Why do arrogant little punks expect us to be nice to them?
ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
:Brandon:
Why do arrogant little punks expect us to be nice to them?
FrankiE:
Because they're dealing from a position of weakness.
Why do arrogant little punks expect us to be nice to them?
FrankiE:
Because they're dealing from a position of weakness.
Rolf,
Rolf, I’ve already explained the nature of my argument to you, which leads me to believe that you are either incapable of understanding the premise of my argument, or you’re not paying attention. This has nothing to do with specifics, you’re missing the point. You used specifics to make a general argument, you quoted scripture to make a point. I’ve found reason to believe that the biblical astronomical references you make mention of, though interesting, are nothing unique. I’ve repeated this several times, and you have yet to address is head on. You are attempting to digress and equivocate, and like I said before, I saw this coming from a mile away. My argument is a general argument that requires no specifics. I have shown evidence that the bible is not alone in it’s scientific observations, other ancient cultures have made specific scientific observations of their own, which they recorded.
Don’t you remember denying the existence of the astrolabe tablets? Don’t you remember telling me that the cultures I have sited never moved past the oral tradition? You were wrong, but you have also been very careful to avoid taking responsibility for your mistake. Don’t you remember?
The evidence which supports your argument is worthless in that it doesn’t prove anything. The bible points out astronomical facts of REALITY, you have shown nothing from reality to support the bible. All you have done is use the bible to stand as a witness to reality, not the other way around. You sited biblical examples of astronomical observations, I made reference to ancient chaldean and Babylonian examples of astronomical observations. What you’re looking for is an exact counter part to the biblical references, which isn’t necessary to prove my point. My point is that your biblical references are not unique, therefore not good enough. If you can’t follow that, maybe you should stop making accusations about my intelligence.
No, I went to Christian school. As for my math skills, well, they could use some brushing up. But I gave you the opportunity to explain your e=mc2 argument, and you haven’t, which leads me to believe that you simply read it somewhere and posted it here as your own invention. Can’t you explain what you believe? If it’s so simple that I could learn it in a rudimentary math class, can’t you just give me a brief synopsis on how you came to your conclusion?
If you digress, equivocate or ignore the challenge, I’ll have to assume that you just don’t know what you’re talking about and my initial impression of you (that you’re fair, intelligent and worth debating with) was erroneous.
Lighthouse,
Sigh.
Rolf, I’ve already explained the nature of my argument to you, which leads me to believe that you are either incapable of understanding the premise of my argument, or you’re not paying attention. This has nothing to do with specifics, you’re missing the point. You used specifics to make a general argument, you quoted scripture to make a point. I’ve found reason to believe that the biblical astronomical references you make mention of, though interesting, are nothing unique. I’ve repeated this several times, and you have yet to address is head on. You are attempting to digress and equivocate, and like I said before, I saw this coming from a mile away. My argument is a general argument that requires no specifics. I have shown evidence that the bible is not alone in it’s scientific observations, other ancient cultures have made specific scientific observations of their own, which they recorded.
Don’t you remember denying the existence of the astrolabe tablets? Don’t you remember telling me that the cultures I have sited never moved past the oral tradition? You were wrong, but you have also been very careful to avoid taking responsibility for your mistake. Don’t you remember?
The evidence which supports your argument is worthless in that it doesn’t prove anything. The bible points out astronomical facts of REALITY, you have shown nothing from reality to support the bible. All you have done is use the bible to stand as a witness to reality, not the other way around. You sited biblical examples of astronomical observations, I made reference to ancient chaldean and Babylonian examples of astronomical observations. What you’re looking for is an exact counter part to the biblical references, which isn’t necessary to prove my point. My point is that your biblical references are not unique, therefore not good enough. If you can’t follow that, maybe you should stop making accusations about my intelligence.
No, I went to Christian school. As for my math skills, well, they could use some brushing up. But I gave you the opportunity to explain your e=mc2 argument, and you haven’t, which leads me to believe that you simply read it somewhere and posted it here as your own invention. Can’t you explain what you believe? If it’s so simple that I could learn it in a rudimentary math class, can’t you just give me a brief synopsis on how you came to your conclusion?
If you digress, equivocate or ignore the challenge, I’ll have to assume that you just don’t know what you’re talking about and my initial impression of you (that you’re fair, intelligent and worth debating with) was erroneous.
Lighthouse,
Sigh.
"I think when LH can justify his hate using your book it shows his true colors, he’s just a hateful, scared little man lashing out at those who would reveal the holes in his security blanket. He just reminds me of a cracked out Linus from peanuts, sucking his thumb and holding onto his crack blanket for dear life."
Hang on, hang on. I like this. Linus
a) needs a security blanket (indeed, the phrase was coined in the "Peanuts" strip)
b) he is never without said blanket and uses it as a defense mechanism
c) Linus is the only one of the Peanuts crew who believes in the mystic Great Pumpkin, fervently believes in the Pumpkin's existence, and anticipates the Pumpkin's coming over Linus's own pumpkin patch every Halloween
d) no one else believes in, or has ever seen, the Great Pumpkin
:think:
Hang on, hang on. I like this. Linus
a) needs a security blanket (indeed, the phrase was coined in the "Peanuts" strip)
b) he is never without said blanket and uses it as a defense mechanism
c) Linus is the only one of the Peanuts crew who believes in the mystic Great Pumpkin, fervently believes in the Pumpkin's existence, and anticipates the Pumpkin's coming over Linus's own pumpkin patch every Halloween
d) no one else believes in, or has ever seen, the Great Pumpkin
:think:
Pepper
New member
Do you think it would be possible to get back to the issue at hand here? This thread has become just a place to post our insults. A few of us have been guilty of crossing the line. I believe that this thread was started with a very good question from prodigal which has yet to be answered, and very well may never be. We are obviously not all in agreement and if we were, we wouldn't be here. We need to first respect the fact that other people have other opinions, and not insult people or belittle them for their opinions. We are here to discuss those differences in opinions, but we need to keep some element of respect for our fellow man, christian or not. And we need to realize that we may not be able to sway people to believe the same thing as we do. This thread either needs to be abandoned or we need to get back to what we came here for. Lighthouse, you are the one most guilty of not respecting the fact that others have different opinions than yourself and if you are unable to respect that, go somewhere else. Let's play nice, K?
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--I am tight on time, and will be gone 2morrow, but I decided to go ahead and answer a question which I am confident you could answer yourself if you would really think about it.
Einstein wrote that Energy was equal to mass times the speed of light squared. That is a simple mathmatical formula--Amazingly simple for all it means. Have you ever pondered the fact that all science can be reduced to mathematical formula? And math formulas are fixed rules. Linear equations and quadratic equations have their rules.
Anytime the factor "a" is equal to factor "b" times factor "c," the rules concerning that formula apply regardless of WHAT elements "a", "b", or "c" represent. If "a" whatever it is, is equal to bxc-- whatever they are--then the relation between them will always be---
If E=MC2, then M=E/C2 and C2=E/M. The only time that can not be true is if you change the value of one of the factors; but as long as
10=2 x 5, then 2= 10/5, and 5 = 10/2.
Einstein expressed scientific truth in his formula. All science can be expressed mathematically, and mathematics is mathematics. Different elements, no matter what they are, as long as they are related to one another in the same way that the other elements are related to one another, can be expressed with the same formula.
One of the most common things scientists say about an explanation for the complexity of the universe in both its micro and macro aspects is that the universe could only have come from a supernatural intellect that was basically mathematical. It is no wonder that scientists all agree that mathematics is the queen of the sciences.
I will say something about your purported early scientific evidences later. Right now, I will only say that I think you greatly overrate them. I may not be back before monday.
Einstein wrote that Energy was equal to mass times the speed of light squared. That is a simple mathmatical formula--Amazingly simple for all it means. Have you ever pondered the fact that all science can be reduced to mathematical formula? And math formulas are fixed rules. Linear equations and quadratic equations have their rules.
Anytime the factor "a" is equal to factor "b" times factor "c," the rules concerning that formula apply regardless of WHAT elements "a", "b", or "c" represent. If "a" whatever it is, is equal to bxc-- whatever they are--then the relation between them will always be---
If E=MC2, then M=E/C2 and C2=E/M. The only time that can not be true is if you change the value of one of the factors; but as long as
10=2 x 5, then 2= 10/5, and 5 = 10/2.
Einstein expressed scientific truth in his formula. All science can be expressed mathematically, and mathematics is mathematics. Different elements, no matter what they are, as long as they are related to one another in the same way that the other elements are related to one another, can be expressed with the same formula.
One of the most common things scientists say about an explanation for the complexity of the universe in both its micro and macro aspects is that the universe could only have come from a supernatural intellect that was basically mathematical. It is no wonder that scientists all agree that mathematics is the queen of the sciences.
I will say something about your purported early scientific evidences later. Right now, I will only say that I think you greatly overrate them. I may not be back before monday.
So, the question then is: Who is without sin? Could it be those who, Christ has freed from sin?:think:
Are you aware that Charles Schulz was a Christian?
As for the rest of it,
I called you arrogant because you think God owes you proof of His existence, by performing parlor tricks for you.
See above.
When you don't deserve it...
People like you, it is.
What do you think you're doing? You aren't being respectful. Why do you expect me to be?
I don't hate you. And I'm certainly not lashing out. I'm not angry. And I have nothing to be scared of. But here you sit, in all manner of haughtiness, presuming to know me, and judge me, yet you whine and cry like the immature child you are when I return it. You are a hypocrite, prodigal. No wonder you never found Christ.
Is your mom single?
I have already answered prodigal's question. A non-physical God is not going to prove Himself, physically. And a sovereign, omnipotent God is definitely not going to perform parlor tricks for the amusement of an arrogant child, like prodigal.
:Brandon:
I have already answered prodigal's question. A non-physical God is not going to prove Himself, physically. And a sovereign, omnipotent God is definitely not going to perform parlor tricks for the amusement of an arrogant child, like prodigal.
FrankiE:
Actually, He did prove Himself - to Adam, Moses, the patriarchs and the prophets. He proved Himself to Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Darius.
Parlor tricks. I wouldn't call what happened with Elijah or miracles performed by Jesus "parlor tricks", but there they are anyway.
The problem seems to be reducible to one of "evidence." Although there is more "evidence" than one could ever want, we have plenty of examples of people who always demand more "evidence." Sooner or later one must realize that no matter how much "evidence" is presented, there are people who will never believe it or accept it.
There are some who would rather have a problem than the solution to that problem. They will contend forever perhaps. Let them contend.
I have already answered prodigal's question. A non-physical God is not going to prove Himself, physically. And a sovereign, omnipotent God is definitely not going to perform parlor tricks for the amusement of an arrogant child, like prodigal.
FrankiE:
Actually, He did prove Himself - to Adam, Moses, the patriarchs and the prophets. He proved Himself to Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Darius.
Parlor tricks. I wouldn't call what happened with Elijah or miracles performed by Jesus "parlor tricks", but there they are anyway.
The problem seems to be reducible to one of "evidence." Although there is more "evidence" than one could ever want, we have plenty of examples of people who always demand more "evidence." Sooner or later one must realize that no matter how much "evidence" is presented, there are people who will never believe it or accept it.
There are some who would rather have a problem than the solution to that problem. They will contend forever perhaps. Let them contend.
Lighthouse,
I’ll go back and check, but I believe what I was getting at was this: I don’t think god owes me anything, but wouldn’t it behoove him, if he did indeed love us all, to do whatever he could to draw him to himself? It doesn’t seem consistent to me that an all loving and powerful god would condemn us to our own flawed free will, especially if the only way for us to come to him is if the son draws us.
This seems to be an inconsistency in your beliefs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the bible say we are dead in our trespasses and sin? And if it does say that than it must be correct, therefore, what good does our free will do us if we cannot use it to come to salvation? It becomes merely a useless stumbling block put there by our creator for meaningless reasons. Meaningless because according to the bible (but perhaps not your own set of beliefs) no man may come to the father unless the son draws him. So if your perception of free will is correct, why did god place it within us if we cannot use it to bring ourselves to him? Especially in the light of scripture that graphically details our inability to both to the father, and the doctrine of election?
But Lighthouse, what have I, or anyone else done to not merit respect? If I have come across as vitriolic I apologize, but I don’t believe Granite, Pepper, or myself have asked anything but legitimate questions.
Why? You claim to be very firm in your beliefs, but your attitude doesn’t reflect your pragmatism. Venom isn’t the first sign of someone who is comfortable in their position, from the outside it appears that you’re lashing out in defense, not because you were insulted first. And again, what have we done that deserves such hate? Have we not asked legitimate questions? And if what you believe is as true as you say it is, wouldn’t you agree that these legitimate questions have equally legitimate answers? And if they do have legitimate answers, why the hate? I was impressed with your response to the Michal reference, but that was the first time I had ever seen you exhibit a knowledgeable rebuttal to anything anyone has said challenging your beliefs and your bible.
Please, LH, gimme a break. We live in a day and age where humans are becoming far more educated than they ever have been before, why are you so surprised that people are asking hard questions of your religion? It isn’t disrespectful to demand some form of validity or proof of those who seem to be making rather outrageous claims.
You claim your messiah was crucified and resurrected from the dead, but every gospel account of the resurrection story differs greatly, in fact (and please correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t believe there is ever a reference in the epistles to an actual physical resurrection of jesus. With this so blatantly obvious, why are you surprised that someone asks about it? And with such blatant contradictions (and mind you, of the list of contradictions I gave, you only rebutted one, and then condemned the rest of them based on the one rebuttal) why are you surprised that someone would point them out? Why is this suddenly disrespectful? There are myriad questions raised by the scripture, legitimate questions as to it’s very validity and you’ve been attempting to avoid them by labeling the askers as “disrespectful”, “arrogant”, “twits”, etc. You know what you’ve said.
If that’s the case, you’ve had me fooled this whole time. But really, when have I ever said anything even comparable to the venom you’ve spewed at me, and those like me? Why is it haughty to ask questions of seemingly irreparable scriptural contradictions? I never presumed to know you, all I know is what I’ve seen, that’s all I can judge you by, and so far, LH, you have been lashing out. And please, name one instance where I have whined or cried like an immature child.
You say I don’t know how a Christian acts, but I can see the way you act, and I’m telling you, you’re giving your cause a bad name. As for being a hypocrite, please cite an instance for that as well, if you find something, there’s plenty of room for feet in my mouth.
I don’t know, but I think you’re just being inappropriate here.
No, my parents have been married for over twenty years, not that it’s any of your business, and not that it really adds to the question of a Linus analogy.
Frank Ernest,
That’s wonderful for them. What about me, and the millions of others across the world who would like some indication from an allegedly all powerful god of his very existence? It doesn’t really seem consistent to me that an all powerful master of the universe who really truly loves us, and has a plan for us, would not do something to indicate his existence.
Once again, Frank, that’s just dandy for people who have been dead for thousands of years, but what about me?
So far that’s up for debate in my opinion. The evidence Rolf has been presenting has been inconclusive at best. He used Einstein’s e=mc2 and said that because it works it is evidence for the existence of god. While denouncing modern scientists he turns and makes the claim that they ALL acknowledge that Einstein’s formula proves intelligent design. He never explains this stretch, he only makes the stretch.
This goes back to my debating with Clete. He was very fond of “talking” about his evidence, or as I liked to refer to them as his “four aces”, but he never “showed” his four aces. Frank, you’re doing the same thing, and I’ve been watching Christians do this my entire life. You’re talking a lot about your four aces but you aren’t showing them. You’re attempting to claim the pot without showing your cards.
I find it far more likely that you’re deluded into believing that whatever evidence you have at your disposal is actually conclusive. I have yet to come across a Christian who possesses conclusive evidence of the existence of the supernatural realm, or even the validity of what the bible says from one cover to the other. LH has gone as far as to say that there is no way a non-physical entity will never manifest itself physically, so where does that leave us?
Well, it leaves Christians with faith, and it leaves skeptics skeptical.
Rolf,
This I understand.
Once again, this I understand.
This I don’t understand. The math is sound, but the stretch from sound math to an intelligent creator, I don’t get it. I don’t understand how you’ve taken a sound mathematical premise, and then used the soundness of it to declare that simply because it is sound, it proves that the “universe could only have come from a supernatural intellect that was basically mathematical.”
And what of your sudden adherence to the words of scientists that earlier you were so quick to put down?
Rolf, I understand the math, it’s the stretch that I don’t understand. Sound mathematics is suddenly proof of the existence of an intelligent designer? You took sound mathematics, and then the stretch appeared, with no apparent explanation of how you made the stretch. You had a premise and a conclusion, but no explanation of how you got from one to the other. This isn’t evidence, this your own personal theory as far as I’m concerned. And until Monday, that’s all I’m going to be able to think. Hopefully than you can actually give me something to go on, rather than stretches of the imagination that are good enough for you, but not good enough for me.
This just isn’t conclusive at all, Rolf. Please quote YOUR scientists upon whom you are so suddenly, and heavily relying. This is the very essence of inconsistency as I have seen it so far from you.
Please elaborate.
I’ll go back and check, but I believe what I was getting at was this: I don’t think god owes me anything, but wouldn’t it behoove him, if he did indeed love us all, to do whatever he could to draw him to himself? It doesn’t seem consistent to me that an all loving and powerful god would condemn us to our own flawed free will, especially if the only way for us to come to him is if the son draws us.
This seems to be an inconsistency in your beliefs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the bible say we are dead in our trespasses and sin? And if it does say that than it must be correct, therefore, what good does our free will do us if we cannot use it to come to salvation? It becomes merely a useless stumbling block put there by our creator for meaningless reasons. Meaningless because according to the bible (but perhaps not your own set of beliefs) no man may come to the father unless the son draws him. So if your perception of free will is correct, why did god place it within us if we cannot use it to bring ourselves to him? Especially in the light of scripture that graphically details our inability to both to the father, and the doctrine of election?
But Lighthouse, what have I, or anyone else done to not merit respect? If I have come across as vitriolic I apologize, but I don’t believe Granite, Pepper, or myself have asked anything but legitimate questions.
Why? You claim to be very firm in your beliefs, but your attitude doesn’t reflect your pragmatism. Venom isn’t the first sign of someone who is comfortable in their position, from the outside it appears that you’re lashing out in defense, not because you were insulted first. And again, what have we done that deserves such hate? Have we not asked legitimate questions? And if what you believe is as true as you say it is, wouldn’t you agree that these legitimate questions have equally legitimate answers? And if they do have legitimate answers, why the hate? I was impressed with your response to the Michal reference, but that was the first time I had ever seen you exhibit a knowledgeable rebuttal to anything anyone has said challenging your beliefs and your bible.
Please, LH, gimme a break. We live in a day and age where humans are becoming far more educated than they ever have been before, why are you so surprised that people are asking hard questions of your religion? It isn’t disrespectful to demand some form of validity or proof of those who seem to be making rather outrageous claims.
You claim your messiah was crucified and resurrected from the dead, but every gospel account of the resurrection story differs greatly, in fact (and please correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t believe there is ever a reference in the epistles to an actual physical resurrection of jesus. With this so blatantly obvious, why are you surprised that someone asks about it? And with such blatant contradictions (and mind you, of the list of contradictions I gave, you only rebutted one, and then condemned the rest of them based on the one rebuttal) why are you surprised that someone would point them out? Why is this suddenly disrespectful? There are myriad questions raised by the scripture, legitimate questions as to it’s very validity and you’ve been attempting to avoid them by labeling the askers as “disrespectful”, “arrogant”, “twits”, etc. You know what you’ve said.
If that’s the case, you’ve had me fooled this whole time. But really, when have I ever said anything even comparable to the venom you’ve spewed at me, and those like me? Why is it haughty to ask questions of seemingly irreparable scriptural contradictions? I never presumed to know you, all I know is what I’ve seen, that’s all I can judge you by, and so far, LH, you have been lashing out. And please, name one instance where I have whined or cried like an immature child.
You say I don’t know how a Christian acts, but I can see the way you act, and I’m telling you, you’re giving your cause a bad name. As for being a hypocrite, please cite an instance for that as well, if you find something, there’s plenty of room for feet in my mouth.
I don’t know, but I think you’re just being inappropriate here.
No, my parents have been married for over twenty years, not that it’s any of your business, and not that it really adds to the question of a Linus analogy.
Frank Ernest,
That’s wonderful for them. What about me, and the millions of others across the world who would like some indication from an allegedly all powerful god of his very existence? It doesn’t really seem consistent to me that an all powerful master of the universe who really truly loves us, and has a plan for us, would not do something to indicate his existence.
Once again, Frank, that’s just dandy for people who have been dead for thousands of years, but what about me?
So far that’s up for debate in my opinion. The evidence Rolf has been presenting has been inconclusive at best. He used Einstein’s e=mc2 and said that because it works it is evidence for the existence of god. While denouncing modern scientists he turns and makes the claim that they ALL acknowledge that Einstein’s formula proves intelligent design. He never explains this stretch, he only makes the stretch.
This goes back to my debating with Clete. He was very fond of “talking” about his evidence, or as I liked to refer to them as his “four aces”, but he never “showed” his four aces. Frank, you’re doing the same thing, and I’ve been watching Christians do this my entire life. You’re talking a lot about your four aces but you aren’t showing them. You’re attempting to claim the pot without showing your cards.
I find it far more likely that you’re deluded into believing that whatever evidence you have at your disposal is actually conclusive. I have yet to come across a Christian who possesses conclusive evidence of the existence of the supernatural realm, or even the validity of what the bible says from one cover to the other. LH has gone as far as to say that there is no way a non-physical entity will never manifest itself physically, so where does that leave us?
Well, it leaves Christians with faith, and it leaves skeptics skeptical.
Rolf,
This I understand.
Once again, this I understand.
This I don’t understand. The math is sound, but the stretch from sound math to an intelligent creator, I don’t get it. I don’t understand how you’ve taken a sound mathematical premise, and then used the soundness of it to declare that simply because it is sound, it proves that the “universe could only have come from a supernatural intellect that was basically mathematical.”
And what of your sudden adherence to the words of scientists that earlier you were so quick to put down?
Rolf, I understand the math, it’s the stretch that I don’t understand. Sound mathematics is suddenly proof of the existence of an intelligent designer? You took sound mathematics, and then the stretch appeared, with no apparent explanation of how you made the stretch. You had a premise and a conclusion, but no explanation of how you got from one to the other. This isn’t evidence, this your own personal theory as far as I’m concerned. And until Monday, that’s all I’m going to be able to think. Hopefully than you can actually give me something to go on, rather than stretches of the imagination that are good enough for you, but not good enough for me.
This just isn’t conclusive at all, Rolf. Please quote YOUR scientists upon whom you are so suddenly, and heavily relying. This is the very essence of inconsistency as I have seen it so far from you.
Please elaborate.
prodigal wants God to spin his pen around. I would call that a parlor trick.