Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 11, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Godschild Wrote: Actually this is the perfect idea of evolutionary examination, always moving the target so evolution can be used to delude the gullible.
"I know you are, but what am I?" - typical response of a (gods)child with learning difficulties. Careful, or you might hurt your brain cell with all this "intellectual" effort.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
Actually, this is a perfect opportunity for GC to stand up and tell the class all about it. Here's the mic, GC, perhaps you could give some examples of instances of "evolutionary examination" behaving as you described? Be aware that you will be tested afterwards.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
February 11, 2015 at 11:57 pm (This post was last modified: February 12, 2015 at 12:03 am by DeistPaladin.)
(February 9, 2015 at 8:26 am)Spooky Wrote: In 15 words or less, your description of Christianity
Blood sacrifice makes everything better.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"Hey, there's something wrong with you because you have an opinion I don't like. I'm announcing that I intend to wish for you to be magically corrected and brought up to my standards. Not because I really believe that will happen, nor that I actually will talk to my imaginary genie friend; it's a passive-aggressive thing, to make myself feel superior to you. See what a great guy I am?"
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Faulty logic and a misrepresentation of reality. I've not seen a better representation of Christianity than the above.
In 15 words or less, your description of Christianity (or religion in general)
Faulty logic? Which one of you can rationalize the universe and it's existence? If you can't rationalize the creation, how do you propose to rationalize the creator?
While were on the subject of faulty logic, what about all you guys "believing" Denmark has a secular government when it is a FACT that it does not, and to this day, despite all the evidence presented, not one of you will acknowledge you were wrong.
(January 16, 2015 at 11:53 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 16, 2015 at 3:45 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Don't bother. You could explain, in parsimonious terms, things like nominal ascriptions, codified constitutions, the nature of governmental structures, de jure defacto, and so on, and stay dry all night here would still fail to get it.
Give him a plastic toy gun and this guy would still manage to shoot himself in the foot.
You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?
(January 3, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.
Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.
Quote:Of all the religions in Denmark, the most prominent is Christianity in the form of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion.
Quote: Let me briefly summarize what the State-church system implies:
• According to the constitution (§ 54), the Lutheran-evangelic Church is the Danish People’s Church (“Folkekirke”), and is, as such, supported by the State, which means that the Lutheran-evangelic religion and its institutions and churches are given a favored place among religions in Danish society. All tax-paying citizens, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, thus contribute to the priests and bishops of the “Folkekirke.”
• Practically all citizens are automatically born as members of the “Folkekirke.”Not to be so demands that the citizens take the initiative to leave the church. At present 83 percent of the Danish population belong to the “Folkekirke.”
Denmark, then, from one point of view is clearly a Christian country—as are by the same standards the other Scandinavian countries.
This amalgamates into what I for want of a better label would label a secularised Lutheranism as a dominant cosmology in Denmark. Although Denmark (and Sweden) is a country in which most of the citizens by tradition belong to the State church, Christianity as a religion does not characterize the life of any large segment of the population.
Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.
You're contradicting yourself dude.
I can't wait to hear your next excuse....
It appears Fidel_Castronaut changed his name to Pandæmonium
Then theres this post http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid613111
Upon mentioning that the words "slave" and "slaves" were only appear once in the King James Bible proving that there is a clear distinction between "slavery" and "servitude". According to Bad wolf, that's Just semantics.
(relevant parts in bold)
(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves. They were treated as property, they were not paid, and they could not leave whenever they wanted. The fact that you are appealing to word games is pathetic.
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave"
Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: they were paid a pittance. here is part of a post I found describing life in that time period.
Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves. They were not bought and passed around as property, they were not allowed to be beaten, and they could leave and quit their job whenever they want. Give up, you are just plain wrong on this
It's only semantics when it's not your argument right?
This is from the same thread starting here http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid615618
where Esquilax claims the words "property" and "possesion" mean the same thing.
(only quoiting the relevant points, feel free to read for yourself)
(March 4, 2014 at 7:15 am)Esquilax Wrote:
(March 4, 2014 at 6:59 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Show me in the King James Version of the Bible where it states that a servant/slave is property.
Okay, but I think it's interesting that you don't already know this:
"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
You kinda fucked up, there. That's the whole verse though, so no whining about context, and if you try to play if off by referring to the last sentence, I'll have to tell you again that that's restricted to the Jews only.
(March 4, 2014 at 8:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Look up the definition of "Property" and "Possession" . If you let me borrow a tool for instance it in in my possession but not my property. Get it? If someone sells themselves in to servitude then they come into their masters possession not property. because it is only for a limited time.
(March 6, 2014 at 2:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, what you've got is a false dichotomy, ass. Possession- the way you're characterizing it- and ownership are not the same thing. However, possession as a noun, the way the bible uses it, is the same thing as property. *
And, as Pinsir just pointed out, the two words are rather intimately connected, so even if your excuse wasn't just an anemic, dishonest attempt at dodging out of explaining yourself, you would still be wrong.
The bible calls these people "a possession," that you can pass down. Not something one takes possession of: a possession. AKA, a piece of property.
Now cut the shit and come clean.
(* underlined by Huggy)
(March 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: pos·ses·sion noun \-ˈze-shən also -ˈse-\
: the condition of having or owning something
: something that is owned or possessed by someone
law : the crime of having something that is illegal (such as a drug or weapon)
Full Definition of POSSESSION
a : the act of having or taking into control
b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership
c : ownership (i'll address later in this post)
Wikipedia on possession as it relates to law.
"In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership)."
Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not.
Ok lets define what an owner is.
dictionary.com
Owner
n. one who has legal title or right to something. Contrary to the cynical adage: "Possession is nine-tenths of the law," possession does not necessarily make one a legal owner. (See: own)
so to make it simple for you, if you own a car for instance it is your property and in your possession but if you let me borrow the car it then comes into my possession but it is not my property. so no, property and possession do not mean the same.
(March 6, 2014 at 2:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So Huggy, is it your claim that when the bible says you may "inherit them for a possession" that what it actually means is that you may literally not do that?
What is a possession, Huggy? Forget using the word as a verb, what's a possession? What does it mean, as a noun, like the bible uses it?
(March 6, 2014 at 3:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: And I gave you the definition as a noun like the bible uses it. How is this not clear?
pos·ses·sion noun \-ˈze-shən also -ˈse-\
: the condition of having or owning something
: something that is owned or possessed by someone
law : the crime of having something that is illegal (such as a drug or weapon)
Full Definition of POSSESSION
a : the act of having or taking into control
b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership
c : ownership
(March 6, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, go fuck yourself, you petty little asswipe.
Thiests don't hold a monopoly on "Faulty logic" a" "misrepresentation of reality".
The point is, you apparent haven't met a "Christian' that knows what they're talking about.
Your logic fails because you equate "Christians / so-called Christians" as being the same, and if you applied just a little bit of "critical thinking", you'd come to the conclusion that 41,000 christian denominations can't all be right, and in fact, Christianity had existed for around 300 years before the first denomination (Catholic) formed.
That said, being a christian is about having a personal experience, not about regurgitating what you're told. For example, if you've seen a UFO personally, who can tell you that you didn't? But try explaining a UFO story that you heard second hand, you'll never get the details correct.
Quote:For example, if you've seen a UFO personally, who can tell you that you didn't?
Literally anyone.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
![[Image: 54d7328eeee27_zpsmzejxk7b.jpeg~320x480]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=rs1309.pbsrc.com%2Falbums%2Fs624%2Fserickson87%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2F54d7328eeee27_zpsmzejxk7b.jpeg~320x480)
