Christianity Debunked Using Science and History

[Miriam]

RedNeck, 99% of what I've said here has been in response to you guys. When I said I don't know, this was just proof that my entire understanding is rubbish. If you don't want to hear what I think, just stop talking to me.

 

I didn't say I know exactly what you think and believe - actually, that's what you've been telling me. 

 

If you don't want to hear what I have to say, just stop talking to me.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

42 minutes ago, Miriam said:

RedNeck, 99% of what I've said here has been in response to you guys. When I said I don't know, this was just proof that my entire understanding is rubbish. If you don't want to hear what I think, just stop talking to me.

 

I didn't say I know exactly what you think and believe - actually, that's what you've been telling me. 

 

If you don't want to hear what I have to say, just stop talking to me.

No.  Whether you choose to believe it or not, I am trying to help you here.  But your constant misrepresentations are standing in the way of either one if us being able to make any forward progress with each other.

 

At no point in my post did I indicate that I don't want to hear what you have to say.  At no point in our interaction have I used your ignorance as proof that your understanding is rubbish.  You are welcome to provide quotes of me making such statements if you want; and I will happily publish a public retraction.  If not, kindly apologize for, yet again, misrepresenting my position. 

 

In the following quotes, you indicate that you do think you know what we think and believe:

 

Quote from "open question to all--can you help?"

Miriam said,

"Oh, Margee! I do like you! But as I said in another post, I don't think you realise how you lot actually think here."

 

Quote from "open question to all--can you help?"

Miriam said,

"Not trying to be condescending.  But I'm really not a fool.  You aren't as objective as you all think."  

 

 

Quote from "open question to all--can you help?"

Miriam said,

"TS - Yes, you are all former Christians. I have read what you believed. I have been reading what you have been saying to me - all of it, carefully. But you have only asked me the questions you have asked a million times before. You don't know everything I think, you just think you do, and as you read that, now you think I am saying what you have heard before, all of it the same."

 

 

Quote from "open question to all--can you help?"

Miriam said,

 "both parties have to be willing to see the others point of view. I've seen yours - you don't want to see mine, because you've seen it all,"

 

[TruthSeeker0]

On 12/28/2018 at 1:17 PM, Miriam said:

Not my point - if I posted a video I really wanted you to understand, and you couldn't hear it, I would go out of my way to find the points for you.

 

 

That's good, but you're an adult, and if you're curious or interested enough you will easily find a way to view the contents. As Josh stated, we won't spoon feed you here. Perhaps you don't realize how ridiculous and childish this tactic of yours is.

[Miriam]

Quote from Margee: I already know what you would say about my letter. I already know what you believe because I believed it also.

 

I can go through all the posts to me since I've been here and find more.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, Miriam said:

Quote from Margee: I already know what you would say about my letter. I already know what you believe because I believed it also.

 

I can go through all the posts to me since I've been here and find more.

Be my guest.  It'd be nice to see you supporting the claims you make.

 

Moreover, Margee, like any of the rest of us, really does know whereof she speaks, as she has been where you are.  So her claim is both justified and supported. 

 

Of course, another option for you would be to sincerely put forth an effort to understand what exactly I'm trying to tell you, instead of just firing back a response.  You are, after all, here to learn and understand, aren't you?

[Miriam]

OK Redneck, for your edification, this is what I have learned.

 

You are dogmatic in your rejection of dogma, and incredibly strong minded in your view it is wrong to hold strong minded views. You point the finger at Christians for claiming there is absolute truth, but you must know absolute truth or you wouldn't be able to say categorically that we're wrong.  You say biblical morals are evil, and we should use human morals - there are no morals without believing in a higher order, or morals are whatever you think is moral and you can't argue with someone else. If someone says, "Humans are just animals, and animals kill to obtain what they want, therefore I am going to kill my neighbour and steal his car, because mine broke down." You can't say that's wrong, because murder, theft, and selfishly wanting something that belongs to someone else are biblical morals.

What's worse, you want to blame Christianity for all the problems in society so you don't have to take any responsibility.

 

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Moreover, Margee, like any of the rest of us, really does know whereof she speaks, as she has been where you are.  So her claim is both justified and supported. 

As you say, you have made my point better than I ever could.

 

You sneer at Christians who come here and leave, - of course they do, it's the wise thing to do in the face of obvious prejudice.

 

And you claim to be objective.

 

That is what I have learned. It isn't what I wanted to, though.  Now, I have been treated on occasion with respect and kindness here, so it's not that you're all horrible people, you just, as you say, "live in a bubble"

 

Miriam. 

 

Go ahead and respond, and if I say nothing you can congratulate yourselves on being right. Or you could look again at your rigid beliefs. At least I know what I claim.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Miriam said:

OK Redneck, for your edification, this is what I have learned.

 

You are dogmatic in your rejection of dogma, and incredibly strong minded in your view it is wrong to hold strong minded views. You point the finger at Christians for claiming there is absolute truth, but you must know absolute truth or you wouldn't be able to say categorically that we're wrong.  You say biblical morals are evil, and we should use human morals - there are no morals without believing in a higher order, or morals are whatever you think is moral and you can't argue with someone else. If someone says, "Humans are just animals, and animals kill to obtain what they want, therefore I am going to kill my neighbour and steal his car, because mine broke down." You can't say that's wrong, because murder, theft, and selfishly wanting something that belongs to someone else are biblical morals.

What's worse, you want to blame Christianity for all the problems in society so you don't have to take any responsibility.

 

As you say, you have made my point better than I ever could.

 

You sneer at Christians who come here and leave, - of course they do, it's the wise thing to do in the face of obvious prejudice.

 

And you claim to be objective.

 

That is what I have learned. It isn't what I wanted to, though.  Now, I have been treated on occasion with respect and kindness here, so it's not that you're all horrible people, you just, as you say, "live in a bubble"

 

Miriam. 

 

Go ahead and respond, and if I say nothing you can congratulate yourselves on being right. Or you could look again at your rigid beliefs. At least I know what I claim.

Supporting evidence?

[Joshpantera]

On 12/29/2018 at 5:37 PM, Miriam said:

OK Redneck, for your edification, this is what I have learned.

 

You are dogmatic in your rejection of dogma, and incredibly strong minded in your view it is wrong to hold strong minded views. You point the finger at Christians for claiming there is absolute truth, but you must know absolute truth or you wouldn't be able to say categorically that we're wrong. 

 

Looks like Miriam's gone, but for the sake of outlining a poor application of logic I'm going to look at the last post. Obviously it doesn't require knowing absolute truth in order to call some one out on being wrong about absolute truth.

 

If someone puts forward a claim about having absolute truth (a christian), and it turns out that the claim fails along the way and is not absolutely true, then that's it. Calling christianity failed at claiming absolute truth does not require that anyone else has absolute truth themselves. And in fact, it's entirely possible that everyone in question could be lacking knowledge of absolute truth all the way around. So what? That doesn't even factor in when it comes to demonstrating how and why something is NOT absolutely true. 

 

On 12/29/2018 at 5:37 PM, Miriam said:

You say biblical morals are evil, and we should use human morals - there are no morals without believing in a higher order, or morals are whatever you think is moral and you can't argue with someone else. If someone says, "Humans are just animals, and animals kill to obtain what they want, therefore I am going to kill my neighbour and steal his car, because mine broke down." You can't say that's wrong, because murder, theft, and selfishly wanting something that belongs to someone else are biblical morals.

What's worse, you want to blame Christianity for all the problems in society so you don't have to take any responsibility.

 

 

They are only biblical morals because human animals evolved these morals and then applied them to our religions. It's not the other way around. They didn't pop up out of thin air completely intact or handed down from a cloud. And the bible's morals are a mixture of outdated ideas which are bad, along with some that still hold weight today and so are still applied and in use. All of them, the good and bad, popped into existence via ancient human animals conceiving of various things and then applying them to socialization. 

 

On 12/29/2018 at 5:37 PM, Miriam said:

As you say, you have made my point better than I ever could.

 

You sneer at Christians who come here and leave, - of course they do, it's the wise thing to do in the face of obvious prejudice.

 

And you claim to be objective.

 

That is what I have learned. It isn't what I wanted to, though.  Now, I have been treated on occasion with respect and kindness here, so it's not that you're all horrible people, you just, as you say, "live in a bubble"

 

Miriam. 

 

Go ahead and respond, and if I say nothing you can congratulate yourselves on being right. Or you could look again at your rigid beliefs. At least I know what I claim.

 

Who's claimed to be objective and is actually not? Not the ex christians posting. You'd have to prove the claim before it's taken with any seriousness. 

 

A christian who's stuck with claims of absolute truth really has no business accusing others of "rigid beliefs." Yes you do know what you claim, and we all know that what you claim is untenable. Those of us who have moved on know something that you have yet to understand in any meaningful way. First and foremost being that christianity fails at absolute truth claims. A collection of errant and contradictory writings, spread across several thousands of years of various people's conflicting opinions (although tossed together into one book), did not equal an inerrant and fluid reading of absolute truth. 

 

And the more probable situation is that absolute truth is unattainable or further out ahead of us still awaiting the day of discovery.

 

In this scenario the bible and christianity would represent nothing more than one more stumbling block along the truth seeking path. One more example of what's wrong, rather than an example of what's right. I say stumbling block because it can cause people to think (incorrectly) that they have already found absolute truth and the journey is over, when the journey is at best merely in infancy.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[reverendturmoil]

I watched the first minute and 30 seconds and hit the stop button.  There were no human beings on earth in 40,000 BC!  I may watch the rest of it sometime but as of now, his first couple minutes tells me this guy is way off the mark.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

1 hour ago, reverendturmoil said:

I watched the first minute and 30 seconds and hit the stop button.  There were no human beings on earth in 40,000 BC!  I may watch the rest of it sometime but as of now, his first couple minutes tells me this guy is way off the mark.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

[reverendturmoil]

32 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

I don't believe in evolution.  It has more holes that car with hit with 100 rounds of 00 buck.  Good things don't emerge from accidents. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, reverendturmoil said:

Good things don't emerge from accidents. 

You don't understand evolution.

[sdelsolray]

14 minutes ago, reverendturmoil said:

I don't believe in evolution.  It has more holes that car with hit with 100 rounds of 00 buck.  Good things don't emerge from accidents. 

 

My oh my.

[reverendturmoil]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You don't understand evolution.

That's the typical answer people get who disagree.  Ever think of the possibility that disagreement's are the result of understanding?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

45 minutes ago, reverendturmoil said:

That's the typical answer people get who in disagree.  Ever think of the possibility that disagreement's are the result of understanding?

Evolution is not something one can "disagree" with, or "not believe in".  This is due to there being more evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than there is for any other scientific Theory; and said evidence comes from a multitude of different scientific disciplines.  This puts the Theory of Evolution on par with the Theory of Gravity.  And, like gravity, one either accepts it or one doesn't.  

 

If you understood evolution, then you'd know this.  So, no, your disagreement is not the result of understanding.  I'm not going to argue with you over this, nor is it my job to educate you.  Remaining in ignorance is a choice; and so is doing your own homework.  You're old enough to pick one or the other for yourself.

 

 

[reverendturmoil]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Evolution is not something one can "disagree" with, or "not believe in".

Now that makes absolutely no sense.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, reverendturmoil said:

Now that makes absolutely no sense.

Imagine my surprise...

[TruthSeeker0]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Imagine my surprise...

Imo it's a matter of being open to the option of trying to understand it. It's pretty straightforward but most people get stuck at the very beginning over the idea humans and chimps had a common ancestor and can't get over it. Either that or the scale of time and incremental adaptive selection. Most who disagree say utterly ridiculous trash like "chimps can't turn into humans."

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 6:45 AM, reverendturmoil said:

I don't believe in evolution.  It has more holes that car with hit with 100 rounds of 00 buck.  Good things don't emerge from accidents. 

 

Reality doesn't really care if you don't believe in it.

 

You can not believe in gravity if you like, but jump off a building and reality will teach you a very final lesson.

 

And not true - spiderman getting bitten was an accident and he became a superhero...

 

 

[reverendturmoil]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Reality doesn't really care if you don't believe in it.

 

You can not believe in gravity if you like, but jump off a building and reality will teach you a very final lesson.

 

And not true - spiderman getting bitten was an accident and he became a superhero...

 

 

What goes up doesn't always come down, it depends how far up it goes.  My burrito proves intelligent design,  gravity proves intelligent design.  The big guy developed the formula, we discovered it. 

[LogicalFallacy]

28 minutes ago, reverendturmoil said:

What goes up doesn't always come down, it depends how far up it goes.  My burrito proves intelligent design,  gravity proves intelligent design.  The big guy developed the formula, we discovered it. 

 

You need sustained powered flight to overcome the effects of gravity. Don't be asinine and intentionally warp the point being made.

 

Your burrito proves intelligent design because we have many examples of hungry humans creating burritos of various flavours and characteristics.

 

Seriously that gravity comment is the same as the birds and the bees argument. So the andromeda galaxy heading on a collision course with the milky way is intelligent? Asteroids hitting earth and wiping out dinosaurs is intelligent? If your bar for intelligence is that low then me passing wind must be really high up on the scale.

 

Please show me your example of the ultimate intelligent designer.

 

 

[Margee]

1 hour ago, reverendturmoil said:

  My burrito proves intelligent design,  gravity proves intelligent design.  

 

 

 

 

[reverendturmoil]

Quote

You need sustained powered flight to overcome the effects of gravity. Don't be asinine and intentionally warp the point being made. 

There's a balance of gravity on earth. There's more than just one 'pull' that keeps things in precise working order. The sun and moon affects several things to make our existence on earth a wonderful place, and so that we don't spontaneously explode. You just have a stick up your butt causing you to not see it.

Quote

Your burrito proves intelligent design because we have many examples of hungry humans creating burritos of various flavours and characteristics. 

My burrito proves that it took more than the mind of bot fly to create trillions of galaxies, or my burrito.

Quote

Seriously that gravity comment is the same as the birds and the bees argument. So the andromeda galaxy heading on a collision course with the milky way is intelligent? Asteroids hitting earth and wiping out dinosaurs is intelligent? If your bar for intelligence is that low then me passing wind must be really high up on the scale. 

The birds and the bees?  If a bird shits on your head that proves three things. 1. Gravity. 2. The big guy created birds that defy gravity. 3. Your head is full of shit. Scientist are USUALLY wrong.  There's no galaxy heading on a collision course with the milky way.  When the big guy is in reconstruction mode he uses whatever means available to him, like asteroids, and numbskulls like you, to destroy a lesser thing in order to create a better more refined thing.  The big guy used asteroids, volcano's, and earthquakes to dismantle and consume the lesser thing, to make more beautiful impressive things like fools like you and I who can make burritos.  

Quote

Please show me your example of the ultimate intelligent designer. 

Amazing-Hubble-Image-of-Spiral-Galaxy-NGC-7331-777X581

[LogicalFallacy]

5 hours ago, reverendturmoil said:

There's a balance of gravity on earth. There's more than just one 'pull' that keeps things in precise working order. The sun and moon affects several things to make our existence on earth a wonderfully place, and so that we don't spontaneously explode. You just have a stick up your butt causing you to not see it.

 

I'm not sure if you are genuinely missing the point or simply obtuse. 

 

Quote

My burrito proves that it took more than the mind of bot fly to create trillions of galaxies, or my burrito.

 

It proves nothing of the sort.

 

Quote

The birds and the bees?  If a bird shits on your head that proves three things. 1. Gravity. 2. The big guy created birds that defy gravity. 3. Your head is full of shit.

 

You really don't seem to understand how observed facts and explanations work. The point about birds and bees also clearly went over your head.

 

Quote

Scientist are USUALLY wrong.  

 

Irrelevant point. Did you have a point?

 

Quote

There's no galaxy heading on a collision course with the milky way.

 

Collision course because.... physics.

 

https://io9.gizmodo.com/andromeda-and-the-milky-way-might-collide-sooner-than-w-1704945980?IR=T

 

 

Quote

 When the big guy is in reconstruction mode he uses whatever means available to him, like asteroids, and numbskulls like you, to destroy a lesser thing in order to create a better more refined thing.  The big guy used asteroids, volcano's, and earthquakes to dismantle and consume the lesser thing, to make more beautiful impressive things like fools like you and I who can make burritos.  

 

Extraordinary claim with no evidence. How surprising.

 

Now tell me, how can we falsify your claim of an intelligent designer? Something that is unfalsifiable is useless to us as we cannot distinguish unfalsifiable claims from gibberish.

 

Relevant to this discussion: Brett with apparent similar understanding as Revturmoil has of reality attempts to 'school' Aron Ra. Pretty much the same arguments.

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is why I opted not to argue with the guy.