Uzytkownik "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:6e14bcdc.0403051358.13b89c81@posting.google.com...
> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:<c2a46v$og9$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > JERRY
> > > I will be happy not to forget it when you can prove it. You see,
> > > Davey, my position is that the bible is nothing more than a 2000 year
> > > old book of goatherder mythology. It fails to be consistent,
> > > containing contradictions within the text that cannot be resolved
> > > within the text, but must be rationalized by the reader. It fails to
> > > be historically accurate and it fails miserably on prophecy. You
> > > would think that if this god you believe in really did inspire/write
> > > the bible, he would do a better job of articulating himself. From
> > > this book, he looks like a damned inarticulate dork.
>
> >DAVEY
> > I think you can't have read too much of it.
>
> JERRY
> I'd wager I've read much more of it than you. I would also wager I
> know it much better than you. You can always ask your buddy Jason,
> who I severely spanked on the issue of the prophecy of the destruction
> of Tyre in alt.talk.creationism. The debate is in the Google
> archives. You can watch him squirm, change his story again and again
> and finally start sending URL's he hasn't read from apologist sites
> that all say the same sad story that had already been refuted. He
> even sent me two URL's that were identical, because he never even
> bothered to read them before he sent them. In the end, he accused me
> of lying because my research and posts didn't prove he was correct.
> Then he ran away, crying for his momma.
>
> My position is that the bible can't be a holy book because it fails
> three critical tests that it needs to be considered inerrant. It
> fails to be historically accurate. Two quick examples: archaeology
> has shown that the biblical story of Joshua at Jericho could not have
> happened. The walls weren't even up when Joshua and the Israelites
> came through.
>
So why is there an account in literature that there was then?
Surely the writer would have been laughed out of court?
> The bible cannot be considered inerrant and a holy book because it
> fails miserably on Prophecy. This is where your buddy Jason got
> spanked on the failed prophecy of Tyre as claimed in Ezekiel ch 26.
> We could also discuss the failed prophecy in the NT where Jesus told
> the disciples that he would return with the second coming during their
> lifetimes.
>
> Finally, the bible is contradictory. A good example of this would be
> the different accounts of the Resurrection morning as claimed by the
> four gospels or we could even talk about the discrepancies between the
> synoptic gospels and the book of John.
>
> Pick your poison. We can then find out how well I know the bible. ;-)
>
Why don't you take the post of the month for February off of
www.usenetposts.com, which is Ariaan's walkthrough of Zecariah, and pick
some holes in that?
> >
> > >
> > > So, when you can prove that your god exists and wrote the bible you
> > > use to justify your bigotry about gays, I will be happy to "not forget
> > > that." ;-)
>
> >DAVEY
> > We don't give empirical proofs.
>
> JERRY
> That's because you have nothing but opinion to offer. That's the
> reason your particular cult has over 2000 separate sects all claiming
> to be based only on the bible. It's all just opinion, Davey, nothing
> that can be backed up, but there is plenty of evidence against your
> book, if you would just read it with a critical eye. I don't expect
> you to, though. And that makes things more amusing for me. ;-)
>
What you think is evidence is just the wishful thinking of a deluded mind
and heart.
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > Yeah, don't patronise me, perhaps you need a writing one.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > I appear to be doing a better job expressing myself and making my
> > > points than you so far, Davey. You seem to be reading into my text to
> > > see there what you expect or want to see. I don't mind correcting
> > > you, mind you. Makes you look not quite so quick on the draw. ;-)
>
> >DAVEY
> > You obviously don't have an unbiassed opinion here, if you feel you are
> > qualified to make me look stupid.
>
> JERRY
> it doesn't take much qualification. I've read your postings.
Obviously you've read them the same way as you've read the Bible then.
> > > >
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > saying that YOU are making religious arguments by invoking "the
eyes
> > > > > of god" as some sort of rational.
> >
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > Some sort of rational what?
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > Jeez, did I really type "rational" rather than rationale? My bad.
>
> >DAVEY
> > No wonder you think I need a reading comprehension course.
>
> JERRY
> Nope, I've demonstrated that already. What I need to do is proofread
> my own work a bit more carefully.
>
I can't deny that you do.
But you're not the worst offender, by a long way.
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > Hardly. Marriage is a Creation ordinance. It was started with Adam
and
> > Eve.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > Hardly. There is no evidence to support the bible as being true about
> > > pretty much anything. There was no Adam and Eve. One of the reasons
> > > I keep pointing out in alt.talk.creationism why theists fight so hard
> > > against evolution in spite of the evidence against them is the
> > > following:
> >
> > If there was no Adam and Eve, then was the first person to evolve from a
> > monkey male or female? And without a partner, how did he/she carry on
the
> > line?
>
> JERRY
> Straw man argument. I think a good college biology course is in order
> for you, Davey. A good community college near you could help clear up
> those misconceptions of evolution for you.
Will they tell me whether the first person to evolve from a monkey was male
or female?
> >
> > > If evolution is true, there was no Garden of Eden.
> > > If there was no Garden of Eden, there was no Adam and Eve.
> > > If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no Fall from Grace.
> > > If there was no Fall from Grace, there was no original sin.
> > > If there was no original sin, then Jesus' sacrifice, if it existed at
> > > all, is worthless
>
> >DAVEY
> > You'd think he would have not bothered with it then.
>
> JERRY
> Who, God? You are assuming that the bible is true and that this deity
> exists. Why not assume instead that all gods are constructs of man's
> search for truths that he couldn't comprehend?
>
Because that's not a very productive set of starting assumptions when
they're not true.
> > DAVEY
> > That's precisely why, by the way, I find it hard to understand people
who
> > say they are Christians believing in evolution.
>
> JERRY
> I'm sure. But they don't necessarily accept the bible to be literally
> true. They accept the simple truths that are couched in the mythology
> without having to believe in a literal interpretation.
>
How nice for them. I always wonder what kind of Resurrection they are
expecting.
> >
> > > Therefore, if evolution is true (and it is) then there is no reason to
> > > believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, Davey.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Go on, show me a case where new information has observably entered a
genome
> > under observable conditions but without physically being put there.
>
> JERRY
> Sure. It's called polyploidy. (I'm not gonna get technical with you
> here as I don't think you will be up on the jargon). What happens in
> polyploidy is that the "child" cell gets a duplicate copy of the
> mother's "information." If the mother's information could be
> expressed for the sake of simplicity as ABCDE, then the child cell
> gets ABCDEABCDE. The second duplicate set of information then begins
> to change and mutate as all information mutates.
>
> This is just one example of how additional information gets into the
> cell. It's duplicate, but it's also ADDITIONAL.
>
Doesn't add anything.
It's duplication of old material.
Like repeats on TV.
> Now, if you really, really want to talk science, we can talk about how
> the travesty called "Intelligent Design" actually confuses it's
> disciples by using the word "information" indiscriminately. There are
> two kinds of information. One is called Shannon information and the
> other is called complexity. They both have different rules. I see
> creationists, though, attempting to use the phrase "complexity" with
> the same rules that apply to Shannon information.
But those are just game play rules that you lot have invented to try to foil
creationists and wrap them up in niceties.
>
> But in the end, all ID really is is just the same old tired argument
> from incredulity that creationists all use. It's not proof for
> intelligent design, it's an attack on evolution.
>
> You see, according to the scientific method
>
> People start by examining ALL of the information available.
> They then try to come up with an hypothesis that matches the evidence
> they have.
> Once they have an hypothesis, they test the hypothesis against the
> evidence. If the hypothesis fails, it goes back to be re-looked
> again. This process goes on over and over. As new evidence is
> discovered, the hypothesis is tested again against the new evidence.
> Once an hypothesis survives all testing and can be used predictively
> to help predict what will be found in the future, that hypothesis is
> upgraded to a theory.
>
> That is what evolution is. It's an hypothesis that has been tested
> against all the evidence. A theory is as high as you can go in
> science.
>
And yet people ignore the fact that there are great patches of missing parts
of the fossil record. This is not dealing with evidence, this is glossing
over it. The evidence is, fossils do not show a steady progession between
species over time. Evolution hasn't dealt with that piece of evidence, just
evolutionists have devised a way of arguing around it, redefining what
science is supposed to be so that they can believe what they like.
> Now, here is how Creationism works:
>
> It starts by accepting an ancient book of goatherder mythology as
> being literally true.
> Evidence it checked against the hypothesis that the book is true.
> Evidence that is found to contradict the book is thrown out, since the
> conclusion is already forgone.
> Then adherents to this hypothesis throw rocks at the accepted theory,
> since they believe if they can prove evolution wrong (which they
> can't) then their hypothesis would be accepted as fact.
>
> But science doesn't work that way, Davey. In order to prove
> Creationism true, you have to do the following:
Why do evolutionists think they have a monopoly on what science is?
>
> 1. Produce the Creator. Not just any creator but the Creator
> specified in the bible.
Why is this science? The Bible says that God will not be treated like that,
and so what was scientific about ignoring that piece of evidence?
> 2. Produce evidence that the earth was created in just six days.
Show me a culture with a different week length? Now you, as a scientist,
explain what other mechanism determines that other week lenths other than
that ordained at creation have failed. Please posit the alternative
explanations for them and prove them.
That's how the acquisition of knowledge works.
>
> Of course, since Creationism is based upon a literal belief in the
> bible, if you could prove the bible to be inerrant, you would have
> more of a case. But since I can demonstrate those three areas of
> fallibility in the bible above, I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to
> do that.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Evolution only looks true when the people who believe it set the terms
of
> > debate to suit themselves so that they cannot lose, expecting us to show
> > them evidence of God when they cannot show us evidence of the lack of
God.
>
> JERRY
> Not at all. The evidence for evolution is widespread and not doubted
> by anyone except those whose science knowledge is very weak and who
> choose to believe that it can't be true.
There is no proof of life arising by evolution. Please repeat, under
controlled conditions, life emerging from some chemical soup.
If you and your pseudoscientific cronies cannot do it, then don't ask us to
believe it because it falls short of the standard of evidence you expect
from us.
>
> As for evidence for lack of god, you have that backward. It's the
> theist who is making the supernatural claim when claiming the
> existence of god. The skeptic doesn't have to prove that god doesn't
> exist, since the burden of proof in claiming the supernatural is on
> the theist.
>
So you say. But there are no one-way streets in the question of burden of
evidence.
This is the reasoning of antievolutionists masquerading as scientists. It
was not the method of such giants as Galileo and Newton.
They were capable of lateral thinking, they didn't have to worry about
one-way street burdens of proof like some criminal attorney trying to get
his rich murderer client of the hook so that he can deduct the rest of his
life to looking for the real killers on golf courses.
> In other words, I only have to support evolution. I don't have to
> prove your god doesn't exist. You have to prove he does.
>
> And, if your belief is based on a literal interpretation of the bible
> and the belief that the bible is inerrant, all I have to do is show
> ONE error to show that the bible is not inerrant and therefore
> infallible. Then the entire thing is a house of cards. It all can
> come tumbling down pretty easily.
>
> >DAVEY
> > That's what talk.origins is all about. Most of what they do is jump on
> > people for debating in a way that does not suit them, and their view of
what
> > science should be.
>
> JERRY
> LOL. No, they are trying to teach you that there are certain rules to
> debate and you can't just try to debate the way you want.
P R E C I S E L Y.
Hallelujah, you've understood and admitted something of vital importance.
They are trying to control the way we are allowed to think and present
thought, so as to bias against our arguments.
>
> For example, I can go in and try to use my opinion in the bible as
> evidence, but that starts from an assumption (that the bible is true)
> that they aren't willing to grant me. I have to start back before
> that and demonstrate the infallibility of the bible. If I can't
> demonstrate the infallibility of the bible, then the bible cannot be
> used as evidence for my claims.
>
> It's simply, it works. Of course, since your belief system is based
> entirely on faith and you can't prove what you believe, it works
> against you.
>
Which is, of course, why they do it.
But I'm not buying into that.
At the same time, despite being so quasi-academic, they entertain people
like Lenny Flank and Patrick James, who use vile insults and flaming to
bully Bible believers so it's clear they don't even have confidence in the
correctness of their approach, but need their own heavy mob to enforce it.
>
> > > JERRY
> > > nope. You see, Davey, here is the problem with your claim:
> > >
> > > You are attempting to use a religious argument in a legal situation.
> > > The US is not a christian nation, nor are all it's citizens
> > > christians. The separation of church and state gives non-christians
> > > the same legal standing in the eyes of the law as christians, or at
> > > least it's suppposed to. In the case of same sex marriage though, it
> > > doesn't. Here, the cultural prejudices, mostly justified by literal
> > > interpretation of your goatherder myth, causes those who are attracted
> > > to their own sex to be considered second class citizens under the law.
> > > That is why I brought up, civil and religous rites. If marriage is a
> > > civil rite in any manner; if it gives a tax benefit, inheritance
> > > benefits, etc, then by the constitution, it should be available to all
> > > citizens, not just those that the so-called christian right deems
> > > worthy of it.
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > There are no such benefits in the UK.
>
> JERRY
> Aren't there? What about inheritance laws? Anything that specifies
> that if someone dies, their spouse is the legal inheritor without
> going to court to prove each object's ownership? I think you are
> wrong. I suggest you check on that.
>
In the UK, inheritance will pass that way by default where a couple is
married, but if a couple live together then it is no problem to show to the
courts that they lived as if they were married, and where dependency on the
deceased income and assets can be inferred then even when someone dies
intestate they can usually come to justice, after paying a lot to scum
lawyers obviously, but that's Britain for ya.
Even where there is a testate deceased, and he has disinherited his live-in
lover, that person can in the case of need overturn the will in the courts
on the basis of balance-of-probability level evidence. Again, paying a load
to the legal filth.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm as you can tell religious, but I did not have a wedding service
in a
> > > > church for the simple reason that I don't see wedding services in
> > churches
> > > > mentioned in the Bible, but I do see that the civil magistrate is
> > ordained
> > > > of God.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > But your argument is irrelevent in the context of the discussion. You
> > > have the option of getting married. Britney Spears can get married
> > > for 55 hours, a new celebrity record. But she has more legal standing
> > > under the law to get married than someone who has been in a fifty year
> > > relationship because the relationship and attraction is to a person of
> > > the same sex.
> > >
>
> >DAVEY
> > I thought Polish wedding celebrations went on for a long time, but I
think
> > 55 hours is just excessive. People complain at evangelical christians
for
> > having two or three hour services, but 55 hours is just gruelling.
Surely
> > people went to sleep in between the hymns?
>
> JERRY
> LOL. Not wedding celebration, the entire length of the marriage.
Well really!
Prince William got off lucky then, when he refused her brazen overtures a
few years ago.
This is the sort of commoner that can bring a Monarchy to its knees.
I think it's the thirteenth pillar in some road tunnel for Britney next.
"Hit me baby one more time', and all that...
> >
> > > That's not fair. It's not just. And it's unconstitutional if we
> > > agree that all are created equal and are entitled to the same life,
> > > liberty and pursuit of happiness. And gay marriage doesn't hurt
> > > anyone at all, Davey. It's simply tightass christians trying to be
> > > exclusionary as they can't stand that people they don't like have the
> > > same rights they have.
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > Nonsense. Let them have the tax and inheritance bits, I don't care, only
> > don't call it marriage.
>
> JERRY
> Why not? How does it hurt you if they are legally married?
>
It downgrades marriage.
>
> > > but in the US, there are tax breaks to be
> > > had if you are married. There are shortcuts for inheritance purposes
> > > that married couples get that same sex couples can't have. If your
> > > partner is sick and in the hospital, since you can't get married to
> > > your same sex partner, that partner has no rights to sit with the
> > > patient and talk to the doctor if the blood relation family members
> > > don't want that partner there.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Good thing too.
> >
> > The last thing parents need in such time is the fact that their kid
turned
> > out queer rubbed under their noses. Have you no sympathy with them?
>
> JERRY
> If they can't accept their kids for who they are, fuck 'em. The kid
> is better off not having parents than to have someone who is so
> bigoted as to deny them the ability to see the people they love.
>
What nonsense.
> > > > DAVEY
> > > > If you have no 'superstitions' as you call them, then why get
married at
> > > > all?
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > for the tax break. So that my wife can have the same benefits that I
> > > described above. So she can have medical insurance coverage through
> > > my work. Otherwise, as you say, there is no reason to get married at
> > > all.
> > DAVEY
> > Well, in the Uk that's how it is.
>
> JERRY
> Ibid above.
> > > > > > DAVEY
> > > > > > Take my relations, for example. They aren't religious, but they
> > don't
> > like
> > > > > > the downgrading of the family in society any more than any
typical
> > person
> > > > > > does. They can't understand why more churches don't take a tough
> > line on
> > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > JERRY
> > > > > And how, pray tell, does homosexual marriage "downgrade" the
> > > > > relationship between two people who aren't the same sex?
> >
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > When I didn't even say that.
> > > >
> > > > I said, oh thou that wouldst send Davey of all people on a reading
> > > > comprehension course, that they don't like the downgrading of _the
> > family_
> > > > in society.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > that's what I thought you said, and why I asked how same sex marriage
> > > downgrades a family that is not same sex? See, I didn't screw up, you
> > > did. Again. (that means Once more, Davey) ;-)
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > You didn't say a family, you said 'two people'.
> > Two people aren't a family.
>
> JERRY
> It was implied by the context of the subject matter. I think I see
> your reading comprehension problem. You don't seem to be able to
> handle abstract subject matter very well. Probably the reason you
> accept the bible to be literally true, you can't read it any other
> way. ;-)
>
> So, you are saying that man and wife aren't a family without kids?
> Kids are absolutely required for someone to be in a family?
>
Where kids required in yours when you were a kid?
Would your mam and dad have been just as happy if you and any siblings had
failed to cling to the wall of the uterus?
> >
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > Allowing marriages that do not result in families the same status as
> > those
> > > > who do seems to me to downgrade the family in society.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > So, you are in favor of not allowing matrimony for older couples who
> > > don't have children? How about couples that can't have children? If
> > > they are already married and then find out they will have to be
> > > childless, they should be split up and not allowed to be married?
> > >
> > > is that what you mean?
>
> >DAVEY
> > No, it means they have to keep trying. Abraham didn't get a child off of
> > sara until she was very old. She even laughed when God said she would
have
> > one and got a mild rebuke for laughing, and she shoulda known better,
having
> > been the wife of a patriarch, which is every girl's dream.
> >
> > That or Oligarch.
>
> JERRY
> But if, say, the woman has had a hysterectomy and can't ever have
> children, you don't believe she should be able to get married?
If someone can't have kids through no fault of their own, then, if they have
a heterosexual marriage, they can adopt.
Or they can go as a missionary couple to places where it's dangerous to have
kids around.
Best,
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 |
|