My TE Challenge

[flatworm]

Alan Turing, but only if he meant to say "was a homosexual"

...as well as an atheist. Does anyone know where Konrad Zuse's stood on the issue?

 

[AV1611VET]

O RLY.

He probably means Charles Babbage, since he fits the description -- except that there are many others with at least as good a claim as Babbage, and of course he wasn't a creationist.

Thanks for the correction --- in the future, I'll change the question from "creationist" to "Christian."

To be quite honest, I don't know what Babbage was, and he didn't go to our church.

The point is moot now anyway, since Psudopod said that in neither case does it change her opinion.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

...as well as an atheist. Does anyone know where Konrad Zuse's stood on the issue?

Or Shockley et al? Or...? What's the chance, do you think, that we'll ever get a precise definition of what "inventing the computer" means (and why, therefore, it was achieved by a single Creationist with a specific name)? Because, of course, we all know that this isn't just another turd of propaganda that now has as much veracity as "hey, you gotta hear what happened to my brother's boss's hairdresser's best friend's uncle's neighbor...".

(Oh, and, no to your actual question, btw )

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Thanks for the correction --- in the future, I'll change the question from "creationist" to "Christian."

To be quite honest, I don't know what Babbage was, and he didn't go to our church.

The point is moot now anyway, since Psudopod said that in neither case does it change her opinion.

Says the man who loves to accuse everyone else of shifting the goalposts. Or are you actually admitting that you were wrong? Your options:

1) give Biblical reference regarding the theology of the computer's inventor
2) failing that, I'll even take non-Biblical evidence
3) failing that, admit that you are wrong and pulled that "fact" out of your lower freckle.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thanks for the correction --- in the future, I'll change the question from "creationist" to "Christian."

It'd be a refreshing change to see a YEC make that distinction.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Thanks for the correction --- in the future, I'll change the question from "creationist" to "Christian."

To be quite honest, I don't know what Babbage was, and he didn't go to our church.

The point is moot now anyway, since Psudopod said that in neither case does it change her opinion.

No problem. Any luck on digging up the verse on atheists worshipping nature?

 

[AV1611VET]

No problem. Any luck on digging up the verse on atheists worshipping nature?

MrGoodBytes, you're either goading me to post that long exegisis, hoping someone will report me for quoting Psalm 14:1 (and believe me, I don't care), or you're some type of control freak that enjoys badgering people.

Either way, it's not going to work with me.

I could be wrong, but I believe you (or someone) heckled me until I did it [for the 2nd or 3rd time] late last year.

This seems - (and again, I could be wrong) - to be the second time you've badgered me to do this.

The fact that you almost quoted it word-for-word yourself a few posts back (if I remember correctly) shows me you're familiar with it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

MrGoodBytes, you're either goading me to post that long exegisis, hoping someone will report me for quoting Psalm 14:1 (and believe me, I don't care), or you're some type of control freak that enjoys badgering people.

Either way, it's not going to work with me.

Or, you're bluffing and you know it.

Put up or shut up, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, you're bluffing and you know it.

Put up or shut up, AV.

I think I've made the point that I'll shut up, Nathan.

 

[FishFace]

MrGoodBytes, you're either goading me to post that long exegisis, hoping someone will report me for quoting Psalm 14:1 (and believe me, I don't care), or you're some type of control freak that enjoys badgering people.

Or he knows that you can't demonstrate anything - firstly because the Bible doesn't say what you think it does, and secondly because even if it did, you'd have to demonstrate that that does, in fact, settle it.

You, I think, ought to take a hike.

(It'd be less embarrassing than making claims we both know you can't back up.)

 

[MrGoodBytes]

MrGoodBytes, you're either goading me to post that long exegisis, hoping someone will report me for quoting Psalm 14:1 (and believe me, I don't care), or you're some type of control freak that enjoys badgering people.

You left out the third possibility: I don't like when people spread blatant lies, especially when the lie is about something I define myself as.

Either way, it's not going to work with me.

No, because no such verse exists and the Bible nowhere says what you claim it does.

I could be wrong, but I believe you (or someone) heckled me until I did it [for the 2nd or 3rd time] late last year.

What you did was post two verses - one calling atheists fools, the other calling some other people fools for worshipping nature. I pointed out the obvious logical fallacy, and you never bothered to respond. That was about it.

This seems - (and again, I could be wrong) - to be the second time you've badgered me to do this.

I think it's the fourth or fifth time.

The fact that you almost quoted it word-for-word yourself a few posts back (if I remember correctly) shows me you're familiar with it.

I am familiar with your argument, yes. It's false, and repeating it will not make it anymore correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

What you did was post two verses - one calling atheists fools, the other calling some other people fools for worshipping nature.

You mean I posted two passages: one showing atheists fools, and the other saying fools worship nature?

You kinda got that second part backwards, don't you?

[bible]Romans 1:22-25[/bible]

There --- happy now?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You mean I posted two passages: one showing atheists fools, and the other saying fools worship nature?

You kinda got that second part backwards, don't you?

[bible]Romans 1:22-25[/bible]

There --- happy now?

I don't really know what I am getting backwards here. Found that verse yet?

 

[TheManeki]

You mean I posted two passages: one showing atheists fools, and the other saying fools worship nature?

You kinda got that second part backwards, don't you?

[bible]Romans 1:22-25[/bible]

There --- happy now?

While I'm impressed to see a Christian quote this passage and not twist it to erroneously condemn homosexuality, I still think you've missed the mark on this one, AV.

This passage most likely concerns a group worshiping other gods, not atheists. For this to be applicable, you'll have to first prove atheists worship gods.

 

[AV1611VET]

For this to be applicable, you'll have to first prove atheists worship gods.

No --- proving atheists worship gods is the final step in the logic.

Let me change a word here for clarity:

[bible]Romans 1:22[/bible]

Professing themselves to be wise, they became [atheists],

 

[Nathan Poe]

Please tell me this doesn't pass for Logic in FundieLand...

No --- proving atheists worship gods is the final step in the logic.

Let me change a word here for clarity:

Clarity, perhaps, but certainly not honesty.

Once you start editing the Bible, where will you stop?

 

[FishFace]

No --- proving atheists worship gods is the final step in the logic.

Let me change a word here for clarity:

[bible]Romans 1:22[/bible]

Your modification of the Bible is noted.

This only works if you are a fool only if you are an atheist. Otherwise the passage could be talking about some other kind of fool. (We are working with the unsound assumption that an atheist is a fool, here, but whatever.)

So you have committed, as GoodBytes said, a logical fallacy here - namely, you are affirming the consequent.

Thanks for demonstrating that you cannot demonstrate that atheists worship anything, even if you could demonstrate that Bible is accurate - which you can't.

 

[Skavau]

You mean I posted two passages: one showing atheists fools, and the other saying fools worship nature?

You kinda got that second part backwards, don't you?

[bible]Romans 1:22-25[/bible]

There --- happy now?

Let us ignore what you think the Bible says and hold your claim up to reality. I am an Atheist. You have claimed that Atheists worship nature. I do not worship nature and I have never done so.

My own existence is evidence that your claim is at variance with reality.

 

[TheManeki]

No --- proving atheists worship gods is the final step in the logic.

Let me change a word here for clarity:

[bible]Romans 1:22[/bible]

Problem is, when you construe it that way you could stick just about any word in there for fools. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fundamentalists" has a nice ring to it, for example.

[sarcasm] 'Cause we all know that fundamentalists don't worship God, they worship the AV1611 Bible. [/sarcasm]

 

[AV1611VET]

Let us ignore what you think the Bible says and hold your claim up to reality. I am an Atheist. You have claimed that Atheists worship nature. I do not worship nature and I have never done so.

My own existence is evidence that your claim is at variance with reality.

I can understand your apprehension --- as well as MrGoodBytes.

Let's talk man-to-man, Skavau. You are being "victimized" [for lack of a better term] by our motto --- the Bible says it, that settles it.

When we say things like:

• water canopy --- the Bible says so
• sun and moon stood still --- the Bible says so
• Jesus is coming for us very soon --- the Bible says so

That's funny to some people --- and they get a kick out of it.

But sooner or later, what goes around - comes around, and our Bible-says-it-that-settles-it motto hits close to home, and suddenly it's not so funny anymore.