot about reading something with the correct esogenisis or exigenisis, or how-ever you spell it. And I just get confused because there are so many different ways to interpret any passage in the Bible.

 

I think that each Christian comes to the conclusions that they are happiest with, and to them that is the correct interpretation of the Bible.

 

Yay! I can end on a happy note :blink:

Yeah I like ending with happy notes also :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with atheist is that they are completely saturated with the Idea of equality... which simply does not exist. Never has, and never will. That is why the majority of Atheist are liberals, and don't believe in absolutes. Besides what Ikester says is true. Get over it.

 

Anyways, without absolutes or truth for that matter... Everything can be equal, but such is not the case, such cannot nor will be proven as equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with atheist is that they are completely saturated with the Idea of equality... which simply does not exist.  Never has, and never will.

Scott. I hate to break it to you but we do live in the land where the founding fathers believed that all men are created equal.

 

And even if they didn't believe this, then tell me what is so wrong with helping those less fortunate than you? Can you tell me what is wrong with lifting people up out of the bad places that they have found themselves in?

 

That is why the majority of Atheist are liberals, and don't believe in absolutes. 

The majority of Atheists are liberal? That maybe true, but what does that have to do with anything? Also I would like to see a source that shows the majority of atheists being liberal.

 

But I think you are mistaking Atheists for Agnostics. Atheists don't believe in god, don't believe in an afterlife. These things are as absolute as you can get. Agnostics don't know if there is or isn't a God.

 

 

Besides what Ikester says is true.  Get over it.

What Ikester is saying is about as bad as me pointing out various quotes from the bible and then claiming that Christians are evil for believing in a god who does 'x'.

 

As you can see when Ikester is making outrageous claims such as these the few Atheists on this site call him on it. If I would make similar claims then the Christians on this site would call me on it.

 

Now I'm not surprised that you are jumping on board with Ikester on this. But it would be nice to address the many points that have been made that run counter to what Ikester is claiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

This is a answer to the thread on literal Bible belief.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...t=0entry40613

 

Why not also put evolution to it's literal teachings and understanding?

 

We are all animals, right? So if we kill one another it should be okay since evolution is a true fact with mountains of evidence to prove it. So to speed up the process of evolution on every level we should:

 

1) Kill off the weak and retarded. Or at least sterlize them (Eugenics).

2) Presellect our childrens s@x and intelligence. And kill anything that does not meet those standards.

3) Do away with social security, and allow the elderly to die or commit suicide so not to be a burden upon society.

4) Be able to despose of babies if not wanted, like animals do. Even up to killing them.

5) Allow kids to bring guns and wepons to school as illustration of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

6) Use serial killers for population control for the greater good of mankind.

7) Do away with marraige so that the gene pool can be really mixed speeding up evolution and the spread of STDs.

8) Kill or enslave anyone who does not want to go along with majority veiw.

9) Set up a government based upon geniocracy. "Geniocracy" : A geniocracy is a governmental structure whereby power is given to those who have high average intelligence potential (IP) levels, or are considered to be a "genius". A geniocracy is not the same as a democracy, for the fact that people must qualify with a certain IP level (10% above average) in order to be allowed to vote and those being voted for have to have even higher IP levels (50% above average). ...

 

Like Darwin said:

 

post-44-1254898247_thumb.jpg

 

Like Dawkins said:

So those who try and find fault with the Bible, I can find just as much bad with evolution. More so If I wanted to.

40625[/snapback]

Misrepresentation of evolution aside, it would be counterproductive for us to be killing off members of our own species. There's always a member of society who's going to be the strongest. Why doesn't he kill off every other member of society because "that's what evolution says". Well because it's not true. What you speak of isn't seen in the most vicious animals in the world. Not wolves, not piranha, not sharks, not anywhere in nature. Such a thing was never asserted by evolution because if members of a population are killed before they can reproduce the population will not last.

 

This can be shown mathematically. Google the term "logistics equation" and you'll see why.

 

 

The problem with atheist is that they are completely saturated with the Idea of equality... which simply does not exist. Never has, and never will. That is why the majority of Atheist are liberals, and don't believe in absolutes. Besides what Ikester says is true. Get over it.

 

Anyways, without absolutes or truth for that matter... Everything can be equal, but such is not the case, such cannot nor will be proven as equal.

What???? I'm about as conservative as they come. What do political leanings have to do with scientific understanding??? This is about as annoying as liberals claiming they're on average more educated than conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"no atheist" Ike? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the atheists on this other thread, because I can point you to quite a few examples of atheists listening to Christian views on this site. Javabean in particular has the patients of a saint.

Why does it take patients anyway? Do Christians have to be tolerated by the other side?

 

One sided finger pointing? Ike, the thread you linked had someone suggesting the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. You're response was to say evolution teaches people to kill those who don't agree with the majority.

Let's see, I seem to remember the remarks about stoning children to death for doing certain things. But that's okay to say about us, but it's a problem if we match it or supercede it with a simular remark.

 

How is this one sided?

Lets see, there were two points where I tried to reverse some guilt (share the guilt actually). Here's what they were in response to:

"Why not also put evolution to it's literal teachings and understanding?...Kill off the weak and retarded. Or at least sterlize them"

Share the guilt? LOL, what do you think this thread was about? You see you are seeing what you want to see here. You are not stepping outside you box of belief to see the point I'm trying to make. But you see it for your side though, understand?

 

You see, threads like the one I am referring to are what I deem as time wasting type threads. You know why? This question is not only listed on sites on how to drive Christians crazy. But is asked 100's of times everyday on the web by Bible scoffing atheists. And is referenced to several 100's of times everyday as justification for not believing by the same people and others as well. So it's a well worn Bible scoffing tactic.

 

 

You're going around telling Creationists that evolution teaches this? What poppycock. Could you please show me where you read this, and how it is not just your imaginings?

If I showed you examples, you'd just say: That an individual view, not majority view. So the point and the time spent to show the evidence is mute.

 

The other point I was making is that you only started this thread because you didn't like what was being said in the other thread. So you don't like it when people rat on your beliefs either. Sounds like exactly the point you were trying to make here. So...neither Christians or atheists like it when others get stuck into their beliefs. I don't think anyone is surprised by that.
All atheists think what way? That we should kill the retarded? We should allow kids to take guns to school and hunt each other? Which psycho is saying that?

Remember Columbine? They used evolution to justify what they did. It's a known fact. If it had been the Christian faith, I can tell you what would have been said by every atheist. Can you guess what that would be? But Christians would use that example as a what not to do in the faith. I don't see evolutionists doing that. In fact it's denied that evolution was in any part of that incident.

 

Look if anyone, atheist or otherwise is saying these things I'll gladly speak up. But I have a hunch you're pulling some of these out of thin air. And I'll eat my hat if that's how the majority of atheists think (for the record, I don't own a hat :rolleyes:)

You'll have to be more specific about the "majority view". If this view bares any resemblance to the points you listed in the OP then I think you're way off.

When is the last time you have debated me and I pulled something out of thin air? You see that is your denial, so you imply that I lie. What would I gain by lying? You catch me in it I lose credibility in the forum. Even among my peers here. But I think you know better than that. I pushed the point to the extreme in the OP to make a point. Just as though people who posts I read on forums and blogs do it. except I noticed they were serious. I have no recent references because I got tired of reading hate posts. But I can dig them up. It's not hard to find. Places like the Rational Response Squad, FSTDT, etc... Do you really think those sayings would be hard to find on those sites? And do you think any of their peers speak out against it?

 

I've been keeping my eye on some threads at FRBD and I gotta say it's not the jerk-fest you've painted it out to be. There are a few bad eggs like Occar, but the majority over there tell him where to go. If you think his opinions are the majority view then you're sadly mistaken.

I have a nack for bringing out the worst in atheism. What do you think would happen if I debated over there? I'll tell ya:

 

1) I'd get banned the very first day.

2) I'd get cussed out either while there or after I left.

3) I'd leave anyway because it's a waste of time.

4) There are several people from there that would like to get revenge upon me.

 

Which is basically why I don't go there. You act as if FRDB is the only site you have been to. I find that hard to believe. In fact if I did a search on your name, would I find that you are a member of several other forums and blogs? Or could it be that you use different names everywhere you go so that you tracks cannot be traced? The way I see it, a person who has to hide behind a baraage of names is already in a deception, because they have to "hide" all the time. Because most honest people keep the same name because there is "nothing" to hide. And they are not embarassed of what a name search might connect them to.

 

There is one atheist belief. "There are no gods". Anything beyond that is the individual, and not part of an atheist belief.

As I said, the only atheist belief Dawkins has is there is no god. So yes, all atheists will agree with him on that point. They wouldn't be atheists otherwise.

Dawkins believes in Panspermia.

 

But as to the rest of his beliefs, such as scouring the world of religion...no I don't agree with everything he says. Java has said the same. In fact, most atheists I meet don't agree with that. So 'zero' is a long way off.

I see zero because unless pinned down, most atheist would rather look like they agree with majority views from their peers.

 

Ike, one of the first things we learned in English class was that you can't read a document without bringing bias into it. Every passage you read you interpret. Still, you've sparked my interest. How exactly does the Bible confirm your interpretation?

I'd love to discuss this further with you at some stage. I agree with your interpretation of Mary's preaching, but I don't think that's what the Bible says as a whole. Still, it makes me incredibly happy that you think woman should be able to preach :blink:

 

Yay! I can end on a happy note :blink:

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40666[/snapback]

If what is interpretated, cannot be confirmed in at least 2-3 places, then it's a misinterpretation and should not be taken literally until such confirmation is found. Also, every word in the interpretation has to be used.

 

Example: In the verse where it says a woman should not talk in church. And that they should get information from their husbands when they get home.

 

1) Talk is a broad word. The word preach is used several time in God's word. So if preaching were the issue, why did not the word preach show up?

2) The word husbands (plural) is used. Women were not allowed to have more than one husband. So the reference is the congregation. Because you have husbands and wives in the congregation, not behind the pulpit.

3) The word prophetess (a woman prophet) is used several times. Having the "position" means it was appointed. Which also means the church was involved in this appointement.

4) A prophetess was never stoned for having such a position.

5) Prophets (men), and kings, met with prophetesses in the Bible. If they were not to hold such a position, these men risked having their name tarnished and their position of authority overturned.

 

And I could go on with this and list all of the verses to support all of it. I could probably list at least 10 reconffirmations places in the Bible that women were allowed to have preaching positions, and positions of authority. Take Deborah. She not only had a govern position, but she served as a judge over all of Israel.

 

The people who believe that women should not preached listened to their deniminational teaching before they confirmed it. And took that to heart instead of testing such a doctrine. You don't find truth, when man becomes the source for truth, over what should be truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it take patients anyway? Do Christians have to be tolerated by the other side?

Ikester,

 

I can tell you that there have been more than a few people on this site who I can say have not treated me with the kindness and love I treat everyone I meet with. So for those people, yes they have to be tolerated.

 

 

Let's see, I seem to remember the remarks about stoning children to death for doing certain things. But that's okay to say about us, but it's a problem if we match it or supercede it with a simular remark.

That is an issue I have with both sides. It's wrong no matter who does it. It is especially wrong when someone complains about a particular argument tactic and then uses it him/her self.

 

It makes no sense to me when people do it.

 

The other point I was making is that you only started this thread because you didn't like what was being said in the other thread. So you don't like it when people rat on your beliefs either. Sounds like exactly the point you were trying to make here. So...neither Christians or atheists like it when others get stuck into their beliefs. I don't think anyone is surprised by that.

Good I'm glad you realize this. You seem to like to demonize Atheism and Evolution and I often wonder if you are trying to push buttons or if you really believe it.

 

 

Remember Columbine? They used evolution to justify what they did. It's a known fact. If it had been the Christian faith, I can tell you what would have been said by every atheist. Can you guess what that would be?

You might want to check this out. Its a good article on the columbine shootings 10 years later. But to cut a long story short they did not use Evolution as any sort of reason for their killing spree.

 

required reading on columbine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to look at this documentary.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpugWkckTcY&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpugWkckTcY&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

You will notice that the term "natural selection" is used in the first 2 minutes. It is what both Dylan and Eric based their racist hatred on. And it's directly from Eric's journal. Then 3 minutes and 55 seconds into the film the word evolve is used. As Eric claims that they have evolved above other humans at school.

 

The so called myths, where do you think they came from? Thin air? It was in their writtings and journals. Now why did they change this? Think about it. They did not want other following in their foot steps by example. So change the example, what is there to follow then if it's all deemed as a lie?

 

post-44-1255165601_thumb.jpg

Below is a mild example of what was actually said on Eric's site about natural selection.

post-44-1255165644_thumb.jpg

post-44-1255165682_thumb.jpg

 

post-44-1255165942_thumb.jpg

 

Here is a copy of what was posted on Erics website, WARNING! HAS A BUNCH OF PROFANITIES. http://acolumbinesite.com/wisdom2.html

 

I would suggest you study that site because it has the actual unedited documents and evidence from Columbine.

 

Here is what they wore: http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

You might want to look at this documentary.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpugWkckTcY&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpugWkckTcY&color1=0x6699&color2=0x54abd6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

You will notice that the term "natural selection" is used in the first 2 minutes. It is what both Dylan and Eric based their racist hatred on. And it's directly from Eric's journal. Then 3 minutes and 55 seconds into the film the word evolve is used. As Eric claims that they have evolved above other humans at school.

 

The so called myths, where do you think they came from? Thin air? It was in their writtings and journals. Now why did they change this? Think about it. They did not want other following in their foot steps by example. So change the example, what is there to follow then if it's all deemed as a lie?

 

post-44-1255165601_thumb.jpg

Below is a mild example of what was actually said on Eric's site about natural selection.

post-44-1255165644_thumb.jpg

post-44-1255165682_thumb.jpg

 

post-44-1255165942_thumb.jpg

 

Here is a copy of what was posted on Erics website, WARNING! HAS A BUNCH OF PROFANITIES. http://acolumbinesite.com/wisdom2.html

 

I would suggest you study that site because it has the actual unedited documents and evidence from Columbine.

 

Here is what they wore: http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

40723[/snapback]

 

Millions were killed in the Crusades in the names of Christianity and Islam. Should we blame both religions for the deaths of those people???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Millions were killed in the Crusades in the names of Christianity and Islam.  Should we blame both religions for the deaths of those people???

40746[/snapback]

When a person says that they are acting in the name/power of something or someone and the action they produce is in direct violation of the precepts of the one they purport to be acting in the name of, what's going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a person says that they are acting in the name/power of something or someone and the action they produce is in direct violation of the precepts of the one they purport to be acting in the name of, what's going on?

40757[/snapback]

 

What are you referring to Adam? Correct me if I'm wrong (which I could be) but did God tell the Israelites to go forth and take land by force? To kill all the men, and to take the women as their own? I am probably confusing different old testament stories, but I know someone knows more about this than I do.

 

 

The God of the old testament liked his killing, but only when he told someone to do it. So the question is did God tell these people to commit the atrocities? Did they just claim God did? And if they were told by God to do this then how would you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Millions were killed in the Crusades in the names of Christianity and Islam.  Should we blame both religions for the deaths of those people???

40746[/snapback]

That comment shows which side you will defend more.

mt 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

 

And to answer your question: If this happened, of course. How else do we learn from our mistakes? Ignore them?

 

One well known evolution advocate, de Chardin once said: It is Christ, in very truth who saves....but should we not immediately add that at the same time it is Christ who is saved by Evolution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMari...%20Religion.htm

Would that offend you, or do you find that to be a correct statement?

 

 

Murders unrelated to Christians:

 

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State.

35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill.

20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State.

10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime.

 

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS

5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military.

2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State.

1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges.

1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State.

1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing.

1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State.

1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse.

 

4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS

1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea.

1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico.

1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

 

The Crusades never came close to this number. And the armies acted under a sign of the Christian faith. But their leader, Constantine, was not a Christian and secretly worshiped the sun god Sol. Constantine version of salvation was to sprinkle holy water on the troops before going to war. That saves a person about as much as taking a bath will.

 

So no, the murders were not done by Christians, because the people doing them were not Christian. If the atheist people who do these anti-Christian videos understood what it takes to be saved, these documenteries done by them would be more accurate. But instead they prefer to smear the Christian faith anyway they can, even up to lying about it. Because they know they even though they can be proven wrong, the people's faith they destroy makes it wll worth it in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you referring to Adam?  Correct me if I'm wrong (which I could be) but did God tell the Israelites to go forth and take land by force?  To kill all the men, and to take the women as their own?  I am probably confusing different old testament stories, but I know someone knows more about this than I do.

The God of the old testament liked his killing, but only when he told someone to do it.  So the question is did God tell these people to commit the atrocities?  Did they just claim God did?  And if they were told by God to do this then how would you know?

40758[/snapback]

Do you know why killing the wicked was required? In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell. Your soul stayed with your body. It was called: Sleep with thy fathers.

 

deut 31:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

 

2sam 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

 

1kings 1:21 Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders.

 

So because there was no punishment for those who lived back then, after they died. The punishment was carried out on earth instead.

 

Today we go to where ever we are supposed to after we die. We either get just rewards, or eternal damnation. That is why God no longer tells people to go and kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions:

1) Why do people become offended when someone challenges a "theory?

2) Is it scientific to take a theory so personal?

3) Isn't it more religious than scientific to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

When a person says that they are acting in the name/power of something or someone and the action they produce is in direct violation of the precepts of the one they purport to be acting in the name of, what's going on?

40757[/snapback]

Oh I agree, but this is a two way street. If someone mentions evolution and kill somebody it's probably a bit hasty to automatically say evolution had something to do with it.

 

Ikester, you're missing my point and seem to be attempting to prove that other groups were responsible for more deaths. You also have me confused. The Crusades happened over a period of 200 years. Did one man lead them for that entire time???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Millions were killed in the Crusades in the names of Christianity and Islam.  Should we blame both religions for the deaths of those people???

40746[/snapback]

Not the religions, but yes blame the people. They murdered each other. I cannot speak for Islam. However, nowhere is current Christian doctrine is there a call to kill non-believers. Those that led the Christian forces, did so without doctrinal support. Is was a choice of man, not God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that all of your ideas are based around killing each other. We're heard animals Ike. We survive best when we help each other.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40626[/snapback]

Social yes. Herd, no. A herd acts as one, with a symbiotic mental cohesion. Humans do not. We act independantly. We will act in unison when there is advantage. Not only personal advantage. For instance, war. We do not go into war without our neighbor. And there is obviously no personal advantage to entering the battle front. But it must be done so we unite.

I have been a Coasty, EMT, Firefighter and Search and Rescue Team leader. In none of those venues would I wish to enter the field alone. The number one rule in each of those fields, watch out for number one. I made sure I was safe first, THEN my buddy, team, patients etc. It is the only way to achieve success.

In a college class, all those students share social ties. But when they move on to the world and seek employment, they will climb on top the head of last year's dorm mate to gain position.

We are socialy knit, but not herd animals by any measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

Not the religions, but yes blame the people.  They murdered each other.  I cannot speak for Islam.  However, nowhere is current Christian doctrine is there a call to kill non-believers.  Those that led the Christian forces, did so without doctrinal support.  Is was a choice of man, not God.

40801[/snapback]

I agree, but for some reasons creationists don't want to give that to evolution when someone commits a murder and mentions it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are socialy knit, but not herd animals by any measure.

40802[/snapback]

I disagree. But perhaps colony would be a better word. A while ago I started reading a book that delved into this territory. Take for example ants. No one tells them to build giant nests, but still they do it (the notion that the queen ant gives the orders isn't actually true. If fact, there are some who look upon the queen as a slave of the colony and not its head). Humans are the same. At what point were we told to build cities? To share food and shelter? To develop governments?

 

The way ants build a nest bares many resemblances to how humans build cities and at no point did a single individual hand out instruction sheets. That is herd mentality.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it take patients anyway? Do Christians have to be tolerated by the other side?

40700[/snapback]

Yes, of course. Tolerance is often required, especially when religion is involved. Or football :lol:

 

Let's see, I seem to remember the remarks about stoning children to death for doing certain things. But that's okay to say about us, but it's a problem if we match it or supercede it with a simular remark.

40700[/snapback]

The problem is Ike that you don't like it when others make this kind of remark, but feel justified to make them yourself. I prefer the practice what you preach tactic. You know, lead by example?

 

Share the guilt? LOL, what do you think this thread was about? You see you are seeing what you want to see here. You are not stepping outside you box of belief to see the point I'm trying to make. But you see it for your side though, understand?

40700[/snapback]

Yes Ike, I think I do understand. What you don't seem to understand is that this kind of thread only insights the anger, rather than trying to douse it.

 

You see, threads like the one I am referring to are what I deem as time wasting type threads. You know why? This question is not only listed on sites on how to drive Christians crazy. But is asked 100's of times everyday on the web by Bible scoffing atheists. And is referenced to several 100's of times everyday as justification for not believing by the same people and others as well. So it's a well worn Bible scoffing tactic.

40700[/snapback]

That's great, but you assume that others have been around this debate as long as you have. There is every chance others haven't heard the answers to these questions. I know I haven't.

But instead of trying to educate newbies like me you get on your high horse and make posts like this one. I know you're probably bored of answering the same question again and again, but if you want to teach people that's the only way to go about it.

People come to a forum like this looking for answers (we hope) and instead they get rants on evolution teaching people to kill the retarded. Other than allowing you to vent, who do you think this helps?

 

If I showed you examples, you'd just say: That an individual view, not majority view. So the point and the time spent to show the evidence is mute.

40700[/snapback]

Yes more than likely. But I thought that's the point you were trying to get across? That this is what evolution teaches as a whole? I don't see the point in picking on the occasional crazy person who preaches death in the name of evolution or religion. If it's not how the majority feels then it's not what's being taught.

 

I'd still be interested in seeing the crazy nut-job who's going around saying we should kill off the retarded because evolution demands it.

 

Remember Columbine? They used evolution to justify what they did. It's a known fact. If it had been the Christian faith, I can tell you what would have been said by every atheist.

40700[/snapback]

And here you go again with your absolutes. This atheist would not have said religion was to blame. You're talking about some very troubled individuals. Probably in some way mentally retarded themselves. If they didn't blame evolution, they'd blame religion. If not religion, video games. You know, as long as it's not their own fault.

 

When is the last time you have debated me and I pulled something out of thin air?

40700[/snapback]

I'm not talking about any other time Ike, I'm talking about this time.

 

I have no recent references because I got tired of reading hate posts. But I can dig them up. It's not hard to find.

40700[/snapback]

And what would that prove Ike? I can do the same thing reading Christian blogs.

We both agree that it's wrong, right? So why do you repeat it here?

 

And do you think any of their peers speak out against it?

40700[/snapback]

I can't speak for every site, but I've seen it done here and at FRDB.

 

I have a nack for bringing out the worst in atheism. What do you think would happen if I debated over there? I'll tell ya:

 

1) I'd get banned the very first day.

2) I'd get cussed out either while there or after I left.

3) I'd leave anyway because it's a waste of time.

4) There are several people from there that would like to get revenge upon me.

40700[/snapback]

Sorry Ike, but if you're going around saying that evolution teaches people to kill the retarded then I've got no problem with you being banned.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms