Annoying Christian Thread Continued Here

[mcdaddy]

My mom died in the middle of last month, so I've an idea of how you're feeling right now.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Dear BAA, I also did not know that you lost your mother last month. I am very sorry and extend my sincere condolences to you as well.

 

Thanks you for your sincere concern, Ficino. I appreciate it.

 

There is no way you could have known about my mom, because I've only shared that information with two other members, via Private Messaging. Post #216 is the first time I've been open about it. Ordinarily I'm a very private person and I choose to keep my personal life largely separate from my other activities, here at Ex-Chr.Net. However, Antixianxian's news moved me to reach out to him and express my understanding and my empathy with his situation.

 

Fyi, I'm currently in the (slow) process of writing up my thoughts on the topic of death and how I feel about the knowledge of my future non-existence. When I'm ready I'll share this with you all.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

So you apparently believe NDEs are just a process of the dying brain?

 

I haven't and won't declare my hand on that one ...yet, McD.

 

My mom's still warm (metaphorically speaking), so can you please maintain a holding pattern until I'm ready, ok?

When that time comes I'll be happy to discuss my dead father (1999), my dead mother (2012) and my dead brother (1973) with you.

But until then, could you back off a little please and perhaps show a little more of the empathy I've recently accused OrdinaryClay of lacking?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

(Logging off for now, with something of a bad taste in my mouth. )

 

BAA,

 

Was just a question. Sorry it struck a nerve, but I didn't know it would do so. I'm not a bad guy for asking a question relevant to tour quoted post.

 

You have my sincerest apologies and condolences.

 

Ok went back thru the thread to see what happened. I saw where you said in a roundabout way that you were in the process of writing up your thoughts - for whatever reason I didn't either see this, or I didn't interpret it as a "hands off" subject. Either way, again, my apologies. Just know there was no ill intent or any such thing on my part, It merely didnt register with me that you in no way wante to talk about that process.

 

Best regards,

 

McD

[mcdaddy]

DP

[Legion]

Legion i know we have completly difrent views of the world as i have a reductionist view and you have, i dont know i guess its anthtopic.

 

Kaiser, my views are moving towards complexity. Though I do not yet understand it. I sure could use some help. I wish you could ease my comprehension of self-fulfilling prophecy. I wish you could explain for me the chicken and the egg. I wish you could tell me about impredicativity. And thereby help me with complexity.

 

But I will go alone if I have no choice. Yes, I will carry on with no other voice. Yes, I will do as I've always done, and continue to distinguish signal from noise.

[raoul]

, they obviously dont haft to come from abortions but they can.

Right and cows can jump over the moon and crap out diamonds but they don't, at least for now. LOL

See the logical absurdity of your comment? I mean 'can' is a far cry from 'is'.

And I apologize if I seemed too strident but that argument about stem cells coming from aborted fetus's comes straight from bible fundies and I have NO interest in seeing things like that posted onto a site which is supposed to be ex xtian, okay? I'm not suggesting I have a right to censor stuff but enough is enough regarding what I call 'god' talk.

[Akheia]

Before we proceed, please prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Yahweh (not just *A* divinity, but *that particular* divinity) exists, arguing only from extra-biblical sources. Cite sources and peer-reviewed studies and avoid scientifically-illiterate sources.

Have you proven the god you follow?

 

You, good sir, are an idiot of the highest order.

 

You do realize shes an atheist, right?

 

Good god.

 

You know I heart you, but I'm not an atheist. My question however is this: why is OC trying to deflect the question? He's making some claims. I refuted those claims and demanded proof. His response is NOT "Oh wow yeah Akheia, here's your proof, it's rock-solid!"

 

No, it's "waaaaaah deflect deflect DEFLECT!"

 

OC, why aren't you answering my questions? I'm not the one sitting here making claims, demanding people buy into the shaky weak arguments that swayed me, and trying to strong-arm people into stuff. I'm not the uneducated wanker who's decided he knows more than centuries of scientific progress. I'm not the fundie dickhead who's trying to push sad, discredited apologetics onto a crowd that is quite well-versed in refuting them. No, rather, I'm a onetime fundie who saw through the lies, accepted science and reason, and stepped into the light.

 

The burden of proof is upon YOU, OC. Stop trying to deflect it. I will not allow you to push that burden onto me. Again, your church probably thinks you're just oh so clever, but I do not. I was married to a fundie preacher who is 10 times more manipulative than you could ever dream of being, and I know those tricks.

 

SO ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION. Before you begin trying to push your sad little fairy-tale book of barbaric cruelty onto me, first you must prove using extra-Biblical and peer-reviewed scientific sources that it is actually an accurate record of the human race's beginnings. Then you must prove that it is actually a reliable record of the whims and barbarism of the cruel storm-god who inspired it. Then you must prove that Jesus actually existed. Then you must prove that the New Testament is a reliable record of his life. Then you must prove that the NT is a reliable source for knowing what Jesus' will is toward his followers.

 

Get started. We--no, indeed, the entire world--hangs upon this supposed proof that you have. So show us what you've got.

[Kaiser01]

, they obviously dont haft to come from abortions but they can.

Right and cows can jump over the moon and crap out diamonds but they don't, at least for now. LOL

See the logical absurdity of your comment? I mean 'can' is a far cry from 'is'.

And I apologize if I seemed too strident but that argument about stem cells coming from aborted fetus's comes straight from bible fundies and I have NO interest in seeing things like that posted onto a site which is supposed to be ex xtian, okay? I'm not suggesting I have a right to censor stuff but enough is enough regarding what I call 'god' talk.

 

God talk? what the fuck is that? "Can" in this sentence means that we can harvest them if we want to. it doesn't mean the fetuses have some magic potential for stem cells but dont have any.

 

Where do you think totipotent stem cells are found? Up your butt? Or pluri-potent. i think Raoul you have missed evrything i have said here, Stem cells can be harvested without killing the fetus but in my opinion if abortion is legalized we might as well use the stem cells within them for good use. If you want use adult stem cells that's fine, but research shows they aren't as manipulable as fetal stem cells.

[Kaiser01]

, they obviously dont haft to come from abortions but they can.

Right and cows can jump over the moon and crap out diamonds but they don't, at least for now. LOL

See the logical absurdity of your comment? I mean 'can' is a far cry from 'is'.

And I apologize if I seemed too strident but that argument about stem cells coming from aborted fetus's comes straight from bible fundies and I have NO interest in seeing things like that posted onto a site which is supposed to be ex xtian, okay? I'm not suggesting I have a right to censor stuff but enough is enough regarding what I call 'god' talk.

 

God talk? what the fuck is that? "Can" in this sentence means that we can harvest them if we want to. it doesn't mean the fetuses have some magic potential for stem cells but dont have any.

 

Where do you think totipotent stem cells are found? Up your butt? Or pluri-potent. i think Raoul you have missed evrything i have said here, Stem cells can be harvested without killing the fetus but in my opinion if abortion is legalized we might as well use the stem cells within them for good use. If you want use adult stem cells that's fine, but research shows they aren't as manipulable as fetal stem cells.

 

I think this is a crisis of language Raoul.

[Akheia]

I'm not sure if Anti or BAA will see this, but I've just noticed the sad news, and both of you have my deepest sympathies. Thank you both for telling us about it.

[Ouroboros]

No, the cause can not be anything. Only a conscious non-contingent entity outside the natural laws of the universe.

Kind of defeats the definition of an "entity." We don't know of any such entities, so they/it only exists as imaginary things. Hard to compare a fantasy entity to real entities by claiming the fantasy entity is beyond reality.

 

For example It can't be a unicorn or the "spaghetti monster" because such "things" are physical entities made of matter.

No, they're not. They're supernatural and exists as entities beyond our physical world. Just like your God. And since anything beyond our physical world must exist (according to you), they must exist.

 

I agree this leaves open other characteristics, like the moral behavior of such an entity, but the KCA does not allow for anything to be the Creator.

KCA limits the conclusion on purpose from its premise. There are no events that are caused that didn't have more than one cause. There's no cause-event in a void, and there's no cause-event where there's only 1 (one) cause. KCA has a faulty premise. It's made for the sole purpose to point to a "Creator" (which it actually doesn't) by begging the question. Besides, anything that begins to exist that had a cause does not exclude non-sentient causes, ergo, the conclusion (must have a first cause) being the same as a sentient/conscious being lacks support. There's nothing to bridge the gap from "a cause" to "a being."

[Ouroboros]

What about natural disasters then? In the creationism view natural disasters are easily explained by the fall of man, however in your view of theistic evolution natural disasters, disease and other calamities have no reason to exist.

Actually I don't support theistic evolution. Based on the evidence I'm an old earth Christian, and I believe a form of Intelligent Design.

Hmm... So you support ID but not theistic evolution? Eh... What's the difference? ID is a generic form of theistic evolution... that's my understanding.

[Ouroboros]

You don't understand the difference between theistic evolution and ID.

I had to look it up. I didn't know there was any difference between the two, but after looking it up, I can see the small difference.

[Guest Valk0010]

You don't understand the difference between theistic evolution and ID.

I had to look it up. I didn't know there was any difference between the two, but after looking it up, I can see the small difference.

Its why i said it means something different to different people.

 

There is YEC

There is TE

There is Old Earth

 

They are all technically intelligent design.

[Ouroboros]

I have a PhD and have had a total of 2 biochemistry courses and I know very little about stem cells (except they are fantastic for many degenerative conditions and work wonders), yet some how the great pastor billy bob galatian can say they are evil and he graduated the 8th grade.

 

Uh... Aren't stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses?

Not necessarily. That's the most efficient method, but they can be harvested from the umbilical cord too. And I read some years ago that they could find some stem cells in tissue in living people too, but I can't remember the details exactly.

[Ouroboros]

Well the problem as I see it, is that, if we attach monetary value or some other value to harvesting of these cells, then we are thereby incentivized to harvest more of them.

Just like organ donors.

[Ouroboros]

A fetus is alive.

An umbilical cord isn't.

 

And if it's possible to harvest from a person's own tissue (if they're young enough) to save themselves... is it morally wrong to help oneself?

 

Stem Cells from body fat: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Tissue-Regeneration-Possible-with-Stem-Cells-from-Body-Fat-198281.shtml

[mcdaddy]

Before we proceed, please prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Yahweh (not just *A* divinity, but *that particular* divinity) exists, arguing only from extra-biblical sources. Cite sources and peer-reviewed studies and avoid scientifically-illiterate sources.

Have you proven the god you follow?

 

You, good sir, are an idiot of the highest order.

 

You do realize shes an atheist, right?

 

Good god.

 

You know I heart you, but I'm not an atheist. My question however is this: why is OC trying to deflect the question? He's making some claims. I refuted those claims and demanded proof. His response is NOT "Oh wow yeah Akheia, here's your proof, it's rock-solid!"

 

No, it's "waaaaaah deflect deflect DEFLECT!"

 

OC, why aren't you answering my questions? I'm not the one sitting here making claims, demanding people buy into the shaky weak arguments that swayed me, and trying to strong-arm people into stuff. I'm not the uneducated wanker who's decided he knows more than centuries of scientific progress. I'm not the fundie dickhead who's trying to push sad, discredited apologetics onto a crowd that is quite well-versed in refuting them. No, rather, I'm a onetime fundie who saw through the lies, accepted science and reason, and stepped into the light.

 

The burden of proof is upon YOU, OC. Stop trying to deflect it. I will not allow you to push that burden onto me. Again, your church probably thinks you're just oh so clever, but I do not. I was married to a fundie preacher who is 10 times more manipulative than you could ever dream of being, and I know those tricks.

 

SO ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION. Before you begin trying to push your sad little fairy-tale book of barbaric cruelty onto me, first you must prove using extra-Biblical and peer-reviewed scientific sources that it is actually an accurate record of the human race's beginnings. Then you must prove that it is actually a reliable record of the whims and barbarism of the cruel storm-god who inspired it. Then you must prove that Jesus actually existed. Then you must prove that the New Testament is a reliable record of his life. Then you must prove that the NT is a reliable source for knowing what Jesus' will is toward his followers.

 

Get started. We--no, indeed, the entire world--hangs upon this supposed proof that you have. So show us what you've got.

 

Apparently I'm the idiot! haha

 

Sorry. I coulda sworn I saw you say that. My bad!

[Antlerman]

Legion i know we have completly difrent views of the world as i have a reductionist view and you have, i dont know i guess its anthtopic.

 

Kaiser, my views are moving towards complexity. Though I do not yet understand it. I sure could use some help. I wish you could ease my comprehension of self-fulfilling prophecy. I wish you could explain for me the chicken and the egg. I wish you could tell me about impredicativity. And thereby help me with complexity.

 

But I will go alone if I have no choice. Yes, I will carry on with no other voice. Yes, I will do as I've always done, and continue to distinguish signal from noise.

Here you go... http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm#em

[Ouroboros]

But for us to kill our own unborn so that we may harvest their cells? wow

Again, nothing to be worked up for since it can be harvested from other sources.

 

Kill babies to get stem cells? Sure, it's a moral dilemma.

 

Take umbilical cords or take it from the obese american citizen's fat (he/she can sell her liposuction for highest bidder)? I don't think that's a big moral issue. Is it?

[Ouroboros]

You don't understand the difference between theistic evolution and ID.

I had to look it up. I didn't know there was any difference between the two, but after looking it up, I can see the small difference.

Its why i said it means something different to different people.

 

There is YEC

There is TE

There is Old Earth

 

They are all technically intelligent design.

Yeah.Agree. It's pretty much the same. "Goddidit!" But exactly how? Different views. That's nothing new.

[Akheia]

Apparently I'm the idiot! haha

 

Sorry. I coulda sworn I saw you say that. My bad!

 

No worries. There's not a lot of difference, functionally, between what I identify as and an atheist. I fully accept and promote science and reason and live my life--the only one I 100% know I have--in a way that advances the human race rather than being a deadweight upon it. As I've mentioned, I give a lot of religions a pass because they don't make extraordinary claims or unreasonable demands upon either their adherents or upon the non-believers around those adherents. I'm perfectly willing to live and let live until people like OC decide to embark upon the breathtakingly rude course of imposing upon my life with their own extraordinary claims and unreasonable demands. If OC is going to make those, if he's going to demand I believe like he does, he has to do a lot more than wail and shriek like an infant. He's going to have to man up and actually prove that what he believes is true.

 

What I privately believe does not in the slightest matter in this particular discussion. The truth of my religious outlook isn't being examined here. OC's is. Even if we totally disprove all reason to believe my way, that doesn't mean his way is actually valid. He's trying to shift the burden of proof onto someone else, rather than deal with it himself. If he gets me sidetracked into examining my own faith, it keeps people from examining his. I really hope he gets arrested one day and tries to get out of the charge by demanding the cop prove he's not himself a criminal before he'll let himself get taken downtown!

 

What a weak, weak god OC has if OC must resort to these childlike, easily-seen-through deceptions to maintain his belief and sway people. Far from proving his case, he's proving he hasn't got one at all.

[Legion]

Legion i know we have completly difrent views of the world as i have a reductionist view and you have, i dont know i guess its anthtopic.

 

Kaiser, my views are moving towards complexity. Though I do not yet understand it. I sure could use some help. I wish you could ease my comprehension of self-fulfilling prophecy. I wish you could explain for me the chicken and the egg. I wish you could tell me about impredicativity. And thereby help me with complexity.

 

But I will go alone if I have no choice. Yes, I will carry on with no other voice. Yes, I will do as I've always done, and continue to distinguish signal from noise.

Here you go... http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm#em

 

Thank you A-man. I will try to look at it in greater depth later, but upon first look it doesn't seem to directly address my requirements.

 

But I am grateful, that you took the time to try and find something.

[Antlerman]

A fetus is alive.

 

Therein lies the debate.

 

No. There is no debate about this. If a fetus was not alive then we wouldn't be compelled to kill them through abortion. Now would we?

There is in fact a huge debate about this. Are you unaware? You must mean to YOU there is no debate in your thinking based on the way you frame your argument. Therefore your thinking prevails in the debate? You have decided, therefore everyone else's point of view, including those of the Supreme Court, is negated and wrong. Correct?

 

I'm just saying it's good to be open to listening to why others hold different views.

[Antlerman]

Legion i know we have completly difrent views of the world as i have a reductionist view and you have, i dont know i guess its anthtopic.

 

Kaiser, my views are moving towards complexity. Though I do not yet understand it. I sure could use some help. I wish you could ease my comprehension of self-fulfilling prophecy. I wish you could explain for me the chicken and the egg. I wish you could tell me about impredicativity. And thereby help me with complexity.

 

But I will go alone if I have no choice. Yes, I will carry on with no other voice. Yes, I will do as I've always done, and continue to distinguish signal from noise.

Here you go... http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm#em

 

Thank you A-man. I will try to look at it in greater depth later, but upon first look it doesn't seem to directly address my requirements.

 

But I am grateful, that you took the time to try and find something.

I see it as what complexity suggests, and why reductionism is incomplete. Very much what I get you are sensing and getting at underlying what you're looking into.

[Legion]

A fetus is alive.

 

Therein lies the debate.

 

No. There is no debate about this. If a fetus was not alive then we wouldn't be compelled to kill them through abortion. Now would we?

There is in fact a huge debate about this. Are you unaware? You must mean to YOU there is no debate in your thinking based on the way you frame your argument. Therefore your thinking prevails in the debate? You have decided, therefore everyone else's point of view, including those of the Supreme Court, is negated and wrong. Correct?

 

I'm just saying it's good to be open to listening to why others hold different views.

 

Yes. I am convinced in a dogmatic way that I am right here, and that in this particular area, the disagreement which arises here between myself and others is due to the fact that they are mistaken.

 

And I really don't care if others think this is arrogant.

 

Edit: And I don't care who they are either. Supreme Court. Noble Prize winners. anybody

[Antlerman]

A fetus is alive.

 

Therein lies the debate.

 

No. There is no debate about this. If a fetus was not alive then we wouldn't be compelled to kill them through abortion. Now would we?

There is in fact a huge debate about this. Are you unaware? You must mean to YOU there is no debate in your thinking based on the way you frame your argument. Therefore your thinking prevails in the debate? You have decided, therefore everyone else's point of view, including those of the Supreme Court, is negated and wrong. Correct?

 

I'm just saying it's good to be open to listening to why others hold different views.

 

Yes. I am convinced in a dogmatic way that I am right here, and that in this particular area, the disagreement which arises here between myself and others is due to the fact that they are mistaken.

 

And I really don't care if others think this is arrogant.

 

Edit: And I don't care who they are either. Supreme Court. Noble Prize winners. anybody

I used to think that way as well. The argument as presented makes it so clear. Perhaps the issue is the argument as presented.