Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A Challenge To Funguyrye.


bornagainathiest

Recommended Posts

 

Dear Jesus, thank you for my man-titties. They don't do much but I'm sure I just don't understand your 'higher' thinking as to why you gave them to me. Thank you Jesus for my tonsils and appendix, both of which got infected and had to be removed by a doctor. Thank you for designing the airway to my lungs and the esophagus right on top of each other so I choke on stuff. Just think if you had made the airway go up or some other way then if food got stuck, I could still breathe.

 

Hip hip hooray for not so intelligent design!

 

I just had a word with God, I prayed and he answered.

 

He said, "those man-titties you have, I gave them to you so that one day you will mention it to funguyrye.

 

Your tonsils and appendix, I wanted you to go to the doctor to remove them so that you know that there is always someone to care for you in this wonderful world.

 

The airway to your lungs, that was made so that each time you choke you are reminded that mistakes are beautiful.

 

Signed, God"

 

 

As the Word of God and holy scripture this message from the prophet Falemon is approved by the Bible, breathed by God, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.   2 Tim 3:16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What isn't relevant to me is a science that denies a Creator.  I just talked with a pharmacist who isn't a believer, and used to be an atheist, say when he was in medical school and cutting up cadavers, he was awestruck on the complexities of the human body and how our bodies had to of been intelligently designed.  Mind you, he doesn't believe in God, but he acknowledged we came from a designer.  He just isn't sure who or what that is yet.

 

So what isn't relevant to me is a science that denies God because the entire world, universe, bodies speak to his creation. 

 

 

That's ok FGR.

 

You can redefine science to mean what you want... and not what it actually is. 

 

By definition, all bona fide science is agnostic. 

So anything purporting to be science that has anything at all to say about the supernatural (like a creator) isn't really science.  Real science has nothing at all to say about the issue.  It is totally neutral on supernatural matters. 

 

That's because it's not within science's remit to investigate anything supernatural.

Science confines itself strictly to the study of the natural universe.  You can wrongfully believe what you like about science, but if you do so you be exactly that... wrong.

 

BAA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

""  I just talked with a pharmacist who isn't a believer, and used to be an atheist, say when he was in medical school and cutting up cadavers, he was awestruck on the complexities of the human body and how our bodies had to of been intelligently designed.  Mind you, he doesn't believe in God, but he acknowledged we came from a designer.  He just isn't sure who or what that is yet."   funguyrye

 

But you know, don't you?

So your analytical mind thinks that is convincing evidence of intelligent design? Because he is a expert in anatomy, etc.?  Yet the opinion of virtually all of the scientists who spent their life studying biology, chemistry, genetics, etc, don't matter to you? My gawd, the opinion of scientists, including medical

doctors overwhelmingly favor evolution as the process creating and developing life. Where is you logical mind? I think everybody here on this cite who are exchristians can tell you why evolution produces a complicated body such as we humans have- at least in general. And some can tell you with specificity Who do you think you are kidding?   bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FGR,

 

Being awestruck by the complexity of the human body isn't that big of a deal is it?

 

Once I told my doctor that I was going to Arby's after I left her office. She said that of all of things that they (her fellow med students and her) couldn't eat for lunch in the cadaver room was Arby's, because the way Arby's sliced their meat just looked like what they saw when they had to cut up human muscle. I told her that that didn't bother me a bit, and her last piece of advice was to drink plenty of water, because it's salty.

 

Every person can do what they want with intelligent design or the need to have a creator, but the fact remains that until there is proof of more, we are just meat.

 

Smart, beautiful, intelligent and even brilliant pieces of meat, like myself, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funguyrye wrote...

 

What isn't relevant to me is a science that denies a Creator.  I just talked with a pharmacist who isn't a believer, and used to be an atheist, say when he was in medical school and cutting up cadavers, he was awestruck on the complexities of the human body and how our bodies had to of been intelligently designed.  Mind you, he doesn't believe in God, but he acknowledged we came from a designer.  He just isn't sure who or what that is yet.

 

So what isn't relevant to me is a science that denies God because the entire world, universe, bodies speak to his creation. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm feeling generous towards you today FGR...

 

So I thought I'd help you out a bit.

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, science is totally agnostic and neutral about supernatural matters and therefore has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of anything supernatural.  It can only address and investigate claims made about the natural, physcial universe.

 

And this is where you're tripping up.

When you say that the entire world, universe and [human] bodies speak to his [the Christian god's] creation - you are making a positive claim.  This claim involves material, physical things.  Since science can address and investigate claims of this kind, you've opened yourself up to scientific scrutiny.  If this scrutiny doesn't support your claim - then the blame for that doesn't lie with science, with scientists or with the scientific method - the blame lies squarely with the claim-maker.  In this case... that's you.

 

If the evidence you present (and since you are the claim-maker, the onus is on you to back up your claim with evidence that science can investigate) doesn't pass muster - then once again, the blame for this doesn't lie with science itself, nor with any scientists, nor with the scientific method - the blame lies with you. 

 

The error you seem to be making (in my judgement) is this.

 

You seem to think that science can attribute supernatural causes to natural things.

 

PageofCupsNono.gif

 

I'm sorry FGR, but that's not permitted. 

 

The groundrules of science are very clear about this 

Science deals only with natural phenomenon, natural events, natural forces and natural causes.  It makes only naturalistic theories and models and arrives only at naturalistic conclusions.  It never, ever attributes the workings of anything to any kind of supernatural agency.

 

Please understand that I'm trying to help you here by showing you what science is about, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will make some effort on my part to learn about science, but from a Jewish and Torah perspective.  

 

 

Why bother?  Doing science from a religious perspective is not science.  Do us all a favor and take pride in your ignorance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I will make some effort on my part to learn about science, but from a Jewish and Torah perspective.  

 

 

Why bother?  Doing science from a religious perspective is not science.  Do us all a favor and take pride in your ignorance.

 

He already takes pride in his scientific ignorance.  Indeed, he has pronounced his disdain for any rational thinking, science included, which contradicts his religion, or his anthropocentric narcissism.

 

This one is quite delusional.  He isn't worth the time.  Plus, he is quite angry.  Why deal with such toxicity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anger is one of the stages of facing death, FGR. Anger is one of them, so is denial. What was that last one?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Funguyrye wrote...

 

What isn't relevant to me is a science that denies a Creator.  I just talked with a pharmacist who isn't a believer, and used to be an atheist, say when he was in medical school and cutting up cadavers, he was awestruck on the complexities of the human body and how our bodies had to of been intelligently designed.  Mind you, he doesn't believe in God, but he acknowledged we came from a designer.  He just isn't sure who or what that is yet.

 

So what isn't relevant to me is a science that denies God because the entire world, universe, bodies speak to his creation. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm feeling generous towards you today FGR...

 

So I thought I'd help you out a bit.

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, science is totally agnostic and neutral about supernatural matters and therefore has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of anything supernatural.  It can only address and investigate claims made about the natural, physcial universe.

 

And this is where you're tripping up.

When you say that the entire world, universe and [human] bodies speak to his [the Christian god's] creation - you are making a positive claim.  This claim involves material, physical things.  Since science can address and investigate claims of this kind, you've opened yourself up to scientific scrutiny.  If this scrutiny doesn't support your claim - then the blame for that doesn't lie with science, with scientists or with the scientific method - the blame lies squarely with the claim-maker.  In this case... that's you.

 

If the evidence you present (and since you are the claim-maker, the onus is on you to back up your claim with evidence that science can investigate) doesn't pass muster - then once again, the blame for this doesn't lie with science itself, nor with any scientists, nor with the scientific method - the blame lies with you. 

 

The error you seem to be making (in my judgement) is this.

 

You seem to think that science can attribute supernatural causes to natural things.

 

PageofCupsNono.gif

 

I'm sorry FGR, but that's not permitted. 

 

The groundrules of science are very clear about this 

Science deals only with natural phenomenon, natural events, natural forces and natural causes.  It makes only naturalistic theories and models and arrives only at naturalistic conclusions.  It never, ever attributes the workings of anything to any kind of supernatural agency.

 

Please understand that I'm trying to help you here by showing you what science is about, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

I will make some effort on my part to learn about science, but from a Jewish and Torah perspective.  When I have time, I will look and read these articles here:  http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/435073/jewish/Torah-Science.htm

 

Considering Jews make up about .2 percent of the worlds population, but at least 22% of the previous Nobel Peace Prize winners have been Jewish, I will start there. 

 

 

There is no such thing as science from a Jewish and Torah perspective.

 

You are (once again) redefining science to be what you want - not what it actually is.

 

The content of the Torah is purported to be supernatural in origin.

Therefore it has no place in and has no effect upon on the workings of science.  The discipline of science is totally agnostic and purely devoted to the study of natural phenomenon.  Supernaturalism plays no part in it's workings and has nothing to say about how it should or shouldn't conduct itself.

 

FGR, you don't get to choose what science is or isn't, ok?

Bhim is an astrophysicist who's also a Hindu.  Ask him for yourself.  Ask him if there's such a thing as science from a Hindu perspective.  He'll say, No.  The science he does can also be done by Mormons, Sikhs, Buddhists or Rastafarians.  Science is neutral and cannot be tied to a particular religion, theology or set of supernatural beliefs.

 

Please re-think this thru carefully.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

 

Where did I say that?

 

 

 

You didn't, FGR.

 

The unnamed creationist I met in a local cafe did...

 

"Since you [FGR] ducked out of my challenge, I met this Creationist I know, in a local cafe (chance meeting) and showed him the same kind of science data on my iPad that I showed you - predictions being matched by observations.  How can false knowledge yield true answers, I asked him?  He just couldn't handle it and ducked out...just as you did."

.

.

.

.

Keep up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^  lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

 

Where did I say that?

 

 

 

You didn't, FGR.

 

The unnamed creationist I met in a local cafe did...

 

"Since you [FGR] ducked out of my challenge, I met this Creationist I know, in a local cafe (chance meeting) and showed him the same kind of science data on my iPad that I showed you - predictions being matched by observations.  How can false knowledge yield true answers, I asked him?  He just couldn't handle it and ducked out...just as you did."

.

.

.

.

Keep up!

 

Then how is the conversation you had with this Creationist related to me?

 

I have to go to the emergency room and be treated for whiplash due to the overwhelming force of the face-palm I just gave myself.  And there is a huge bruise on my forehead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

 

Where did I say that?

 

 

 

You didn't, FGR.

 

The unnamed creationist I met in a local cafe did...

 

"Since you [FGR] ducked out of my challenge, I met this Creationist I know, in a local cafe (chance meeting) and showed him the same kind of science data on my iPad that I showed you - predictions being matched by observations.  How can false knowledge yield true answers, I asked him?  He just couldn't handle it and ducked out...just as you did."

.

.

.

.

Keep up!

 

Then how is the conversation you had with this Creationist related to me?

 

 

I have a little free time FGR, so I'll happily explain your pivotal part in this tale.

.

.

.

 

We first locked horns in the, "If Jesus is God" thread, back in early December.

I put my "False Knowledge Cannot Give True Answers" question to you there, in post # 412.  This was the very first time I'd tried this line of argument on anyone.  Your reaction to it was quite telling. 

 

You dodged and changed the subject. 

You misquoted me so that you could frame a reply to something I hadn't asked you about.  You joked about science and poked fun at it.  You did everything you could to avoid tackling the actual question I was putting to you.  (Please don't bother denying any of this, btw.  I can prove what I'm saying here.) 

 

You even went so far as to suggest that you weren't a Young Earth Creationist.

Which is interesting.  Interesting, seeing as in that thread YOU wrote about Punctuated Equilibrium and YOU introduced the Tornado-in-the-Junkyard argument.  You replied to Ouroboros, saying, "Evolutionists want us to accept something that is not observable with our eyes."  And to MyMistake, you replied, "Well when laws of entropy quit conflicting with evolution, give me a dingle."

 

This is classic YEC behavior, FGR.

So, even if you deny that you ARE a YEC, your familiarity with this kind of nonsense says otherwise.  You're also on record as saying that the Bible is always right and that your god is always 100% right, while scientists are never 100% right about anything.  That kind belief in Biblical Inerrancy fits hand in glove with literalistic Young Earth Creationism..

.

.

.

Anyway, I noted of how scared you were of my True Knowledge = True Answers argument and so on Dec 20 I started up this thread, challenging you to answer how John Bahcall made such accurate predictions about previously undetected things, back in 1987.  If he had false knowledge about the age of the universe, his predictions would never have been confirmed.  Yet they were. So he must have had true knowledge about the universe.  True knowledge that contradicted scripture.

 

As we both know, you ducked out of this challenge too.

You ran and hid, covering your ass with the excuse that this topic wasn't relevant to you.  Like this...  "So I can't answer your question nor accept your challenge as it is not relevant to me.  Sorry."  Once you did that I knew that I was on to something big... something that scares the living shit out of anti-science Christians like you.

.

.

.

Then, during the holdiay season I had my fateful cafe meeting with that creationist.

(Let's call him Judas.)  We met by chance and talked beer and microbreweries (Dock Street, Old Knucklehead, Red Hook, etc.) before the conversation turned to the science of brewing.  Pretty soon Judas got on his soapbox and expressed his wall-to-wall disbelief in science and his total belief in scripture - instantly reminding me of you, FGR.  He went on to claim that only the Bible could give us the truth about the world.

 

That's when I fished out my iPad and showed Judas this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg ...the perfect match-up between theory and observation. That's when Judas turned tail and walked off.  Ok, unlike his Biblical counterpart, he didn't go and hang himself.  Nor did his his entrails burst out.  Nope.  Since then I've seen him around.  But that was the second time I'd used my argument and the second time it worked brilliantly.

 

So I decided to do something about it.

I started up the "True Knowledge?" thread, over at Christianforums on Jan 8 and let them have it.  The rest, as they say, is history.  Those Christians who have no problem accepting science have no problem accepting that true scientific knowledge yields true answers about the universe.  But evolution-denying YEC's like KWCrazy didn't want to go to where my argument was taking them.  You can almost feel the naked hatred KWC has for evolution oozing out of his words!

.

.

.

And I have you to thank for these successes, FGR.

Which is why, when you asked us to resist your evangelism two days ago, I wrote that message of thanks to you in your, "Public Service Announcment" thread.  Thanks so much FGR!  I owe it all to you.  wink.png

.

.

.

Oh btw, the story's not over yet!  Lookee here! 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60831-bill-nye-vs-ken-ham/  As I wrote in post # 12, when a scientific prediction is confirmed by observations, that's a worked example of true knowledge yielding a true answer about reality.  Bill Nye should have used that line of argument against Ken Ham.  If it works against you, against Judas and against KWCrazy, then a hirsute antipodean coprolite like Ham would have no chance.

 

Have a nice day!  smile.png

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

over at Christianforums on Jan 8 and let them have it.

Hey BAA, which subforum is it on over there? Christianforums is not an easy site to navigate. I looked on the science subforum but couldn't find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

over at Christianforums on Jan 8 and let them have it.

Hey BAA, which subforum is it on over there? Christianforums is not an easy site to navigate. I looked on the science subforum but couldn't find it.

 

 

Here you go, Ficino.

 

http://www.christianforums.com/t7797424/

 

There is a (so-called) Science area at Christianforums...

 

http://www.christianforums.com/f408/

 

...but it's a joke.

 

Nothing but a place for anti-evolutionists (SubductionZone, AV1611vet, GottServant) to vent their nonsense and Electric Universe charlatans (Michael) to try and push their pseudo-science.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Did Dr. Arno Penzias, one of the men who discovered the cosmic radiation background and received the Nobel Prize, did he not write an article called "Creation is Supported by all the Data So Far?"  The man who made that device and understands how it works and is infinitely more intelligent then myself, still concludes there is a Creator?

 

Very interesting stuff I am picking up.  Thanks for sparking my interest in this area.

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=5yCl6iGSfK0C&pg=PA78&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

Wow, what a horrible thing to say about yourself.  You have caught a lot of flak around here for the controversial things you have said but I wouldn't put your IQ at negative infinity and I doubt anybody else would either.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Dr. Arno Penzias, one of the men who discovered the cosmic radiation background and received the Nobel Prize, did he not write an article called "Creation is Supported by all the Data So Far?"  The man who made that device and understands how it works and is infinitely more intelligent then myself, still concludes there is a Creator?

 

Very interesting stuff I am picking up.  Thanks for sparking my interest in this area.

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=5yCl6iGSfK0C&pg=PA78&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

I'm pleased for you, FGR.

 

But please remember that a scientist's personal, religious views are just that ...personal views.

 

Scientists are quite free to hold whatever religious views they like.  Here's a small sampling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne (Anglican Christian)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins (Theistic Evolutionist Christian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Lee_Glashow  (Jewish parentage, now a Humanist)
Hugh Ross (Old Earth Creationist) is an astrophysicist and runs this Christian outreach site.  http://www.reasons.org
Here in Ex-Christian.net, Bhim is a practising Hindu and also an astrophysicist.
 
The bottom line in science (no matter what a scientist believes) is the science.
Anything else, isn't science.  That's why my challenge to you was made on the basis of the data - not what any scientist believed.  The data is king.  Please don't lose sight of that.
 
Thanks,
 
BAA.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First off FGR...

 

Thanks for alerting me to MarkT's and Leslie Dellow's input at Christianforums.

I thought that thread had died and so I hadn't checked back there for a while.  Please note tho', that I try not to 'retort', but to respond politely and courteously.  The word, 'retort' has too much of a negative connotation for me.

.

.

.

 

So you're interested how these scientists kept faith?

Well yes, science and faith can indeed live together.  But the $1,000,000 question is this.  Can they do so harmoniously?  That is, without contradicting each other.

 

Let's take a hypothetical example.

A cosmologist LITERALLY believes that God spoke the universe into being in a 144 LITERAL hours (8,640 minutes), less than 10,000 years ago, in strict accordance with the Bible.  But the telescopic and satellite data he works with every day tells him that the universe began 13.82 billion years ago and took billions of years to evolve to the state he sees it in today.

 

What should he do, FGR?

Should he disregard the evidence of his own eyes and go with scripture?  Should he invoke some kind of conspiracy theory and claim that Hasatan is deceiving him?  Or should he insert some kind of Gap into his theological framework to square up the mismatch between the data and the Bible?  Or should he be unflinchingly honest with himself (as John Bahcall was) and conclude that the Bible cannot be taken LITERALLY?

 

If there's another option you'd like to describe, please do so. 

 

This question gets to heart of the on-going dispute between us and I very much look forward to your reply.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please monitor the developing thread at Christianforums carefully, FGR.

 

I've just been corrected by a scientist using the handle, Radagast.

When I'm wrong about something, I admit it.  When there's the possibility that I'll be proven wrong about something, I accept it gracefully and don't try to dodge the issue.  When something happens that put me on the spot, I face up to it.  I try to be as unflinchingly honest with myself and with others as I can be.

 

Now, you know exactly what I'm talking about here.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First off FGR...

 

Thanks for alerting me to MarkT's and Leslie Dellow's input at Christianforums.

I thought that thread had died and so I hadn't checked back there for a while.  Please note tho', that I try not to 'retort', but to respond politely and courteously.  The word, 'retort' has too much of a negative connotation for me.

.

.

.

 

So you're interested how these scientists kept faith?

Well yes, science and faith can indeed live together.  But the $1,000,000 question is this.  Can they do so harmoniously?  That is, without contradicting each other.

 

Let's take a hypothetical example.

A cosmologist LITERALLY believes that God spoke the universe into being in a 144 LITERAL hours (8,640 minutes), less than 10,000 years ago, in strict accordance with the Bible.  But the telescopic and satellite data he works with every day tells him that the universe began 13.82 billion years ago and took billions of years to evolve to the state he sees it in today.

 

What should he do, FGR?

Should he disregard the evidence of his own eyes and go with scripture?  Should he invoke some kind of conspiracy theory and claim that Hasatan is deceiving him?  Or should he insert some kind of Gap into his theological framework to square up the mismatch between the data and the Bible?  Or should he be unflinchingly honest with himself (as John Bahcall was) and conclude that the Bible cannot be taken LITERALLY?

 

If there's another option you'd like to describe, please do so. 

 

This question gets to heart of the on-going dispute between us and I very much look forward to your reply.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I am reading your replies over at that site, and I appreciate the way you converse with them and vice versa.  Much of the science is greek to me, and I am ok with that.  I will be honest that I do not necessarily stand by YEC, or by old earth creationism because I honestly do not know enough of either side to render an opinion.  So much I think I know, but the more I learn, the more I realize just how much I really don't know.  I can readily accept both sides of the argument. 

 

I may possibly see another option and I do believe in a gap theory, but not one that is billions of years old, but still about 6000 years old.  Again, I am not firm on that, but nothing I have read has ever suggested that.  I will continue to read that post on that site with interest.

 

 

I'm pleased your reading, FGR.

 

But the issue between us isn't one of understanding science, it's one of trust.

.

.

.

 

How can I trust you?     HOW.    CAN.    I.    TRUST.    YOU.   ?

.

.

.

 

How can I possibly trust you and what you post about Jesus, when I see you dishonestly dodging the challenges I've put to you?   You didn't see me reply to Radagast, saying... "This isn't relevant to me"... did you?  I accepted that I was wrong.  I did that because I value the truth above anything else.

 

Now, take a look at this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lyne

"When Lyne announced the retraction of his results at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, he received a standing ovation from his scientific colleagues for having the intellectual integrity and the courage to admit this error publicly."

 

Can you match Andrew Lyne and can you match me?

Which is more important to you?  The truth...at any cost.  Or is the cost of sacrificing your deeply-held beliefs too much?  Can you be as unflinching in your desire for the truth as John Bahcall?

 

You responded to the question about the amount of energy in the universe with an honest, "I don't know."  I admire you for that and appreciate your candor.  But until the issue of trust between us is properly resolved, I simply cannot trust you or what you post or what your motives appear to be.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.