Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2008 > Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:
|
|
| Alistair 2008-01-21, 6:56 pm |
| On 21 Jan, 14:48, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> The Bible clearly teaches that a person must be aware of right and
> wrong, and to choose wrong, to have guilt. Babies are innocent
> because they have not reached what is sometimes called "the age of
> accountability" when they become aware of such things.
>
> The reason to baptize babies is to come before the Church and publicly
> commit them to God, not for salvation. It is what happens in a person's
> own heart that condemns or excuses them, not what others may do for
> you or to you. Other people can influence you, but they can't determine
> your fate.
I thought that you and all christians labour under the belief that we
are all born with original sin. That would contradict what you say
above.
| |
| Alistair 2008-01-24, 6:56 pm |
| On 24 Jan, 15:29, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:19:29 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Assuming the Bible is God's Truth, isn't it Hubris to assume that all
> of those other believers got it wrong? =A0 =A0Maybe it's bigger than one
> person's understanding.
If the bible were god's word then it must be truth.
If it is truth then the modern interpretations and emphases placed
upon passages of the bible would, should they differ from historical
interpretations, mean that the only true believers are the modern
believers or that subset of the religious faithful who have not been
misled in their interpretations.
In other words: most christians have not followed the bible properly
and will be condemned to Judson's eternal pit of flame and brimstone.
| |
| Alistair 2008-01-25, 6:56 pm |
| On 25 Jan, 14:55, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> Okay, let's look at it another way, which I actually prefer. What I'm trying
> to establish here is that athiests believe what they do because they want to
> believe it, not because there is no evidence for God.
No atheist that I know of has started out by believing in atheism and
refuting god. We all started with a belief in our gods (I certainly
did and so have all members of my family) and had our eyes opened (by
the wickedness and inequity of the world). Eventually, we all
renounced god based upon the lack of objective evidence.
I consider myself to have been fortunate in that although both of my
parents were atheists neither attempted to stop me from studying
religion or attempted to force me in to atheism. Unfortunately, the
same can not be said of religious people (who would discourage atheism
on the point of a sword).
> At the bottom line,
> having faith in something is being willing to cling to that belief, even in
> the face of what may appear to be contradictory evidence or experience.
If there is irrefutable and reliable contradictory evidence, produce
it. Put up or shut up.
> Thus, the underlying principle of faith is that the
> person exhibiting faith does so because they want to have that faith.
That does not explain those who know no better and those who are
forced by threat of violence to stay faithful (Muslims who renounce
their faith in Islam and convert to christianity are stoned to death
in some parts of the world).
This
> is one popular premise upon which athiests denigrate faith in God, because
> it is "based on faith," implying it is not also based on evidence.
If there is irrefutable and reliable evidence, produce it. Put up or
shut up.
>
> I accept that you probably believe that statement, but I do not accept it as
> true for a moment. My contention is that you (along with all athiests and
> non-believers), plain and simply, do not want to believe or accept the existence
> of God. You can't accept the idea that there just might be a God out there to
> Whom you may have to give account and be responsible, and you are unwilling to
> submit your will and life to that God, even if the proof of His existence is
> undeniable.
This is easily answered:
1. There is no irrefutable and reliable evidence for a deity of any
form.
2. If there were irrefutable and reliable evidence then there would be
no such thing as an atheist.
3. Atheists refute the existence of any deity because they do not see
any irrefutable or reliable evidence for the existence of such a
deity.
If there were any irrefutable and reliable evidence for a deity it
would be for the first deity (which in my chronology would be Amun)
and not for some Johnny-Come-Lately like God or Allah. If there were a
deity then just because your philosophy recognises a deity existent
for 4000 years does not make yours the TRUE GOD. Nor do the superior
numbers of christian believers (2.8 billion?) add weight to your
argument. After all, the TRUE GOD, AMUN, is known only to a faithful
few.
Now prove to me that the christian god:
a. exists,
b. is not some puffed up pathetic Midionite storm god in new togas,
c. any more valid than the TRUE GOD, AMUN.
Please do so without refernce to pagan texts such as the bible or the
scribblings of madmen in Rome.
| |
| Alistair 2008-01-27, 9:56 pm |
| On 25 Jan, 17:13, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
rying[color=darkred]
nt to[color=darkred]
>
>
> The Bible says the human heart is wicked, and when you see the truth
> of that, you reject God on that basis, while at the same rejecting the
> truth of it? Amazing!
The bible says that the human heart is wicked? I presume that the
bible also subscribes to the idea that our vision derives from light
beams sourced in our eyes?
The heart is not a seat of emotion nor of morality. The bible is
wrong.
>
n in[color=darkred]
Stubborness in the light of superior evidence.
[color=darkred]
>
>
> It's a hypothetical question, Alistair, designed to illustrate actual moti=
ves. :-)
Give me some refutabale/irrefutable hypothetical evidence. Let me re-
iterate. I gave god more time to pervert my life than he had any right
to expect. If I now choose to refute any supernatuarl ghostly being
then: tough. He/She/It is too late.
>
>
>
> Agreed. My challenge has nothing to do with that.
>
use[color=darkred]
>
>
> Again, hypothetical question. You never posed or answered a hypothetical
> question? My, my, such heat. Struck a nerve, did I? I thought so. :-)
>
I am being more polite to you and giving you more of my life than I
would allow a gnat. If you are gods messenger then either his message
is sorely flawed or his messenger is wanting.
>
>
>
>
it[color=darkred]
>
it as[color=darkred]
nd[color=darkred]
existence[color=darkred]
ere to[color=darkred]
ling to[color=darkred]
ce is[color=darkred]
>
..[color=darkred]
>
> Again, side stepping the issue without answering the question. Are you
> afraid to answer a hypothetical question? Answer: Yes, because it would
> reveal your true motives. Prove me wrong: answer my challenge with a
> simple "yes" or "no". :-)
You continued side-stewpping and obfuscation has caused me to forget
your so-called original question. So, let us play another game: put up
the irrefutable evidence or shut up.
>
>
> See? more obfuscation and misdirection, without answering my
> simple question.
I'm just using your blind tactic against you. Don't like it? Coinvert
to the TRUE GOD, AMUN. BTW, as the first monotheism his religion
predates yours and has more right to respect than yours.
>
>
> Didn't claim I had the proof; I asked a simple hypothetical question,
> which you are clearly unwilling to answer. Q.E.D. :-)
So, your god does exist and is a puffed up Midionite?
> --
> Judson McClendon =A0 =A0 =A0 ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems =A0 =A0http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| |
| Alistair 2008-01-27, 9:57 pm |
| On 25 Jan, 17:47, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> God created humans without flaw or sin, but gave them free will to choose
> good or evil. Humans chose to sin and "poison our nest." (good phrase,
> by the way. :-)
I was thinking of rats when I used that phrase.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Belief in a god is subjective. Any belief in science is objective. The
difference is that one can be tested but the other can not.
> You can prove that 100% objectivity to my satisfaction by answering the
> challenge. Would you believe and submit to God if evidence you yourself
> considered unquestionable and deniable were presented to you that the
> Bible is true? So, 100% objective, evidence based, or not? Not! :-)
I think that I have already said:
1. I have already undergone that challenge and found there is no
evidence to support your case;
2. I have challenged you repeatedly to put up the evidence or to shut
up. Neither of which you have complied with;
3. If there were undeniable and irrefutable evidence for god (there
is not) then I would believe. Unfortunatley for you, there is no
undeniable irrefutable evidence and you have failed to live up to your
challenge and have not provided any evidence to date. So
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
>
>
> The premise you use to argue that is that my beliefs are "only" founded
> "on faith," whereas yours are founded on "evidence".
My belief system is founded on verifiable evidence. Your belief system
is founded on superstitions dating bach more than 2000 years. Whereas
I stand on the shoulders of giants you stand on the backs of those who
prostrate themselves before an unknowable unseeable omniscient
omnipotent omnipresent ghost perceived only by few (of dubious
sanity).
> If evidence is your
> only criteria, then your answer to my challenge should be clear. But you
> will not answer my hypothetical question because evidence is not the
> *real* issue for you.
>
How many times do I have to say PUT UP OR SHUT UP?
vers,[color=darkred]
e[color=darkred]
>
>
> A religion doesn't require a divinity. In the place that believers put God=
,
> you put atheism.
Atheism is not a religion. All religions to my knowledge have deities
or ghost-like spirits and mythologies which do not bear examination.
> Believers expect to go to Heaven after death because of
> their beliefs; you expect to cease to exist at death because of your belie=
fs.
Wrong. I expect to cease to exist because there is nothing thereafter.
I do not expect to cease to exist because I believe that I will cease
to exist. Subtle difference.
> Believers take comfort in their belief in God, you take comfort in your
> belief you won't have to face God. It is your religion. :-)
That is like the alcoholic muslim who's behaviour results in his
sister's death. He accepts that god made it so, so he does not accept
any responsibility for his own behaviour. Unlike people promised an
afterlife I accept responsibility for my own actions. I also recognise
that this world would be a better place without the lies and
hypocrises of religions (christianity and Islam to name but two).
> --
> Judson McClendon =A0 =A0 =A0 ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems =A0 =A0http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| |
| Alistair 2008-01-27, 9:57 pm |
| On 25 Jan, 17:50, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> At least one person - myself - accepts your challenge. =A0But bear in mind=
> that you have to convince me by MY standards, not yours. =A0So if you star=
t by
> saying "Assume God exists ..." then we part company immediately. =A0You've=
got
> to define God - an you'll find that a very sticky wicket - and state your
> postulates, and go from there. =A0(If one of your arguments is that the Bi=
ble
> is the word of God, then so is the Koran).
>
I could not have said it better myself.
| |
| Alistair 2008-01-29, 6:56 pm |
| On 25 Jan, 17:13, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> The Bible says the human heart is wicked, and when you see the truth
> of that, you reject God on that basis, while at the same rejecting the
> truth of it? Amazing!
The heart is not the seat of morality. I do not blame humans for being
immoral nor do I blame them for inequity. I do not, however, see any
evidence for anything supernatural.
>
>
>
> Again, hypothetical question. You never posed or answered a hypothetical
> question? My, my, such heat. Struck a nerve, did I? I thought so. :-)
>
No, I am getting  at your refusal to recognise the truth. I also
regret that my arguments are not eloquent enough to dissuade you from
evangelising.
>
> Again, side stepping the issue without answering the question. Are you
> afraid to answer a hypothetical question? Answer: Yes, because it would
> reveal your true motives. Prove me wrong: answer my challenge with a
> simple "yes" or "no". :-)
There was no side-stepping. You clearly have no concept of logic.
>
| |
| Alistair 2008-01-30, 6:56 pm |
| On 30 Jan, 01:53, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Then I apologize. That was not my intent. :-)
Yes. Thanks. I also feel that I owe you an apology for losing my
temper here too. Sorry.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-04, 6:56 pm |
| On 4 Feb, 21:51, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> Even so, no one is saved by their actions. Everyone has "fallen short"
> of what God demands (Romans 3:21-23), and nobody is acceptable to God
> except through faith in Jesus (Acts 4:10-12). Jesus is the only Man
> Who ever lived a life acceptable to God, and no other human will ever
> see heaven, apart from accepting God's grace through believing in the
> atoning work of Jesus Christ. Our work is to accept God's plan of
> salvation (John 6:29). We obey God to please Him *because* of what He
> has done for us, and also because of Who He is.
Having seen something of Monty Python's Life of Brian this w
(again) perhaps one could ask a simple question:
was Jesus the only person acclaimed as a messiah around that period?
I only ask because it may be that there were others who were acclaimed
as messiah (and probably died for our sins too) but don't get due
credit. After all, we are required by the bible to stone to death
those who claim to be prophets and messiahs and therefore anyone
setting themselves up as a prophet/messiah are unlikely to live a full
and useful life.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-04, 6:56 pm |
| On 4 Feb, 22:43, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 4 Feb, 21:51, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Having seen something of Monty Python's Life of Brian this w
> (again) perhaps one could ask a simple question:
>
> was Jesus the only person acclaimed as a messiah around that period?
>
> I only ask because it may be that there were others who were acclaimed
> as messiah (and probably died for our sins too) but don't get due
> credit. After all, we are required by the bible to stone to death
> those who claim to be prophets and messiahs and therefore anyone
> setting themselves up as a prophet/messiah are unlikely to live a full
> and useful life.
Don't answer that. The last messiah, in a long list of claimants to
that title (including females) died in 1994.
| |
| tim Josling 2008-02-06, 7:55 am |
| On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:57:26 -0800, Alistair wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 19:58, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> So again you opt for a far-fetched fallacious option.
Also the inconvenient fact that certain landmarks that persist to this day
are mentioned in genesis. In spite of all of the above, these survived.
Tim
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-06, 6:56 pm |
| On 6 Feb, 00:56, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No offense, but you clearly don't understand. :-) Christians live
> under the "New Conevant" of Grace through faith in Jesus Christ,
> not the "Old Covenant" of sacrifices under the Mosaic Law. (Romans
> 6:14-15, Galatians 5:4, etc., etc.). That "Old Covenant" passed
> away with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
So, christians are to ignore the OT and treat it as amusing light
entertainment?
>
>
>
>
> So, you conclude that no evidence means they did? :-)
Nice try but no. I believe that they were all opportunistic frauds.
And that includes JC.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-06, 6:56 pm |
| On 6 Feb, 03:06, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The water, no. The lowering of the continents and rising of the
> sea floors to make the water overflow the mountains, yes. :-)
All in 6000 years or less! The speed of such moving continents would
have given their inhabitants whiplash.
>
>
>
> (Genesis 7:11)
> =A0 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month,
> =A0 the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains
> =A0 of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven
> =A0 were opened.
So, 6000 - 600 =3D 5400 years. How long after the formation of the earth
by god was it that Noah was born? Lets give it 2000 years and that
reduces the time since Noah to 3400 years. That brings me back to
whiplash (twice - once for the accelaration and once for the
deccelaration).
>
> The phrase "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up"
> sounds like something under the oceans was breaking up.
Sounds like another fairy tale to me.
>
>
>
> They used to think the same thing about diamonds. Now they can
> produce perfect diamonds quickly. Same with crude oil.
I'm talking about natural processes. If you deny these and subscribe
to the ludicrous notion of an almighty being then who cares how long
it takes.
> In the
> 1990's the US DOE did a public demonstration where they placed
> water and compost into a large drum, applied great heat and
> pressure, and produced crude oil in about 40 minutes. They were
> examining the feasibility and economics of producing crude oil
> directly from plant material (compost) as an alternative fuel
> source. I believe the problem was economics; it took too much
> energy to be economical.
>
>
>
> When hurricane Camille struck Mississippi and Lousiana in the 1960's,
> there was a strip along the beach where *everything* was washed away,
> including all vegetation, roadways, concrete foundations and underground
> pipes for a mile or more inland. That was caused by ocean waves from a
> big hurricane, which would be *nothing* compared to a 5 kilometer high
> tsunami sweeping over the continent, followed by a flood of ocean water
> thousands of feet deep, probably lasting for days, maybe ws. That
> would be sufficient to erode down to the bedrock, let alone remove all
> vegetation. :-)
The beaches in Thailand were not swept away. Wrong again Judson.
>
>
>
> According to wikianswers.com: "A 50 Kilo human has about 7 tablespoons
> of salt within him." At that rate, several billion tons of dinosaurs in
> an enormous pile several miles across and hundreds, maybe thousands, of
> feet deep, is a lot of salt. There would also be salt in the plants too,
> but I don't know if it would be enough to completely explain the salt
> domes. :-)
So now you believe that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans?
Take it from me that it doesn't provide enough salt.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-06, 6:56 pm |
| On 6 Feb, 03:56, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
>
> I'm not talking about autogenesis. I'm talking about a female impregnated by
> male sperm without intercourse. Happens hundreds of times a year.
>
> Here's the first Google entry on the subject:http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/395813
Also happens by men jacking off in the bath and women being
contaminated thereafter.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-09, 6:55 pm |
| On 6 Feb, 22:05, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All within a year. And it killed everyone, except for those 8 people on
> Noah's ark. That was the purpose of the flood. :-)
So how come we have black, brown, red and yellow skinned people on the
planet? If the flood occured less than 6000 years ago (the maximum age
for the universe according to you and the bible) then did god create
them after the flood or DID THEY EVOLVE FROM NOAH (whom I presume was
white)?
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-12, 6:55 pm |
| On 11 Feb, 14:34, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
om[color=darkred]
>
ch[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
> Duh! No "evolution" involved.We know for a fact that donkeys and ponies
> and Clydesdales came from a single original stock, and we know that every
> species of dog also came from a single original stock. Wolves are essentia=
lly
> "generic dogs." This was genetically proved within the last 20 years. Such=
> amazing adaptability was built into the genetic makeup by a wise Creator.
> Sorry, but your rejection of that is no evidence against it. :-)
> --
> Judson McClendon =A0 =A0 =A0 ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems =A0 =A0http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Au contraire. You have proven and disproven nothiong at all. My
conjecture stands: either not all men were wiped out or else the
racial types have evolved since the flood (assuming that you believe
in the bible).
Wolves may have been ancestors of modern dogs (derived from China/
Siberia and only proven in the last 5 years). Dogs are deemed to be a
separate species from the wolf.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-13, 6:55 pm |
| On 13 Feb, 15:00, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Didn't say I proved anything. I said a worldwide genetic study of all
> canines lasting several years proved beyond doubt that all dogs came
> from the same original stock.
Dating back over 100,000 years but that doesn't fit with your view
that the world is 6000 years old.
> Various canine breeds are virtually all
> created by humans through selective breeding. This does prove that
> the extensive variety of dogs were obtained in a relatively short time
100,000 years or more. Short in geological terms or in the lifetime of
humanity. But much longer than 6000 years.
> through selective breeding, not evolution => the same principle can
> do the same thing in humans, also in a relatively short time without
> evolution.
It has taken modern man a similarly long period of time to lose his
black pigmentation to his skin. I expect that for humans to evolve the
varieties of skin colours available would take at least as long a
period of time (100,000 years or more).
> The study was also said to prove *conclusively* that
> wolves are, indeed, dogs,
You got that arse about face. You should have said that dogs are
really wolves. However, dogs are not wolves even though they are
capable of breeding with wolves (as are coyotes and something else
that runs around in the USA (can't remember what). But then lions and
tigers can be cross bred too.
> which was previously thought not to be
> the case. But I didn't do the study, or make the conclusions; the
> geneticists who conducted the study did that. :-)
So, assuming that you believe the study do you agree with their dating
of the divergance of the wolf and dog lines occured 100,000 years ago
or are you going to suggest that it only happened in the last 6000
years?
|
|
|
|
|