Continued Discussion With Lnc

[Abiyoyo]

Which places mentioned in the Bible didn't exist?

 

Sodom and Gomorrah, for starters.

 

Sodom was important enough to invent the word "sodomy" and Gomorrah also to be a framework for the STD Gonorrhea.

Word Origin & History

 

gonorrhea

1526, from L.L. gonorrhoia, from gonos "seed" + rhoe "flow," from rhein "to flow." Mucus discharge was mistaken for semen. In early records often Gomoria, etc., from folk etymology association with biblical Gomorrah.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/kentucky.htm

[Mriana]

Maybe cool, but that doesn't make the place actually exist.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

People were surely inspired by these religious stories, to name so much after people and places--be they real or ficticious--in them.

 

Phanta

 

You would be surprised to see how much of our world is framed around the Greek culture and their gods. It's amazing. Up until Christ, the Greek gods where the god's that....produced results.

[Saviourmachine]

Yeah, I have been looking around to proof the Greek gods. And over here they have undeniable proofs: http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/178/5/1101 in the form of Caput Medusae, Cyclopia, Galactocele, Hippocampus, Labyrinthitis, Omphalocele, Phrygian cap, etc.

 

I like this:

"Hercules was especially fond of Omphale's navel. Not surprisingly, the Greek word for navel is omphalus."

[Mriana]

 

 

People were surely inspired by these religious stories, to name so much after people and places--be they real or ficticious--in them.

 

Phanta

 

You would be surprised to see how much of our world is framed around the Greek culture and their gods. It's amazing. Up until Christ, the Greek gods where the god's that....produced results.

 

Uh huh. Now think about that a little more. Actually, there were the Greek gods, Mithra, and others, but as cultures started imposing their gods on others, some gods "died" because people stopped believing in them. It's amazing what superstition does, but when one supposed deity fails they flock to another human concept, which is basically the same thing as the last, esp when you read the motifs.

[NonXNonExX]

Just a few random comments. First of all, as someone who was exposed but never convinced, i still find these discussions fascinating.

 

Second, for LNC, where does it say Jesus was actually dead three days? I think you are confusing the so-called prophesy from the OT with what it says happened in the NT. Like most of those OT prophesies they require quite a bit of stretching and bending to make them fit.

 

You're right, Phanta, now that i look at it, LNC's character does look like a church on wheels or maybe stilts. But according to a Chinese Xtian friend, this character proves that Jesus visited China!! First of all, there's the cross on top, then the three lines on the "tombstone" for Pop, JC and the holy spook, then the two lines at the bottom representing the character for a man under the tombstone, and the whole thing means truth. [bTW, i'm a Chinese language expert so i know why this explanation doesn't work.]

 

Finally, there are many scientists who believe there may have been a Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by a cataclysmic natural event. A better example would have been Nazareth in the first century BCE.

[Ouroboros]

Please read my posts as I have given this evidence in other posts. Origin of the universe, existence of morality, existence of the mind, fine-tuning of the universe, resurrection of Jesus...I could go on, but I will leave it here for you to address these.

Oh, you're right! Pixies and gnomes DO exist! Tree spirits too.

[LNC]

Why does it logically follow that I am being TOLD what to believe? Does that mean that you are being TOLD what to believe when you read a book or listen to a lecturer, or do you choose what to believe and what not to believe? Why would you deny me the freedom to choose what to believe? We have eyewitness accounts which are supported by other evidence.

 

You can believe whatever you want, but I'm wondering if you thought through what you've been told and read for yourself or just accepted them on "faith". And no, we do not have eyewitness accounts supported by evidence either.

 

That's a bit insulting. How about if I ask you the same. Maybe you can give me your evidence that these were not eyewitnesses as they claim, or do you just believe it because you read it on an atheist website and accept it by faith? The knife cuts both ways... As for me, I do research what I present here.

[LNC]

None of those are evidence for anything other than a very complex universe. Occam's razor dictates that we accept the most logical explanation, and that is NOT an invisible man in the sky.

 

Origin of the universe? No more difficult than the origin of God: the Universe always was.

 

Existence of the mind? I already explained this as a function of brain complexity, which is a result of evolution.

 

Existence of morality? It's a mechanism for the survival of our species. A species which had no equivalent of a "moral code' (i.e. don't harm others of your species) would die out unless it reproduced at a much faster rate than we do.

 

Fine-tuning of the universe? Says who? A given set of parameters works for the universe as we know it. We have no idea how many possible sets of parameters might also work. Coincidence is evidence of nothing.

 

Resurrection of Jesus? No evidence. Nothing outside the New Testament suggests that this ever occurred. One would expect such a momentous event to be recorded in more than one place.

 

Sorry, no evidence yet.

 

Apparently, you are not familiar with science as we know much more about the universe than that it is "complex". We also know that it is finely tuned to support advanced life and that this fine tuning cannot be explained by mere chance alone. You also are apparently not familiar with Occam's Razor as you have misrepresented it. Occam's Razor, looks for the most parsimonious explanation, that is, the simplest explanation that has both explanatory power and scope.

 

If you posit that the universe has always existed, you are arguing against the best scientific understanding and also arguing against logic. Comparing the existence of God with the universe is also a category error as the universe has limits due to its consisting of matter, whereas, God does not have those limitations. So, your explanation fails on many counts.

 

You have not explained the mind by simply saying it is a function of the brain's complexity, you have merely said that the brain is complex. If you believe that the mind is reducible to brain activity, then you have removed freedom of will from man and are also arguing against yourself as you apparently chose to post this message, or was it merely a product of evolution? Also, simply using the term evolution is not an explanation. So, do you have free will or not? If so, please explain how from an evolutionary naturalistic framework.

 

Regarding morality, you have a number of major issues to address. How do we know what will lead to the survival of the species in the long run? Is morality simply relative based upon your view (it seems so)? If so, how do you judge whether someone has done something detrimental to survival since you cannot see into the future? What if a government gains power and says that for the ultimate survival of the species a certain race of people should be eliminated and gave scientific data to support their claim, would you follow and obey? Why or why not?

 

Fine tuning - this is not a debated point in the scientific community. Even Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion admits that the universe has the "appearance" of design. So, I don't know what you are reading that would indicate that the universe is not finely tuned, but maybe you can start with someone like Paul Davies from Arizona State in his book Cosmic Jackpot. This cannot be chalked up to mere coincidence as you claim, you just need to read up on this field before making these types of statements.

 

Resurrection - please, again read up in the field before making these ludicrous statements. There is all kinds of evidence outside of the NT that I have posted in the past. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss the NT as even skeptics don't do that. I have given the 12 facts earlier, six of which are supported by 94% of NT scholars (both conservative and liberal) and the other six are supported by about 75%. The case can be made using the first six facts and strengthened further with the additional six.

 

Sorry, you need to read more and be better informed before passing such sweeping judgments. You have argued against science, philosophy, and history, not against me in this post.

[bdp]

 

Resurrection - please, again read up in the field before making these ludicrous statements. There is all kinds of evidence outside of the NT

 

 

BULLSHIT. Purely and simply. There is NO evidence ANYWHERE else but the 'gospels' for 'the resurrection,' saying there is DOESN'T make it so. You've posted it before, post it again, you post all kinds of other shit over and over and over. 'The resurrection' is MYTH, PERIOD. And stop being such an insulting little prick.

[LNC]

That's not evidence. One does not need a god to have morality. As for the mind, evolution has an explanation for that, as well as the other things, except the resurrection of Jesus, because that is a myth, just like all other dying and rising gods. Dying and rising god motifs are called katabasis stories and that is exactly what the Jesus resurrection story is.

 

No, one does not need a God to have morality as long as you are satisfied with moral relativism. However, if moral objectivity is important, then God is required. If you don't believe this is true, then maybe you could explain how you could get to objective moral values apart from God. Personally, I find that moral relativism is dangerous and can ultimately lead to chaos. It also doesn't address the issue of ultimate justice.

 

How does evolution explain the mind? I didn't know that evolution dealt with the immaterial as well as the material, so I will be interested in your explanation, which you haven't actually given yet.

 

To which myths of dying and rising gods are referring? How do you suggest that this explains Jesus' death and resurrection? Please be more detailed in your explanations as it will be helpful to actually discuss them. These shorthand answers are not helpful or even explanatory.

[Ouroboros]

Troll, troll, troll.

 

 

(Does this picture have anything to do with the fact that LNC is a troll? No, but it's a funny picture still.)

[LNC]

Please read my posts as I have given this evidence in other posts. Origin of the universe, existence of morality, existence of the mind, fine-tuning of the universe, resurrection of Jesus...I could go on, but I will leave it here for you to address these.

 

There is nothing to address, we have already explained why these arguments are not convincing to us. Clearly they are convincing to you, but it is not our fault that you cannot understand that they all contain logical fallacies. We have explained our point of view on this a dozen times but you are interested in listening, just preaching.

 

I don't recall any legitimate logical fallacies being proposed, maybe you can refresh my memory and explain why you believe the fallacy that you are proposing is a legitimate application. I have found that some have mistakenly proposed logical fallacies as did Davka with his reference to Occam's Razor. However, he misstated the fallacy and also misapplied it, so I don't consider that to be a legitimate use of the fallacy, nor did it refute my argument in light of the misrepresentation and misapplication. However, if you have others that you would like to propose, we can discuss them.

[LNC]

LNC -

 

I continue to follow this thread with interest, and read of the death in your family.

 

I'm sorry to hear of your loss. You and your family are in my thoughts.

 

Phanta

 

Thank you, Phanta. That is very kind of you.

[RationalOkie]

You people do realize that you are arguing with an insane person, yes? I realized this over a month ago and stopped talking to him/her/troll. I suggest you kill the thread and waste your valuable time elsewhere. This is a lost cause if I've ever seen one.

[bdp]

The 'Easter morning' accounts in 'the gospels' are NOT eyewitness accounts but hearsay, and these hearsay accounts speak ONLY of the discovery of an empty tomb - NOBODY in the 'gopsels' witnesses any 'resurrection.'

[RationalOkie]

(Does this picture have anything to do with the fact that LNC is a troll? No, but it's a funny picture still.)

 

TIM: There he is!

ARTHUR: Where?

TIM: There!

ARTHUR: What, behind the rabbit?

TIM: It is the rabbit!

ARTHUR: You silly sod! You got us all worked up!

TIM: Well, that's no ordinary rabbit. That's the most foul, cruel,

and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on.

ROBIN: You tit! I soiled my armor I was so scared!

[Ouroboros]

We need one of these:

 

[RationalOkie]

We need one of these:

 

 

Three shall be the number

[RationalOkie]

Speaking of someone as though he is not here, when he clearly is, is an indirect way of communicating, of getting something across. Usually, contempt. But it is, nevertheless, continued engagement in communication.

 

Phanta

 

Do you think you are talking to school children?

[Mriana]

Troll, troll, troll.

 

 

(Does this picture have anything to do with the fact that LNC is a troll? No, but it's a funny picture still.)

 

Han, you find the best pics.

[RationalOkie]

Speaking of someone as though he is not here, when he clearly is, is an indirect way of communicating, of getting something across. Usually, contempt. But it is, nevertheless, continued engagement in communication.

 

Phanta

 

Sorry Phanta...that came out a bit harsh, I apologize. Here's who I'm angry at. Read LNC's last post again and then again and then again. READ IT...ALL OF IT. Do you think he's adding value to any discussion or just trying to frustrate everyone? Seriously, go read his posts. He's either a Nut Job or a real dick. There's no in between. I've had plenty of rational conversations with xtians and this guy is a waste of time. I'm sorry that I aimed my frustration at you, but that's my point.

[RationalOkie]

I don't recall any legitimate logical fallacies being proposed,

 

maybe you can refresh my memory and explain why you believe the fallacy that you are proposing is a legitimate application. I have found that some have mistakenly proposed logical fallacies as did Davka with his reference to Occam's Razor. However, he misstated the fallacy and also misapplied it, so I don't consider that to be a legitimate use of the fallacy, nor did it refute my argument in light of the misrepresentation and misapplication. However, if you have others that you would like to propose, we can discuss them.

 

It's simple really, every single line is causing you to respond. "refresh my memory", "if you have others that you would like to propose, we can discuss them"...on and on and on forever RAMEN.

 

Only a prick talks like this. Kill the thread. Kill the troll.

[mwc]

He's either a Nut Job or a real dick. There's no in between.

He's the in-between alright, but not in-between those things. He's behind the dick and the nut jobs. He's the taint working his way around to asshole.

 

mwc

[bdp]

I've come to think LNC is sincere in their concern about 'our souls' and all that; I've gotten angry when LNC is condescending to some of the members here, treating them like reactionary idiots who had never researched any of this for themselves. I do sort of wish I hadn't been as harsh as I was but I also don't think it was undeserved - on a forum as impersonal I lose track of the fact that I am talking to people. I think LNC would do better if he/she was less haughty with their presentations.