An atheists world

[Valiantis]

Having read some of the posts by dad I feel very sorry for him, his thinking has been twisted so badly.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did other research on Tyre too and it turns out that it was defeated on a regular basis before the attack of Nebuchadnezzar. Since that sort of attack was the norm for Tyre that meant the prophecy could not legitimately be extended past Nebby. Otherwise I can make prophesies of the Biblical sort by simply claiming that you will see a red car. The fact that when you go outside and see a red car does not make me a prophet. The fact that 200 years later another man came along and defeated Tyre is a "you will see a red car prophesy".

QV please:

Ezekiel 26 and the Tyre prophecy is a flagship prooftext for those who claim divine inspiration for the Scriptures. Let's see if it bears out under assorted criticisms and examination. I first wrote this essay some years ago and in 2003 had some new insights and arguments to add.


Who Are "They"?

"They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise.." (NIV)​

This verse is pivotal to many of the arguments of each side. Our side would say that the "they" in v. 12 refers back the "nations" in v. 3-5, and were represented by Alexander the Great, who did the things described in v. 12, thus fulfilling the prophecy. Skeptics and other critics, however, say that the "they" in v. 12 refers to the elements of Nebuchadnezzar's forces in verses 7 and 11. Nebuchadnezzar never did the things ascribed to "they," in verse 12 - he failed to take Tyre at all - so the prophecy, it is said, was not fulfilled.
A key here is that the "they" in v. 12 can only refer to the "nations" in v. 3. Let's see how this is so.

SOURCE


Are you a 3-5 believer? or a 7 come 11 non-believer?

 

[AV1611VET]

Having read some of the posts by dad I feel very sorry for him, his thinking has been twisted so badly.

You'd better get used to feeling sorry for people then.

Welcome to Planet Earth and a world of faith.

 

[Valiantis]

You'd better get used to feeling sorry for people then.

Welcome to Planet Earth and a world of faith.

Here are a few people who can say what I want to say much better than I can.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.”
― Abraham Lincoln

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man


.

 

[biggles53]

sno explanation for the Big Bang huh? Good enough, thanks for trying to answer the other questions.

Excuse me....??

I gave you an explanation....you wanted to know what fuelled the "explosion". It was explained to you that the Big Bang DID NOT involve an explosion.......that's your explanation....!

I thought your religion had something to say about lying....?

But then...I guess that's what creationism is all about.....

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Here are a few people who can say what I want say much better than I can.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.”
― Abraham Lincoln

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Stephen Fry has been posting famous relevant quotes on twitter the last couple of days. This is his latest from Bertrand Russell:

“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.”

― Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics

 

[AV1611VET]

Here are a few people who can say what I want say much better than I can.

Stephen Fry has been posting famous relevant quotes on twitter the last couple of days. This is his latest from Bertrand Russell:

My turn now?

"Ye know nothing at all,"

-Caiphas, high priest, John 11:49
​

 

[Subduction Zone]

QV please:



SOURCE


Are you a 3-5 believer? or a 7 come 11 non-believer?

[/FONT]

The prophesy fails for many reasons.

One is that you have to extend the prophesy past the event to have even get a small part of it right. Those extensions of the prophesy are not valid.

If I made a prophesy that the next time you were driving on the road you would see a red car, and you did, would that make me a prophet of "Biblical" proportion? I would hope that the answer is no. Tyre was regularly attacked before and after Nebby. Trying to claim that Alex the Better than Average was part of the prophecy is turning it into a "you will see a red car" prophesy.

Fundies have this insane defend at all costs mentality. Instead of admitting the obvious they go through extreme mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.

Zeke made this prophesy after Nebby had already left with his "many armies". The prophesy clearly refers to him riding through the city of Tyre, which he never did. The Tyre of the prophecy was clearly the island city. It describes the land based towns as "her settlements".

And don't forget that this prophecy was a twofer.

Zeke also predicted that Nebby would attack and defeat Egypt. He attacked Egypt. He lost. I have not seen anyone even try to defend that part of the failed prophecy.

If you have any real questions I would be happy to help. Please no referrals to apologists who will do anything rather than to admit the simple truth. Zeke failed.

 

[bhsmte]

Having read some of the posts by dad I feel very sorry for him, his thinking has been twisted so badly.

I wouldn't feel sorry for him, he is just trying to fulfill a psychological need and doing it the way that comes natural for him.

When faced with the dilemma one faces when evidence goes against a firmly held belief, some will rethink their belief, some will eventually abandon their belief and others will fight, scratch and claw to hold onto the belief. This "twisting" is all part of the strong desire to hold onto the belief at all costs. The problem becomes, the more you twist, the further away you get from reality, but that doesn't matter to some.

 

[bhsmte]

Fundies have this insane defend at all costs mentality. Instead of admitting the obvious they go through extreme mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.



COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Leon Festinger (1957) proposed cognitive dissonance theory, which states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior. According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves; when they clash, a discrepancy is evoked, resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive dissonance. As the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it, and achieve consonance (i.e. agreement).
Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

sno explanation for the Big Bang huh? Good enough, thanks for trying to answer the other questions.

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang - YouTube

 

[Archaeopteryx]

actually I have heard of at least two to three creationists that are constantly being turned down in debate. Because evolutionists don't want to debate evolution from a rock in the public arena, they would much rather go to a forum that is unrelated to themselves and debate christians on the Bible to justify their own lack? Correct?

Of course scientists don't want to debate a strawman in the public arena. It would be a waste of their time.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be a waste of their time.

That's never stopped them before.

Where do you think we got Heroin, LSD, and prenatal Thalidomide?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

ok so back the real questions I have asked of you guys,

why is it that not one evolutionist will debate any one of the high profile creationists out there?

secondly, how is it the nothing exploded? In the Big bang?

What fueled it?

nothing can't fuel nothing correct?

Also explain how macro evolution is possible?

also how is it that That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

Alternatively, would you care to explain how God created everything? You could refer to Genesis, but it only raises more questions and it doesn't actually elucidate how God created, it merely states that he did. So what is your explanation?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's never stopped them before.

Where do you think we got Heroin, LSD, and prenatal Thalidomide?

I'm not following where you're going with this...?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's never stopped them before.

Where do you think we got Heroin, LSD, and prenatal Thalidomide?

Still beating this dead horse?

You have received your answer to this.

Perhaps whenever you bring up this nonsense we should bring up the evils done in the name of Christianity. Here AV, why don't you check out this website:


1000 years of Christian Barbarity

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I wouldn't feel sorry for him, he is just trying to fulfill a psychological need and doing it the way that comes natural for him.

Yes, it's rather like asking whether you should feel sorry for a skeletal drug addict with puncture marks up and down their arms. Is pity your first reaction? There is a strong parallel with people showing symptoms of the damage inflicted by fundamental religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not following where you're going with this...?

AV thinks that the past misuses or misapplications of science is a valid argument against science.

Of course by that logic the past evils of Christianity is a valid argument against Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not following where you're going with this...?

From Wikipedia:

Heroin (diacetylmorphine or morphine diacetate (INN)), also known as diamorphine (BAN), and colloquially as H, smack, horse, brown, black, tar, and other names, is an opioid analgesic synthesized by C.R. Alder Wright in 1874 by adding two acetyl groups to the molecule morphine, found in the opium poppy. It is the 3,6-diacetyl ester of morphine. Heroin itself is an active drug, but it is also converted into morphine in the body.

Did you catch that date, Archie?

1874

Does that raise any flags?

Okay ... let's continue.

I've been told that when Thalidomide was first manufactured, the prevailing theory was that no drug could pass through the placental wall to a child in the womb. (Yes, they're "children," not "fetuses.")

Anyway, think about it.

Do you know that children born today can be born addicted to ... guess what? ... Heroin!

Does that raise any flags?

This means, that unless scientists -- since 1874 -- have had their collective heads buried in the kitty litter, they should have known that drugs can indeed pass the placental barrier when Thalidomide was created in the lab.

Starting to make sense now?

Okay ... lets' take this further.

Thalidomide was created in a laboratory in 1957 in West Germany.

Does Germany ring a bell?

Scientists may have claimed afterward that they didn't test the placental wall because it was the prevailing theory at the time, but I question that.

So why did German scientists create this drug that deformed children in the womb?

Need you ask?

What did we do to Germany prior to 1957?

Just an idea I'm pushing around in my head.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

From Wikipedia:

Did you catch that date, Archie?

1874

Does that raise any flags?

Okay ... let's continue.

I've been told that when Thalidomide was first manufactured, the prevailing theory was that no drug could pass through the placental wall to a child in the womb. (Yes, they're "children," not "fetuses.")

Anyway, think about it.

Do you know that children born today can be born addicted to ... guess what? ... Heroin!

Does that raise any flags?

This means, that unless scientists -- since 1874 -- have had their collective heads buried in the kitty litter, they should have known that drugs can indeed pass the placental barrier when Thalidomide was created in the lab.

Starting to make sense now?

Okay ... lets' take this further.

Thalidomide was created in a laboratory in 1957 in West Germany.

Does Germany ring a bell?

Scientists may have claimed afterward that they didn't test the placental wall because it was the prevailing theory at the time, but I question that.

So why did German scientists create this drug that deformed children in the womb?

Need you ask?

What did we do to Germany prior to 1957?

Just an idea I'm pushing around in my head.

I still don't see how that relates to the point I made regarding scientists not wasting their time debating strawman arguments.