The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

Wow, you guys are really having issues answering this question. I am glad I asked it. Saying, "Rape is wrong for the same reasons murder is wrong." doesn't exactly tell me why either of them are wrong now does it? So don't use that same bad argumentation here. Tell me, as an Atheist, why you think viewing women as inferior is morally "wrong"? I have my reasons for why it is wrong, I want to hear you give your's.

I would happily make the sacrifice of fucking you senseless in the ass to prove how rape is just as bad as murder, besides, you sir are a waste of good oxygen !

This could be the most ridiculous post I have seen on here. How does that make it wrong? Bad logic. So just because something hurts it is morally wrong? So is eating a hot pepper wrong? Tell me why it is your wrong according to your worldview. It should not be that hard of a question to answer.

---

P.S. Gliding mammals are not flying mammals.

Did you just refer to a bat as a 'gliding mammal'?

Nope, the person I was replying to included gliding mammals in with bats.

---

---

Man's reluctance to obey a command does not make the command itself wrong. Simple.

I didn't say the command was wrong. I was trying to point out the disparity between what is commanded of men and what is commanded of women. But I see that's lost on you.

Let's see... men are commanded to love their wives. The wives are told that the husband "rules over" them. And you think this is equal? The husband can beat the snot out of his wife for not obeying and still claim to "love" her. Which side of this fence would you rather be on?

Where in scripture does it say men can beat the "snot" out of their wives? I thought you said you understood scripture, where is this verse?

Considering that Genesis 3:16 tells women that their husbands "shall rule over you", that pretty much gives the husband carte blanche to enforce his will as he sees fit, doesn't it? If the wife doesn't obey and do as the husband says, the husband can beat her as necessary. All the while professing to love her, of course.

And I notice that you didn't answer my question. Men are commanded to love their wives. The women are told that the husband rules over them. You think this is equal?

And what "role" do they have? Other than "shut up and don't ask questions"?

I think that being a mom is the toughest and most important job on Earth. If you do not think so then maybe you are the one who thinks women are inferior to men.

Non sequitor.

And how the hell is being a mom a "role" in the church? How does this in any way relate to being told to sit down shut up, and don't ask questions? It doesn't!

And this is not the context of the passage. It says, "Let your women keep silent in the church". It does NOT say, "Women are to keep silent in the church". See the difference? In this context, "your" implies ownership. As in "your goats" or "your pigs". And this is exactly what we would expect people of that time period to write. These were people who considered wives to be the property of their husbands. And it is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I would expect to be written by a loving and just deity.

Oh so using your same bad logic, if I asked you, "hey is YOUR girlfriend coming with you on Saturday?", this would mean you owned your girlfriend?

Did you even read what I wrote? Let me try a different tack. Why is this passage written the way it is? Why is it directed at the men? Because the women were considered to be property. If not, the passage would have been directed at THE WOMEN. Deny it all you want. At that time in history (and even today in some cultures) women are considered to be the property of the men (father, brother, husband, etc.). This verse reflects that attitude.

When scripture is addressing women it refers to their husbands as "your husbands", do they own the men in that case?

Not the same context at all.

Learn basic grammar.

Try learning something about the context of words.

So when a verse makes all races and both genders equal under Christ it does not count?

Apparently not. Believers used (and still use) much of the crap in the Bible to justify repressing women. I've encountered believers who tell me the Bible makes them the boss of the house. I guess they missed that stuff where "Jesus" makes everyone equal.

I thought someone understood scripture? Then why are you trying to apply a law under the Mosaic Convenent under the New Convenent Christ fulfilled?

Ah, yes. The "Mosaic Law" bullshit. Please show me somewhere in the Bible that says the "Mosaic Laws" no longer apply. And if they don't apply, why are they still in the book? I must also point out that many believers like to use "Mosaic Law" when they rail against homosexuals.

What kind of dumbass question is this? It's wrong to view women as inferior for the same reason it's wrong to view black people as inferior. What does being an atheist have to do with it?

Wow, you guys are really having issues answering this question. I am glad I asked it.

I have no issues about answering it. It's just an incredibly stupid question.

Tell me, as an Atheist, why you think viewing women as inferior is morally "wrong"? I have my reasons for why it is wrong, I want to hear you give your's.

It's morally wrong because I wouldn't want anyone I care about to be discriminated against based upon an irrelevant factor such as their sex, skin color, ethnicity, etc. Now, what are YOUR reasons?

---

I think I am just going to start using your guys' tactics against you. You are not a Theist, therefore you cannot talk about Theology for this reason. Atheists have never had their atheistic work published in Theological Journals so you are not allowed to talk about Theology. I can see why you guys use this ridiculous argument, it's kind of fun.

There are Bible versus addressed to women, wise up.

People misusing the intent of scripture does not make the scripture itself evil, so you can stop using that tactic.

I think it is you who needs to learn about context.

Homosexuality was not prohibited only under the Mosaic Covenant, so again wise up.

When Christ had communion with his disciples the new covenant had begun, so the laws that only applied under the Mosaic Covenent do not apply. Just like laws under the Adamic Covenent were changed under the following Covenent. This is basic stuff, though considering you are not qualified in this area I am not surprised you'd muck it up.

So it's only wrong because YOU don't like it and you think it is wrong? Yeah that's not going to cut it, I'll let you take another swing at that one though.

---

So we're not responsibl for our sin, because we inherited it from Adam.[

No man is still responsible. When the representative of a country declares war on another country that whole country is at war. When Adam rebelled we all rebelled.

You have a strange definition of justice.

Not really, it's the only true definition of justice since justice must come from a higher authority- justice that comes from the highest and only perffect authoirty is the only true justice.

But a pretty ambiguous way of demonstrating his glory.

I disagree.

Why is God just in punishing us for something that Adam did?

Everything God does is Just. Here I will write it out as a logical syllogism for you.

Premise 1: Everything God does is just.
Premise 2: God punishes the un-believer for their sins.

Conclusion: Therefore God punishing un-believers for their sins is just.

Scripture is on perfectly valid logical ground on this one.

So, you admit that if God told you to torture babies, you'd do it? If so, I admire the intellectual honesty, if not the sentiment. But basing morality on God's purpose, and specifically the Christian god's purpose, seems pretty arbitrary to me.

This is not a real appropriate hypothetical because God does not command me to torture babies.
]

That which causes suffering to sentient beings.

So by your definition shooting someone in the back of the head would not be evil because they didn't even feel it so it did not cause them suffering?

[Shinylight]

P.S. Gliding mammals are not flying mammals.

Did you just refer to a bat as a 'gliding mammal'?

Nope, the person I was replying to included gliding mammals in with bats.

Oh sorry, my mistake.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I have to agree with rjh4 here. Whilst the Bible clearly gets things wrong by our standard of classification, this standard wasn't adopted until after the Bible was written. You might be able to use this fact to justify a claim that God didn't write the Bible, or that God isn't omniscient (else why didn't he write it so it wasn't so ambiguous to later generations?) but it would be a very weak position to hold and defend.

To be honest, there are far greater examples of the Bible getting things wrong that would lead to a much better debate than quibbling over methods of classifying animals. With a basic method of classification, I can totally see why bats and birds would be put together.

The point is that SaW etc keep on about the bible being the infallible word of god and scientifically reliable, yet their god doesn't even know the difference between birds and mammals.

And yes that classification method makes sense if written by men who didn't know better.

P.s my original question to SaW being "where the bible and science differ which do you consider to be right?"

---

I already did that, Zen, and you didn't like my answer...and you failed to provide any reasons why my system is not "sensible".

No you didn't, you have not provided a classification that lists bats AS birds, you provided one that lists them with birds(as opposed to plants).

By that system you can class them with fish.

---

I am assuming I am "SaW" in this post? I am standing by my original claim. The Hebrew word you are referring to in the Bible is Owph, which really means in Hebrew "Owner of a Wing". Since last time I checked even modern Biologists agree that bats have wings, they would be accruately described by this Hebrew word that was used in the Bible. I suggest you drop this rather meager argument.

---

P.S. Gliding mammals are not flying mammals.

Did you just refer to a bat as a 'gliding mammal'?

Nope, the person I was replying to included gliding mammals in with bats.

Oh sorry, my mistake.

Not a problem :-)

---

---

Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

Because secular humanism is a vastly superior moral base than the mysoganistic, genocidal, sadistic and otherwise just plain weird bible and although you do not have be a secular humanist to be an athiest most seem to have leanings in that direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

I didn't ask for why the person who wrote that Wiki article thought it was wrong, I want to know why you think it is wrong. So tell me in your own words and be specific.

Why the fuck would I want to do that?

The link was to a perfectly good article that explained the concept better than I could.

So I'm not going to play your little game.

I have neither the time or inclination.

---

So you think it's only wrong, because some other person tells you it's wrong? Not very satisfying.

---

---

Sorry, Zen, that was not your challenge to me. This was your challenge:

"And @ Rjh4, If you can come up with a classification system that can put a furbearing, lactating, tooth equipped creature in with feathered egg laying avians that don't lactate I would love to hear it. " (emphasis added)

Note, you are the one that used the word "with" instead of "as". I provided such a classification system.

@rjh4

So just where is the reference in the bible/ koran/torah that states that bats are NOT birds but mamals???

---

It does not need to say that. It only included them in with the animals that have wings. Bats have wings, the Bible is still legit. See my other post on this.

[Statler Waldorf]

I admit on further reading he does go on to online a different primary viewpoint on the 'Distant Starlight Problem'. It is worth noting however that at no point does he admit any of the many logical flaws present in the argument or put up any case against it. The fact he is willing to accept it as a theory without evidence and a huge implausibility at its root is of concern.

Well I have seen lectures by Lisle where he does object to this viewpoint, but he does it on theological grounds. You can't really object to it scientifically because if it were in fact valid we would observe exactly what we do observe about the cosmos today. I don't think there is anything to be concerned with there.

We can argue from varying viewpoints untill the proverbial cows show up Statler but the argument you & Mr Lisle are proposing misrepresents a key issue. There is no sound reason for believing that secular scientists allow theie worldview to effect their science. Throughout my education I have always been taught to address my own bias and mistakes openly and as such repress them from my findings, this is a practice common to all student of science.

You cannot conduct any science without some form of pre-suppositions. So you cannot prevent your pre-suppositions from effecting your science. I mean afterall, "I can trust my senses", "I can think rationally", and "logic is real" are all pre-suppositions that must be held before anyone can conduct science. Evolutionists will often admit to their pre-suppositions, even the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin said, ‘We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door’. So no matter what the evidnece seems to suggest he will never allow a divine explaination. So he will just derrive "rescue mechanisms" to explain away the evidence that does point to a Creator. There was even an article in Nature a few years ago that said that even if all the evidence pointed to intelligent design, it could never be a scientific conclusion. Ruling out possible explainations before examining the evidence is done by everyone, the Creation guys are just more intellectually honest about their pre-suppositions. I applaud their honesty.

What Mr Lisle continously asserts is that at university he became aware of how scientists worldviews affect their studies; note that not once have I seen any corobatory evidence, no surveys and no figures. I have noticed your 'stories' about friends and a few refuted claims of bias however, they are far from conclusive with regards a large scale issue in the academic community.

Refuted claims? I don't think anyone has refuted my claims of mine to date. Everything I have posted dealing with the issue of Scientific Bias have been true stories and quotes. You may not choose to believe them, but I think this is just another example of how you let your bias effect your conclusions.

But this is the entire story is it Statler? The 'Evoloutionists' 'pre-suppositions' were based on the accumulated evidence of their, radiometric dating, archeaolgy etc ... Using this pre-existing information they made a judgement on red blood cells based on the fact they had not been seen before. When this was proved to be an exception to the current model, it was adapted. This is how science works.

What the creationists did was interpret the evidence within their pre-suppositions of a young-earth despite the fact that all the evidence accumulated by science points the other way and therfore summarily claim that they must be right. If you feel my interpretation is wrong here please let me know. You're more guilty of these logical fallacies you keep pointing out than anyone.

Well their pre-suppositions about radiometric dating and the like is a problem considering these methods only point to an old Earth if you use uniformitarian pre-suppositions. Which of course scripture says uniformitarianism is in error, so to asribe to this assumption is assuming scripture is false and is in itself assuming the proof. You are using assumptions that assume scripture is false to prove scripture is false? Not good. The Creationists can do very good science that uses these same dating methods to support their side. What the Scientists did in the Discovery article was just an example of how their pre-suppositions were effecting their interpretations. Trying to deny the results from being published was wrong though.

But this is just a story Statler. A CMI Geologist (Biased?) is attempting to prove that evolutionist has the same neccesity for pre-suppositions as him and so relates this story. I can't really speak as to the validity of the story so I'm not going to push the point any further.

So you are suggesting the Christian is lying? I have a tough time believing that someone who believes lying is wrong is lying, while someone like Richard Dawkins who has admitted he does not believe in good or evil is telling the truth. People rarely act in a manner contrary to their worldview, if a person believes lying is wrong they are far less likely to do it than someone who doesn't think there is a reason to not lie. I think you are just letting your pre-suppositions effect your conclusions when you assume the CMI geologist is lying just because you do not like what he says.

Unfortunately Statler I disagree. You keep saying that creationists always follow the scientific method, true?

Well tell me how it scientific to make sure that evry paper published agress with your viewpoint even down to the 'historical/grammatical details' of your beliefs (paraphrased from the Answers Research Journal Sumission Guidelines). It just isn't, they are simply saying that they will not entertain anything outside of their theory, not even subject ... just their theory.

Your claim that it is a 'Creation' journal and so would naturally only accept creation articles is void because the journal claims to be a technical journal for biology, geology, astrophysics etc ... So what they are doing is simply censoring the infromation they diseminate. In comparison the only guidelines for secular journals are in methodology and scientific practice. Please provide evidence if you want to argue this point.

As to your 'Worlds Best Research Paper' - Your might be right, it could have an excellent methodology but if you have not interpreted it within the context of the majority of the published literature or provide demostarble proof of why you are correct over them you would not be publsihed. Obviously Bible quotes would have no place in this literature (as they do in Answers) because the Bible is heavily disputed source of non-scientific nature. So using it as a point of evidence or interpretation is soley based on your worldview and would simply be begging the question.

Also, I can't believe you resorted to mocking the peer review system based on sporadic reports of possible bias. If it such a joke Statler, why do your people make such an effort to copy it?

Cheers

Sam

So you pretty much just said, "The only thing secular journals look at is Methodolgoy and Scientific Practice", but in the next paragraph you say that if a journal had good methodology but did not agree with everyone else it would get rejected? That makes no sense at all, how are we supposed to move science forward if we are not allowed to disagree with other Scientists? Science is not some club, it's a way of obtaining knowledge. Good science always is honest about its assumptions and shows how the data is interpreted using these assumptions. The Creation guys believe Scripture is valid, so of course they are going to say how they use scripture to interpret scientific observations. This is good science. You may not like it, that does not change the fact that they are following the methods Bacon developed. Develop a model, make predictioons using that model, devise an experiment to text your predictions, detail your conclusions. Believing that Methodolgocial Naturalism is the only proper science is actually rather naive in my humble opinion.
I am sure you are aware that a Technical Journal does not actually conduct research, it just publishes it. So when the Creation Journals say they are wanting to publish a particular kind of research they are doing nothing wrong.
I am actually reading through the technical work that was just published by a few CMI guys on accelerated radiometric decay. They made predictions, published their predictions so they had to stick to them, collected numerous samples, had the samples tested at a secular lab that was blind to their predictions, the results were in line with their initial predicted findings. This is good science and I would highly recommend you pick up a copy of the work.

[orogenicman]

Refuted claims? I don't think anyone has refuted my claims of mine to date.

It's rather arrogant of you to sit there and lie about who is making these claims that you apparently claim are yours, particularly since none of them are your claims. These are claims that have been made by creationists for at least 150 years, and have all been refuted during that time. The fact that in order for you to continue to make these long-refuted claims is that you have to throw out every scientific finding that has been made in the last 150 years just makes you look stupid to the rest of the reasoning world.

"even the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin said, ‘We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door’"

And do you know why he said that? He said it because "God did it" doesn't explain anything.

"So you are suggesting the Christian is lying?"

I have yet to meet or have a discussion with a creationist that doesn't lie (ladies and gentlemen, I give you the creationist (Statler) who claims that certain oopart drawings in Asia represent "recent" stegosaurs).

[Statler Waldorf]

Refuted claims? I don't think anyone has refuted my claims of mine to date.

It's rather arrogant of you to sit there and lie about who is making these claims that you apparently claim are yours, particularly since none of them are your claims. These are claims that have been made by creationists for at least 150 years, and have all been refuted during that time. The fact that in order for you to continue to make these long-refuted claims is that you have to throw out every scientific finding that has been made in the last 150 years just makes you look stupid to the rest of the reasoning world.

"even the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin said, ‘We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door’"

And do you know why he said that? He said it because "God did it" doesn't explain anything.

"So you are suggesting the Christian is lying?"

I have yet to meet or have a discussion with a creationist that doesn't lie (ladies and gentlemen, I give you the creationist (Statler) who claims that certain oopart drawings in Asia represent "recent" stegosaurs).

You are good at assertions, bad at argumentation. I thought you were supposed to be a Scientist, no wonder you don't work in your actual field.

I called them "my" claims because Sam called them my claims.

I know why he said that quote, he was talking about naturalism and how the super-natural explainations relate to ti. Not "God did it".

You are the one who is arguing using bad logic (I have pointed out numerous fallacies you have used) and evolutionary arguments that Creationists either agree with or have refuted over and over again.

I already addressed your OOPArt argument and why using the logic, "well this would mean dinosaurs lived along side man so it must be a fake" is bad Sciense.

[orogenicman]

"You are good at assertions, bad at argumentation. I thought you were supposed to be a Scientist, no wonder you don't work in your actual field.

Anytime you want proof of my expertise in geology, my offer to hold a day in the field to study the geology surrounding the Creationist Musem still stands.

I called them "my" claims because Sam called them my claims.

And yet, you didn't correct him, and so left the forum with the impression that they are your claims. You did say that they were your claims. At the least, it was dishonest.

I know why he said that quote, he was talking about naturalism and how the super-natural explainations relate to ti. Not "God did it".

There is no such thing as "super-natural". The very word itself is meaningless. If it is natural, then it fits the definition of natural. "Supernatural" doesn't fit any definition of natural.

You are the one who is arguing using bad logic (I have pointed out numerous fallacies you have used) and evolutionary arguments that Creationists either agree with or have refuted over and over again.

You make that statement and then claim that creationists don't lie? I rest my case.

I already addressed your OOPArt argument and why using the logic, "well this would mean dinosaurs lived along side man so it must be a fake" is bad Sciense.

No sir, you haven't. You haven't made one mention of oopart outside of the post above,. which was a response to my previous post. I brought it up because of your lie that certain artwark on an Asian temple represents a "recent" stegosaur. That artwork, in no way, represents a stegosaur. You see what you want to see, dude. Oopart. Misplaced objects/fraud. Good God, Statler. You've truly gone fishing, dude.

[LastPoet]

This could be the most ridiculous post I have seen on here. How does that make it wrong? Bad logic. So just because something hurts it is morally wrong? So is eating a hot pepper wrong? Tell me why it is your wrong according to your worldview. It should not be that hard of a question to answer.

Well and you still fail to understand huh? I guess you can't understand that there is much worser things than physical pain. And you speak to me of ridicule? Comparing rape to eating pepper? Are you this self absorbed? And I am the one using bad logic. I know what you are doing, its called projection, go read about it Mr Science teacher ROTFL. What do you mean with 'my worldview'? Are you trying to pass the "Atheists don't have a moral compass' idea? Guess what, we can do the right things without the fear from a sky-daddy. Besides, being atheist has nothing to do with morals, I am an atheist because I dont accept the claim made by theists that "There is a god", it doesn't tell you anything else, despite the fact that you numbnuts try to imply that. Who is the idiot now SW? I can be moral without your god, you need your god. Now from us two who is the more moral?

[Darwinian]

Don't you just love creationists? They seem to be one of the few groups of people for whom scientific facts are the work of the devil

[LastPoet]

It is all joy and fun to present Creationists with biblical screwups, but ultimately some of them have gone to great lenghts to turn apologetics to an art, the art of creating bullshit out of thin air!