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!
(March 4, 2015 at 4:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Now THAT is a bald faced lie.
We already know you have a selective memory, how about providing the link to support to that claim?
You actually made the situation far, far worse for yourself than if you'd just shut the hell up and accepted your own idiotic behavior. And what was that about me lying? I found three references to that exact argument coming from you: I guess you were the one lying here, eh?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
The point I was making though is that the construction of the pryramid would have defied the laws of physics, which the example of coral castle proves. How can a single man move a 30 ton stone? No one is saying it's magic. The popular theory is that it was anti-gravity, which is far beyond our technological level.
Good god, are you still going on about coral castle, even after I linked you to what the man who built the fucking thing said about it the last time? Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is Huggy.
For the record, the builder admitted that he built the castle using simple principles of leverage. Your argument from ignorance holds no water, even if we ignore the fallacy: you're asking us to believe the incredulity of a dullard who has never met the man who built the place, over the words of the man himself, and a friend of his who saw the work being done. I don't know why you think that holds any appeal at all.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join!--->There's an app and everything!<---
March 4, 2015 at 2:17 pm (This post was last modified: March 4, 2015 at 2:20 pm by Brakeman.)
(March 4, 2015 at 8:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The point I was making though is that the construction of the pryramid would have defied the laws of physics, which the example of coral castle proves. How can a single man move a 30 ton stone? No one is saying it's magic. The popular theory is that it was anti-gravity, which is far beyond our technological level.
Given the equivalent monies of the Pharaoh's expenses we can rebuild the Pyramids with ease. No magic required.
You are the believer and the proponent of Magic. EVERYTHING god said and did was exclusively a MAGIC show. He must have tons of the magic sparkle fairy dust! Name one single thing god did in the bible you believe in that didn't violate the rules of physics??? Where did his magic come from? How does it work?
March 4, 2015 at 2:29 pm (This post was last modified: March 4, 2015 at 3:16 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
(March 4, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(March 4, 2015 at 8:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Granted.
The point I was making though is that the construction of the pryramid would have defied the laws of physics, which the example of coral castle proves. How can a single man move a 30 ton stone? No one is saying it's magic. The popular theory is that it was anti-gravity, which is far beyond our technological level.
Good god, are you still going on about coral castle, even after I linked you to what the man who built the fucking thing said about it the last time? Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is Huggy.
For the record, the builder admitted that he built the castle using simple principles of leverage. Your argument from ignorance holds no water, even if we ignore the fallacy: you're asking us to believe the incredulity of a dullard who has never met the man who built the place, over the words of the man himself, and a friend of his who saw the work being done. I don't know why you think that holds any appeal at all.
Hey, look at that! I was right to reserve judgement in favor of the possibility of a natural explanation. See, Huggy? We both approached the same claim with two different epistemological styles. You went whole-hog and bought it. I decided that even though I couldn't give an explanation, a supernatural one wasn't reasonable. I decided it seemed more reasonable to assume a natural explanation existed rather than biting bait. One of our approaches to knowledge has been shown to be less reliable. Can you tell why that is?
(March 4, 2015 at 8:42 am)Huggy74 Wrote: why are you posting a video of Jamal Bryant? The Guy is a crook.
March 4, 2015 at 8:14 pm (This post was last modified: March 4, 2015 at 8:50 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(March 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Actually, I did misremember slightly: we weren't talking about rape, but slavery.The word "slave" does not appear, and therefore it cannot be slavery.
So it WAS a bald faced lie then?
It's not SLAVERY Because you cannot FORCE someone into servitude ,it was a mutual contract, this practice still on in places like Haiti, where my mother in-law (wife is Haitian) has live in servants, in exchange for food and shelter, no one forced it on them, it was just better than the alternative.
(March 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Incidentally, you really shouldn't have challenged me on this point, because I'm having genuine trouble picking between instances of you using this exact same argument whenever it's convenient for you. Over multiple topics, in fact: Here's you asserting that the bible doesn't say you can own people as property, because it uses the word "possession" not "property."
Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not.
Quote:Exodus 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
"Stealing" is taking into your possession something that is not your property without consent. As you can see the Bible forbids this. If a person chooses to come under someones possession, he has every right to make that choice.
What two consenting adults agree to is between THEM, right?
The words "Slave" and "Slavery" each appear once in the KJV, and neither is speaking of one person owning another.
Also I'm still waiting on you to back up your statement.
(March 4, 2014 at 9:04 am)Esquilax Wrote: And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.
(March 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And here's you, in one of your most ridiculous moments, asserting that a particular homeopathic fraud can't be religious in nature because it's only called the "Jesus Shot," and the word "Christ" is never used.
You actually made the situation far, far worse for yourself than if you'd just shut the hell up and accepted your own idiotic behavior. And what was that about me lying? I found three references to that exact argument coming from you: I guess you were the one lying here, eh?
This is my exact quote
Quote:once again with the assumptions, where in the story that you linked, does it say anything about "Christ" or even states the man is religious? Because it's called the "Jesus shot"? Jesus is a pretty common name, besides it states in the story and I quote “I don’t know why [Lonergan] calls it that.” So I guess that makes it religious the same way scientists referring to the Higgs boson as the "God" particle makes them religious.
look I consider myself a christian, but believe religion to be evil, and can still realize this story has nothing to do with religion, just a sick individual.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...esus-shot/
The title of your link was "Three hundred dollars for a little Christ in your bloodstream." My question to you was "where is Christ mentioned in that specific story"?
If you can find it, let me know.
Don't get mad at me because your source of news just makes vague references and doesn't go into detail, that's just shoddy journalism.
(March 4, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote: For the record, the builder admitted that he built the castle using simple principles of leverage. Your argument from ignorance holds no water, even if we ignore the fallacy: you're asking us to believe the incredulity of a dullard who has never met the man who built the place, over the words of the man himself, and a friend of his who saw the work being done. I don't know why you think that holds any appeal at all.
Quote:When people asked Leedskalnin how he had moved all of the stone by himself, he refused to give over his method and would only reply to whoever was asking with the same statement: "I understand the laws of weight and leverage and I know the secrets of the people who built the pyramids (being those at the site at Giza in Egypt)."
Quote:Magnetism
Leedskalnin's other four pamphlets addressed his theories on the interaction of electricity, magnetism and the body; Leedskalnin also included a number of simple experiments to validate his theories.
Contradicting the standard model of electromagnetism, his thesis is based upon the theory that the metal itself is not the magnet and that the real magnets are circulating in the metal. These individual north and south pole magnets are particles smaller than atoms or photons and each particle in the substance was an individual magnet by itself.
Leedskalnin claimed that all matter was being acted upon by what he called "individual magnets". He also claimed that scientists of his time were looking in the wrong place for their understanding of electricity and that they were only observing "one half of the whole concept" with "one sided tools of measurement". For instance:
Quote:Magnets in general are indestructible. For instance you can burn wood and flesh. You can destroy the body, but you cannot destroy the magnets that hold together the body. They go somewhere else. Iron has more magnets than wood, and every different substance has a different number of magnets that hold the substance together. If I make a battery with copper for positive terminal and beef for negative terminal I get more magnets out of it than when I used copper for positive terminal and sweet potato for negative terminal. From this you can see that no two things are alike.
Quote:"Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means, such as lifters, which fly in the air by using electromagnetic fields.
(March 4, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So it was a bald faced lie then?
Lies, by definition, require intentional dishonesty. I merely had a lapse in memory, like the kind I'm sure everyone has every day, and I corrected it immediately once I found out. The thread in question is two years old, it's not amazingly strange that I'd forget at least parts of it, and if you weren't desperately scrabbling for reasons to disagree, you'd understand that. For a normal person, it'd be a simple matter to just accept that a brain fart happened, but as your signature shows, your standard operating procedure when people are mistaken is to either crow relentlessly about it, or dash to assume nefarious intent.
Like a child would.
Quote:It's not SLAVERY Because you cannot FORCE someone into servitude ,it was a mutual contract, this practice still on in places like Haiti, where my mother in-law (wife is Haitian) has live in servants, in exchange for food and shelter, no one forced it on them, it was just better than the alternative.
I don't want to derail this thread, but the thread I linked to has the answer: you're only talking about Jews enslaving Jews, not Jews enslaving anyone else, which is not a contract business... but then, since this is all about the ridiculous lengths you're willing to go to to preserve a shitty belief, I don't doubt you'll maintain what you say regardless. Reasonable people can see the thread, though; it's there, so it's not like you can hide behind ignorance, like you like to.
Quote:Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not.
Yeah, see, exactly the ridiculous bullshit I was talking about.
Leviticus Wrote:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
If you can purchase people, it entails that you "possess" them as property; purchasing things is literally what that means, by definition.
Quote:Also I'm still waiting on you to back up your statement.
(March 4, 2014 at 9:04 am)Esquilax Wrote: And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.
Exodus Wrote:When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
I've done this before. Your ridiculous response was that this says it is okay if you beat them, not that you should. Quibbles like that are exactly what I was referring to, when I pointed out your selective, self serving literalism. You lose the ability to read context clues or see consequences whenever it's convenient to you.
Quote:This is my exact quote
Quote:once again with the assumptions, where in the story that you linked, does it say anything about "Christ" or even states the man is religious? Because it's called the "Jesus shot"? Jesus is a pretty common name, besides it states in the story and I quote “I don’t know why [Lonergan] calls it that.” So I guess that makes it religious the same way scientists referring to the Higgs boson as the "God" particle makes them religious.
look I consider myself a christian, but believe religion to be evil, and can still realize this story has nothing to do with religion, just a sick individual.
Why do you think repeating a ridiculous quote makes it better? You're willing to claim that he just picked a random, unrelated name for the shot, blind to the significance that the name "Jesus" has, rather than take part in the simple cultural context clue that anyone else would make. Absurd, self serving literalism. The fact that you're still okay with it is the point: you are a terrible, dishonest debater.
Quote:If you can demonstrate moving 30 tons by using hand tools and leverage, by all means do so.
Yes, I'm aware you love to shift the burden of proof, in aid of your arguments from ignorance. That doesn't suddenly mean it's okay.
Quote:When people asked Leedskalnin how he had moved all of the stone by himself, he refused to give over his method and would only reply to whoever was asking with the same statement: "I understand the laws of weight and leverage and I know the secrets of the people who built the pyramids (being those at the site at Giza in Egypt)."
Yeah, the pyramids were built by utilizing weight and leverage. Your are reading in additional information not present in the quote because it suits your argument, but nobody else is required to share in your unjustified presupposition of magic or sci fi technology. You can't cover for an assertion with a quote that doesn't say what you think it says, and then a repetition of the assertion.
Quote:You know what? It totally sounds like he moved the stones with hand tools and "leverage"
So what if he had some ideas? Doesn't mean they worked; in fact, if they didn't- and you have no evidence at all that they did- then he would be forced to use the standard laws of physics in his construction. Once again, you're making an argument that only functions if you presuppose the truth of the argument and ignore the fact that it's completely unjustified.
So do I. Doesn't mean I'm a millionaire with a sexy butler, even though that's the content of my book. Surprisingly, people can write books about things that aren't real. Deepak Chopra has made a living out of it, though you probably believe his crap too, since he wrote it down and you can't think of another way his success could have happened.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
March 4, 2015 at 10:17 pm (This post was last modified: March 4, 2015 at 11:49 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(March 4, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I don't want to derail this thread, but the thread I linked to has the answer: you're only talking about Jews enslaving Jews, not Jews enslaving anyone else, which is not a contract business...
Too late, you opened Pandora's box, you should of known better.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:34
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. - Exodus 23:9
(March 4, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
Quote:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
If you can purchase people, it entails that you "possess" them as property; purchasing things is literally what that means, by definition.
Who do you think received the money for this transaction? It was the guy selling himself into servitude for a SPECIFIED time or until Jubilee when everyone was free by default.
Quote:Leviticus 25
13 In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.
See? In jubile they had to relinquish possession by default, they were NOT property.
Quote:Genesis 29
15 And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?
16 And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
19 And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.
You failed to answer my question, I'll ask again.
What two consenting adults agree to is between THEM right?
(March 4, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
Exodus Wrote:When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
I've done this before. Your ridiculous response was that this says it is okay if you beat them, not that you should. Quibbles like that are exactly what I was referring to, when I pointed out your selective, self serving literalism. You lose the ability to read context clues or see consequences whenever it's convenient to you.
Again with the faulty translation
Quote:Exodus 21
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
Quote:Exodus 21
18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
See verse 12
Quote:Exodus 21
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
See verse 19
The reason he doesn't have to pay the servant for his time is because HE ALREADY PAID HIM when he agreed to be a servant.
Quote:Exodus 21
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
So, NO the Bible does NOT condone beating your servant, if you did so and maimed them, it voided the contract, and you lost your investment.
(March 4, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Why do you think repeating a ridiculous quote makes it better? You're willing to claim that he just picked a random, unrelated name for the shot, blind to the significance that the name "Jesus" has, rather than take part in the simple cultural context clue that anyone else would make. Absurd, self serving literalism. The fact that you're still okay with it is the point: you are a terrible, dishonest debater.
The point was, the story wasn't about "religion" it was about a guy that was mentally ill, yet you wanted to focus the story on religion when the story never mentioned religion in the first place, just simply "Jesus".
Got it?
(March 4, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, I'm aware you love to shift the burden of proof, in aid of your arguments from ignorance. That doesn't suddenly mean it's okay.
you stated that he used "leverage" as if it was fact. Surely you can find some evidence of 30 tons being moved and transported in this manner. Never mind the fact that no one ever witnessed him actually moving the stone, since he only worked at night. Explain how it's possible to cut a stone, transport it 10 miles from the quarry, and erect it in a single night using just "hand tools " and"leverage".
(March 4, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, the pyramids were built by utilizing weight and leverage. Your are reading in additional information not present in the quote because it suits your argument, but nobody else is required to share in your unjustified presupposition of magic or sci fi technology. You can't cover for an assertion with a quote that doesn't say what you think it says, and then a repetition of the assertion.
Here you go.
Quote:
Line between (1) and (21): Alexandria and Giza, Egypt
Line between (1) and (12): Jerusalem, Israel
Line between (11) and (20): Stonehenge, England
(12): The ancient city of Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan
(13): Pyramids around the city Xian, China
(14): The Devil's Sea or Dragon's Triangle
(17): Megalithic sites of Tiwanaku, Bolivia
(18): The Bermuda Triangle, and Coral Castle in Florida
Line between (18) and (37): Bimini Road, Bimini
Line between (18) and (33): Pyramid of Kukulcán, Yucatán
Line between (20) and (2): Ruins of Djémila, Algeria
Line between (21) and (12): Ruins of Axum, Ethiopia
(25): The temple of Angkor Wat, Cambodia
(26): Megalithic sites, Sarawak and Borneo
(28): The megalithic city of Nan Madol, Pohnpei
(35): Megalithic sites and the Nazca lines, Peru
(40): Ancient mines and structures, Zimbabwe
(47): Megalithic sites and statues, Easter Island
(62): South Pole, Antartica
Quote: Many megalithic sites from over the world seem to be build at or nearby an intersection of ley lines, including the large pyramids from various ancient cultures, by which they are connected to each other like in a network.
As you can see, coral castle is situated at one of the intersections.
I'm sure this is just one HUGE coincidence
(March 4, 2015 at 10:17 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Too late, you opened Pandora's box, you should of known better.
Yeah, because a constant barrage of arguments from ignorance is so terrifying.
Quote: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:34
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. - Exodus 23:9
So, at best this is a contradiction. The other passages aren't erased just because you can point to another passage that says something different. It's already pretty well established that the bible says a lot of crisscrossing, contradictory things that allow you to interpret it any way you like.
Quote:Who do you think received the money for this transaction? It was the guy selling himself into servitude for a SPECIFIED time or until Jubilee when everyone was free by default.
The specified time was for Jews enslaving other Jews, you unbelievable idiot. The passage I quoted specifically uses the term "permanent inheritance" as the thing you do with your foreign slaves; this isn't some temporary deal, you can pass them down to your children permanently.
There's also absolutely no indication that the money gets paid to the slaves themselves- in fact that contradicts the whole basis of the instruction- and the language doesn't support that interpretation either, but since this is all about the desperate scrabbling you do to interpret everything according to the conclusion you came to before even starting the conversation, you're just kinda proving my point here.
Quote:
Quote:Leviticus 25
13 In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.
See? In jubile they had to relinquish possession by default, they were NOT property.
Oh, so if I give away something, it was never my property to begin with? Or do you understand how ridiculous your logic is in every other situation but the one that suits your own ends?
Quote:You failed to answer my question, I'll ask again.
What two consenting adults agree to is between THEM right?
Yes, but you're equivocating wildly, and you know that. The bible doesn't specify that consent needs to be a part of slavery, in fact there's a New Testament parable that Jesus tells, where returning a slave that escaped is painted as a good act; are you telling me that the slave literally running away from slavery still consented to be a slave?
Quote:Again with the faulty translation
It's the NIV, an official version of the bible. You disagreeing with it does not mean the translation is dodgy, it means that you don't like it, but your personal fucking preferences are not the sole arbiter of whether bible translations count, and I certainly am not limited to only things Huggy likes, when I'm arguing.
Quote:See verse 19
The reason he doesn't have to pay the servant for his time is because HE ALREADY PAID HIM when he agreed to be a servant.
Right, so you're allowed to beat your slaves so hard that they die, just so long as they don't do it immediately. And this is a special category of violence, made just for slaves, where free men are treated differently... and yet you say there's no distinction between a free man and a slave, so... oh, look: another contradiction.
Quote:The point was, the story wasn't about "religion" it was about a guy that was mentally ill, yet you wanted to focus the story on religion when the story never mentioned religion in the first place, just simply "Jesus".
Oh, is Jesus not a big part of christianity? Or are you just being ridiculous again?
Quote:you stated that he used "leverage" as if it was fact.
Well, when the guy who literally did it said so, and when an eyewitness who was a friend of the guy corroborates that, I think that's better evidence than you, who's never even met the guy, baselessly asserting you know more than the person who literally built the place.
Quote: Surely you can find some evidence of 30 tons being moved and transported in this manner. Never mind the fact that no one ever witnessed him actually moving the stone, since he only worked at night. Explain how it's possible to cut a stone, transport it 10 miles from the quarry, and erect it in a single night using just "hand tools " and"leverage".
So, I point out the argument from ignorance and burden shifting, and you respond with... an argument from ignorance, and burden shifting. Well, at least you're consistent.
Quote:As you can see, coral castle is situated at one of the intersections.
I'm sure this is just one HUGE coincidence
I bet I could make the coral castle appear to be a part of a drawing of Snoopy, if I got to pick and choose which locations were significant beforehand, in order to reach my presupposed conclusion that the Snoopy drawing is there for a reason. You seem to have real trouble with this, but the fact that you're incredulous about something isn't evidence that something significant is going on. It's just evidence that you're incredulous, which isn't surprising given your... rather limited mindset.
Hey, did you call into the Atheist Experience multiple times a few years ago? I seem to recall a caller there that had the same "I don't know how this happened, therefore space magic," attitude toward the pyramids that you do. He really stressed the fact that he didn't know, displayed his ignorance like it was something to be proud of: reminds me of you, in that respect.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
![[Image: s-ant.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=talc.site88.net%2Fgfx%2Fs-ant.jpg)
