(March 22, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 22, 2015 at 4:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: You clearly don't know what the word "inherent" means.

The value that you are talking about is abstract and extrinsic -- that means it is applied from outside, and doesn't have material value outside of certain industrial and manufacturing processes.

You're welcome.

And even within the context of industry and manufacturing, the value of gold comes from its utility within those industries; it is a value placed upon if from outside. Hell, even considering the thousands of years of history that gold has had value that Huggy references, that value wasn't just inherent within the gold, the gold was valuable because it was scarce, because it was resilient as a metal, and easily fungible. Again, the value was placed upon gold due to the way it adheres to things humans within communities find valuable. It was a reaction between the attributes of gold and human perception, not simply because gold was gold.

Huggy's got this wrong backwards and forwards, so I guess we can chalk this up as another thing he doesn't understand and will not budge on.

Unless we're discussing food, water, or breathable air, all value is relative.

It's an important lesson to learn.

---

(March 22, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Mr, wizzrd, FYI- Jesus FULFILLED/ accomplished the last sacrifice of the OT.

Hey, prof..FYI, jesus is just as much bullshit as the fucking easter bunny.

Nonsense. At least the goddamned Easter Bunny left me some painted hard-boiled eggs for Easter. The look on Mom's face after a rich fart was priceless.

---

(March 22, 2015 at 7:25 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Just say "my bad" and move on..

Huggy admit error?

Jesus will "come back" before the piña -- er, Huggy -- learns the wisdom of admitting error.

...Huggy is one of those "We need to return to the gold standard!" nitwits, isn't he?

(March 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Here is the bottom line, given a choice between $1000 dollars cash or Gold, which do you take?

Gimme the cash. $1000 in gold is actually worth about $850 once I get it converted to a useable medium.

And before Huggies starts in with that's "not true because gold always keeps its value," well, it always has* but I still have to accept less than current value at an exchange and then pay brokerage fees...

*Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

(March 22, 2015 at 9:44 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(March 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Here is the bottom line, given a choice between $1000 dollars cash or Gold, which do you take?

Gimme the cash. $1000 in gold is actually worth about $850 once I get it converted to a useable medium.

And before Huggies starts in with that's "not true because gold always keeps its value," well, it always has* but I still have to accept less than current value at an exchange and then pay brokerage fees...

*Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

Cash you can use as soon as you get it. I can't buy gas or purchase clothes with a bag of gold. I would have to find someone to exchange the gold for dollars before I could use it. It would be easier to take the cash

(March 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Here is the bottom line, given a choice between $1000 dollars cash or Gold, which do you take?

That depends. US dollars, euros, or baht? Is the gold 12, 18, or 24 kt? Dust or ingot?

Values aren't the same as, say, weights; there is no objective metric.

One day, you'll learn.

---

(March 22, 2015 at 9:29 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: ...Huggy is one of those "We need to return to the gold standard!" nitwits, isn't he?

Huggy is one of those spoonfed nitwits. He doesn't have an original thought he can call his own. It just so happens he thinks that a fixed money market will cure his peculiar bugbears.

(March 21, 2015 at 10:19 pm)urlawyer Wrote: Hey fellow human peoples, so I need a little help here. I'm trying to form a relatively air tight stance on the illogical inconsistencies of the new testament in the event that all hell breaks loose and I find myself arguing against a christian ...

OK, I'm going to stop you right there. Any time you find yourself arguing with a Christian apologist, be prepared for moving goal posts, an endless stream of ad hoc hypotheses, confirmation bias and a chorus line of other logical fallacies. You'll be looking for rational arguments and find yourself frustrated as you enter their world where facts don't matter and logic doesn't work.

After all, apologetics isn't about finding out what the truth is. It's about finding reasons to believe what you've already decided is true. The rest is mental slight-of-hand, show biz flim-flamery and rationalization. It's about slick packaging, not substance.




The first thing to do if you are serious about debating a Christian (or other religious) apologist is to know the common logical fallacies and be able to identify them. This is important because when they try to pull the rabbit out of a hat or find that ace card you drew, you can announce to the audience where the false bottom of the hat was or where they kept that card in their sleeve.

Second, don't get frustrated when your sincere attempts to reason don't get anywhere. It's been said before that debating a Christian apologist is like playing chess with a pidgin. The pidgin knocks over all the pieces, craps all over the board and then flies away thinking it won. Mostly, the argument is for the lurkers who see the apologist for the idiot he/she is. Once in a great while, you can chip away at someone's faith but the process, even when it works, is very slow and almost imperceptible.

The biggest frustration I've encountered in arguing about Biblical absurdities, contradictions and immorality is that the Christian doesn't read the Bible the way anyone else does. Most people read the words on the page and conclude that these words mean what they mean. The Christian starts with the conclusion that the Bible is right about everything and then reads the same passages with a heavy dose of confirmation bias, ad hoc hypotheses and obtuse interpretations that work backward to that preconceived notion about the Bible.

So expect a lot of "when the Bible says... it really means..." (ridiculously obtuse interpretation ensues). I've even know Christians to produce entire fan fictions, based purely on their imaginations, as they are needed to square the circle.

So don't think for a minute that just because you present a contradiction where Jesus ascends into Heaven on the day of his resurrection in Luke and then waits around 40 days before ascending in Acts that this is a "silver bullet". There aint no such thing with faith. At best, you might spray enough flack into the air to hope for a "golden BB" that brings a Christian down to earth.

Hope this helps.

(March 22, 2015 at 9:29 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: ...Huggy is one of those "We need to return to the gold standard!" nitwits, isn't he?

I think he just likes his "bling-bling". It's quite common for simple people to judge things on the basis of how shiny they are. If it were up to them - all the financial transactions would be conducted using golden chains and rims for currency...

I agree with what DeistPaladin said. I'd add have extremely modest goals. Most importantly of all know your audience and don't insult them, if in a public debate.

(March 22, 2015 at 7:52 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Unless we're discussing food, water, or breathable air, all value is relative.

It's an important lesson to learn.

The funny thing is, even the things you've listed are, ultimately, relatively valuable; they might be valuable to humans, but breathable air would mean nothing to, say, an organism that breathes methane, and water would be completely useless to an organism with a composition high in potassium. We're still just talking about value relative to human beings.

Conversely, all of those things have much higher value to a person in desperate need of them, than they would to a person who has them in abundance. It's almost as if value is a contextual concept, not a hard and fast objective standard...

-To the OP's question.

I've never thought it was a good idea to strap some poor schmuck to a post, then torture and kill him - in order to wipe my parking tickets clean. Does that sound like a good idea? You going to take anybody up on that offer? Think a christian would take anybody up on that offer? Personally, I don't know that the truth of either the OT or the NT has anything to say on the matter. If theyre stories, that won't make my parking ticket idea any better or worse, if they're the true words of a god....it won't make my parking ticket idea any better or worse. Whether someone points to the OT, the NT, both, neither, or the yellow pages.....my parking ticket idea remains precisely as good or bad as it was to begin with.

The only inconsistency in the NT that matters to me, surrounds the goodness of any "redemptive offer" and whether or not a person should take it, extoll it's virtue, or spread it around (as the reader is encouraged to do). Is it logical to accept vicarious redemption for sin, but not vicarious redemption for parking tickets (and is it moral or ethical, in either case - does it fit with being the good person, that we're supposed to be, or with a "good" god that might give us reason to give two shits about what it does, says, or wants us to do)?

-The rest of it is bickering over fanfic.........who cares if godman does something in chapter 10 that doesn't fit with what he did in chapter 2 - just what is that supposed to mean, anyway? I don't give a shit, personally. That's really where all the unintentional humor here lies, because while there are some who desperately do give a shit, and they create further fanfic to resolve what they see to be some objection to overcome, they do all this.....spend all that thought and time...without asking themselves those obvious questions above....and when they're done creating further stories to their satisfaction.....those questions remain. hrugs: